I believe that the speedup is the result of gathering writes into groups. The more data you can throw on the disk in sequence, the better off you are in terms of speed. This is one of the ways that write-back caches speed up your life. All writes can be arranged so that data is written in a linear fashion to the disk.
Linux already does this. It's called the "elevator" mechanism. It does exactly what you say, and it has nothing to do with journalling.
this has been around for quite a while...
on
User Mode Linux
·
· Score: 3
At least on the linux-kernel list, discussion of the user-mode port has centered around its usefulness as a tool for debugging kernel code. I haven't heard any suggestions that it actually be used as a production "kernel", or that multiple user-mode kernels run at once. Perhaps that's just because discussion on l-k centers on implementation details. I'll also guarantee that no thought has been put into making a user-mode Linux port for Windows, so you can stop wishing...
Imagine a world with different technology, where record companies, through some magic, are able to charge listeners each time they hear a song. Not a big charge, of course, and maybe "listens" are also sold in bulk units of 100 or more. But for aeons, the record companies have a tight fist and nobody is able to listen to a recording without paying.
Then...some geek somewhere comes up with a way to PERMANENTLY purchase listens, for a particular song. Using his program, a consumer can purchase a song for the price of a single listen, and magically save it so that future listens don't cost anything.
The record companies freak. Their pricing scheme is completely wrong for this technology. A single listen costs less than a penny, and now consumers can purchase a LIFETIME of listens for that price.
...
back to reality:
Of course, that "new technology" is what we have today: CDs. Purchase once, listen forever. The problem the record companies have isn't the fundamental technology, it's that their pricing scheme can't cover it. Now, one person buys the song, and EVERYONE hears it for that price.
Well, the record companies currently have a way to charge us a "fair" price for an unlimited number of listens to a particular song or album. So, they're just going to have to come up with a way to sell a recording for an unlimited number of copies. Same idea, just an extension.
How? Well, basically, the record company (or artist) has to be paid before the song is recorded. In other words, the record company says, "we have a new Backstreet Boys albumn, but until 1 million people pay $50, we're not releasing it." So, the PUBLIC is buying the recording, and has the right to distribute it however they like.
Don't think it will work? Well, neither do I, really. See my other comment.
We justify piracy these days when it only hurts Sony Records or Warner Brothers, but what's going to happen when those companies disappear, and the artists deal directly with the public? Are we suddenly going to give up our WE DESERVE FREE INFORMATION and I'D RATHER GET IT FROM NAPSTER selfishness?
Sure--today, record companies are the ones getting the profits, and I say, screw 'em. But imagine an ideal world, where an artist gets every penny of profit from their work. Why would they bother to record a song, if as soon as they release a single copy it's immediately pirated and distributed worldwide for free, in a form absolutely indistinguishable from the original? How is that artist going to be able to make any money? Rely on the charity of those who feel like donating a few cents because they liked their album?
Sure, I don't like the current financial scheme of the record labels. But the technology we're talking about here prevents ANYONE from making money from art. Famous quote and hacker philosophy: INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE. Hey, folks, ART IS INFORMATION. And FREE ART is crappy art, because there's no profit motive in it, and the worthwhile would-be artists are off doing something which allows them to put food on the table.
We'd better come up with SOME way of rewarding and reimbursing artists, or we're going to pirate art right out of our society.
"Langley Research Center"... does anyone else find this suspicious?
"We're just testing to see how children playing video games helps ADD. What are the games? Well, for one, the kids pretend to fly little robotic cameras around the Chinese embassy. Another is called "Cracking the Keys of the Evil Doctor P. G. P." Really fun stuff. Oh, and yeah, it helps their ADD."
Why is it called X11? I understand what X is, but I find it hard to believe that there have been 10 complete versions before this, if each is ALSO numbered with a major/minor number (6.51). Has it always been called X11? Is there a reason?
The Open Watcom compiler products are the first and only mass-market commercial compilers to be open sourced...
This, of course, ignores the fact that there is a mass-market compiler which was never commercial, and is the very definition of open-source / free software...
I think that last statement is untrue. About a month ago, many of the audio engineers you spoke of released an "open letter" to the linux-kernel mailing list. They requested that the average and max latencies be reduced (for exactly the same reasons you mention). They suggested a set of patches created by Ingo Molnar, but not integrated into the main tree. This started a flame war on linux-kernel over the validity of the patches, but the views of Linus were well-stated: he believed that reducing latency was a "serious issue" and considered it very important.
As happens with many such requests/patches, the implementation details were shouted over at length, but most of the kernel hackers seemed to be in agreement that reducing latency was a big concern.
Kernel traffic (what a great resource!) has the thread here.
no, not apache the web server, but a helicopter-sim game for the PC several years ago, had voxel-based rendering. I remember the lead programmer saying that they had constructed simple shapes for the landscape, then used an erosion simulator to wear away the voxels. Take a flat surface, run a "river" through it, and calculate which voxels are removed. That's something you can't really do with polygons.
It generated much more realistic landscapes than anything else at the time. Does anyone remember the title?
No one does hardware disk compression because we don't need it. We've always been able to manufacture larger-capacity drives. Now, when the fsck-hits-the-fan (as it were) and the engineers can't cram any more bits onto a platter, THEN we'll see a boom in the compression industry (hardware AND software).
They prompted an interesting idea... What if a software developer could publish an application with complete source code, but with the theoretically simple restriction that you have to buy a license to compile or run the program?
This would allow software publishers to make money, but allow the game to be improved by the standard "many-eyes" technique. Most of the criticisms of closed-source software come from the idea that we don't want programs which we can't modify or improve--not the pipe dream of getting programs for no money. To quote Heinlein, "TANSTAAFL."
Technically, I imagine that it would be very difficult to force people to buy a license to compile or run the code, if the source code itself is freely distributable. I'm sure that whatever protection scheme the distributor came up with, crackers would crack it. Then there's the problem that even if I can't run or compile Adobe Photoshop without a license, if the code is available, I can easily cut-and-paste large sections, thereby stealing Adobe's work.
But if we could indeed enforce this restriction, I think it would be wildly beneficial for the software community. All of the positive effects of Open Source software, without the huge drawback that it's horribly difficult to make money.
The second is absolutely no different from putting a URL (or as someone pointed out, the address of a crack house) in a newspaper. Of course, the only difference is that the user has to copy-paste or retype the link in the Address box of their browser to get there, rather than simply clicking on the link, but that could be a signifigant difference to the courts. Something like how selling "tobacco pipes" is legal, but not "bongs."
I imagine that it would be impossible to prevent these sites from publishing non-href URLs like this. Is it a link if it's not clickable?
- There is an equivalent to "synchronized:" "locked" - Dynamic binding is only possible because of the Java VM, which isn't present with C# (thankfully, in my opinion) - Well, there is a preprocessor, but it's part of the compiler. Anyway, the standard #if set is there.
I use and like java, but this looks like it might be better.
Well, thanks for taking my typo and making it into jargon...
Incidentally, do you know where "malapropism" (to correct YOUR typo;-)) came from? A 17th century play (can't remember the name) featuring a certain Ms. Malaprop, who constantly spouted non sequiters like this. Anyway, a little literary sidebar...
100% agreed. This article is typicle of the "Ask Slashdot" questions these days. Some idiot sends in a "hot" question which really has no support, and Slashdot posts it. I can't rememberit the last Ask Slashdot post which was about something worthwhile.
Sure, I can sell software under the GPL once...but probably not more than that. Why would I want to spend months writing code, then sell it to someone, only to have them turn around and give it away to anyone, for free? How the hell am I ever going to sell more than one copy? Under this system, I had better make sure that I leave lots of features (which hopefully only I can implement) out of the release, so that I can add them later and sell the second version.
The GPL-centric view works for people like maintenence programmers and contractors, whose work is so specific that it can't be re-sold. But any software company who tries to create a generic, broadly-usable product is screwed if they release it under the GPL. All that work...for exactly one sale.
I'd like to point out that the approximate number of uses of "hack" vs. "crack" (in about 165 messages) is around 2 to 1 in favor of "hack". (~75 vs. ~40). I thought we were all trying to change the usage of "hack"? How on earth are we going to do this if we don't use it correctly ourselves?
By selling to a consumer ("the USER") any programs or computer applications ("the SOFTWARE") created or licensed by you ("the COMPANY"), the COMPANY automatically gives the USER complete ownership rights, including but not limited to the right to copy, distribute, sell, or reverse-engineer the software.
All source code to the SOFTWARE must be distributed with the SOFTWARE, and complete rights to the source are granted to the USER as well.
If the USER finds any errors ("the BUGS") in the software, the COMPANY is required to immediately fix these bugs, as well as publish the revised source code.
The COMPANY enters into this agreement by selling SOFTWARE to the USER, and is legally binding to such SOFTWARE. If you do not agree to these TERMS OF SERVICE, do not sell your SOFTWARE to the USER.
Here's a partial list of things which belong to Apogee, and my opinions theretowith:
Apogee logo (sucks) 3D Realms logo (sucks worse) Duke Nukem (not as good as Quake) Bombshell (don't buy it) Dr. Proton (lame) General Phil Graves (gay) Come get some (I'd rather not) Hail to the king (not worth the effort) King of action (uh-huh) King of carnage (awful) The yellow "Duke Nukem" title logo (putrid) The yellow nuke symbol (should be blown up) Planet of the Babes (ugly) Time to Kill (should be dead already) Zero Hour (terrible) Max Payne (payneful) Talon Brave (cowardly) Prey (good. no, strike that: bad) Shadow Warrior (BOR-ing) Lo Wang (incomprehensible) Pinball Wizards (song was better!) Balls of Steel (do I need to?)
Sorry--I was an English major, and it doesn't piss me off. This isn't a thesis paper we're discussing--it's a marketing slogan. There's a time and place for nitpicking the fine points of grammar, and there's a time to relax and say...it works.
For one thing--great review! I honestly can't remember the last time I read such a good review of a product as complex as OS-X.
Second--great product! The one thing that always bugged me about Macs was the lack of a terminal. OK, the GUI says the file is there, but I never believe anything till I see it in ls...
More--standard UNIX command-line tools. Powerful stuff like grep underneath a shiny GUI. A nice development IDE which runs on top of opensource development tools...which is 100% The Right Way (tm).
I've never owned a Mac, but I am seriously considering purchasing one of these things whenever they come out. And I'm willing to wait as long as it takes. Paradigm shifts aren't developed overnight...It looks to me like Apple has a real next-gen OS on their hands. I think Jobs has really given them a kick in the ass. I think OSX will continue to surpass Windows in its GUI, and finally better it with its power.
Slashdot Mirror
Moreover, it's logical, if not proper, English.
"I am." Perfectly logical.
"It is." By extension, equivalent.
"It isn't." Simply a negation.
The verb "to be" is just that, a verb. It does not require an object or an adjective.
futzing is a term commonly used in Larry Niven novels, as a euphemism for "fucking." tanj dammit also comes to mind: "there ain't no justice!"
I believe that the speedup is the result of gathering writes into groups. The more data you can throw on the disk in sequence, the better off you are in terms of speed. This is one of the ways that write-back caches speed up your life. All writes can be arranged so that data is written in a linear fashion to the disk.
Linux already does this. It's called the "elevator" mechanism. It does exactly what you say, and it has nothing to do with journalling.
At least on the linux-kernel list, discussion of the user-mode port has centered around its usefulness as a tool for debugging kernel code. I haven't heard any suggestions that it actually be used as a production "kernel", or that multiple user-mode kernels run at once. Perhaps that's just because discussion on l-k centers on implementation details. I'll also guarantee that no thought has been put into making a user-mode Linux port for Windows, so you can stop wishing...
Imagine a world with different technology, where record companies, through some magic, are able to charge listeners each time they hear a song. Not a big charge, of course, and maybe "listens" are also sold in bulk units of 100 or more. But for aeons, the record companies have a tight fist and nobody is able to listen to a recording without paying.
Then...some geek somewhere comes up with a way to PERMANENTLY purchase listens, for a particular song. Using his program, a consumer can purchase a song for the price of a single listen, and magically save it so that future listens don't cost anything.
The record companies freak. Their pricing scheme is completely wrong for this technology. A single listen costs less than a penny, and now consumers can purchase a LIFETIME of listens for that price.
...
back to reality:
Of course, that "new technology" is what we have today: CDs. Purchase once, listen forever. The problem the record companies have isn't the fundamental technology, it's that their pricing scheme can't cover it. Now, one person buys the song, and EVERYONE hears it for that price.
Well, the record companies currently have a way to charge us a "fair" price for an unlimited number of listens to a particular song or album. So, they're just going to have to come up with a way to sell a recording for an unlimited number of copies. Same idea, just an extension.
How? Well, basically, the record company (or artist) has to be paid before the song is recorded. In other words, the record company says, "we have a new Backstreet Boys albumn, but until 1 million people pay $50, we're not releasing it." So, the PUBLIC is buying the recording, and has the right to distribute it however they like.
Don't think it will work? Well, neither do I, really. See my other comment.
chris
We justify piracy these days when it only hurts Sony Records or Warner Brothers, but what's going to happen when those companies disappear, and the artists deal directly with the public? Are we suddenly going to give up our WE DESERVE FREE INFORMATION and I'D RATHER GET IT FROM NAPSTER selfishness?
Sure--today, record companies are the ones getting the profits, and I say, screw 'em. But imagine an ideal world, where an artist gets every penny of profit from their work. Why would they bother to record a song, if as soon as they release a single copy it's immediately pirated and distributed worldwide for free, in a form absolutely indistinguishable from the original? How is that artist going to be able to make any money? Rely on the charity of those who feel like donating a few cents because they liked their album?
Sure, I don't like the current financial scheme of the record labels. But the technology we're talking about here prevents ANYONE from making money from art. Famous quote and hacker philosophy: INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE. Hey, folks, ART IS INFORMATION. And FREE ART is crappy art, because there's no profit motive in it, and the worthwhile would-be artists are off doing something which allows them to put food on the table.
We'd better come up with SOME way of rewarding and reimbursing artists, or we're going to pirate art right out of our society.
"Langley Research Center"... does anyone else find this suspicious?
"We're just testing to see how children playing video games helps ADD. What are the games? Well, for one, the kids pretend to fly little robotic cameras around the Chinese embassy. Another is called "Cracking the Keys of the Evil Doctor P. G. P." Really fun stuff. Oh, and yeah, it helps their ADD."
Why is it called X11? I understand what X is, but I find it hard to believe that there have been 10 complete versions before this, if each is ALSO numbered with a major/minor number (6.51). Has it always been called X11? Is there a reason?
The Open Watcom compiler products are the first and only mass-market commercial compilers to be open sourced...
This, of course, ignores the fact that there is a mass-market compiler which was never commercial, and is the very definition of open-source / free software...
I think that last statement is untrue. About a month ago, many of the audio engineers you spoke of released an "open letter" to the linux-kernel mailing list. They requested that the average and max latencies be reduced (for exactly the same reasons you mention). They suggested a set of patches created by Ingo Molnar, but not integrated into the main tree. This started a flame war on linux-kernel over the validity of the patches, but the views of Linus were well-stated: he believed that reducing latency was a "serious issue" and considered it very important.
As happens with many such requests/patches, the implementation details were shouted over at length, but most of the kernel hackers seemed to be in agreement that reducing latency was a big concern.
Kernel traffic (what a great resource!) has the thread here.
no, not apache the web server, but a helicopter-sim game for the PC several years ago, had voxel-based rendering. I remember the lead programmer saying that they had constructed simple shapes for the landscape, then used an erosion simulator to wear away the voxels. Take a flat surface, run a "river" through it, and calculate which voxels are removed. That's something you can't really do with polygons.
It generated much more realistic landscapes than anything else at the time. Does anyone remember the title?
No one does hardware disk compression because we don't need it. We've always been able to manufacture larger-capacity drives. Now, when the fsck-hits-the-fan (as it were) and the engineers can't cram any more bits onto a platter, THEN we'll see a boom in the compression industry (hardware AND software).
chris
They prompted an interesting idea... What if a software developer could publish an application with complete source code, but with the theoretically simple restriction that you have to buy a license to compile or run the program?
This would allow software publishers to make money, but allow the game to be improved by the standard "many-eyes" technique. Most of the criticisms of closed-source software come from the idea that we don't want programs which we can't modify or improve--not the pipe dream of getting programs for no money. To quote Heinlein, "TANSTAAFL."
Technically, I imagine that it would be very difficult to force people to buy a license to compile or run the code, if the source code itself is freely distributable. I'm sure that whatever protection scheme the distributor came up with, crackers would crack it. Then there's the problem that even if I can't run or compile Adobe Photoshop without a license, if the code is available, I can easily cut-and-paste large sections, thereby stealing Adobe's work.
But if we could indeed enforce this restriction, I think it would be wildly beneficial for the software community. All of the positive effects of Open Source software, without the huge drawback that it's horribly difficult to make money.
...assuming the RIAA wins, and it becomes illegal to put hyperlinks to illegal sites, what about text-which-is-a-url, but not a HREF? i.e.
http://www.piratemuic.com/metallica
vs.
http://www.piratemusic.com/metallica
The second is absolutely no different from putting a URL (or as someone pointed out, the address of a crack house) in a newspaper. Of course, the only difference is that the user has to copy-paste or retype the link in the Address box of their browser to get there, rather than simply clicking on the link, but that could be a signifigant difference to the courts. Something like how selling "tobacco pipes" is legal, but not "bongs."
I imagine that it would be impossible to prevent these sites from publishing non-href URLs like this. Is it a link if it's not clickable?
just a little rebuttal:
- There is an equivalent to "synchronized:" "locked"
- Dynamic binding is only possible because of the Java VM, which isn't present with C# (thankfully, in my opinion)
- Well, there is a preprocessor, but it's part of the compiler. Anyway, the standard #if set is there.
I use and like java, but this looks like it might be better.
Well, thanks for taking my typo and making it into jargon...
;-)) came from? A 17th century play (can't remember the name) featuring a certain Ms. Malaprop, who constantly spouted non sequiters like this. Anyway, a little literary sidebar...
Incidentally, do you know where "malapropism" (to correct YOUR typo
100% agreed. This article is typicle of the "Ask Slashdot" questions these days. Some idiot sends in a "hot" question which really has no support, and Slashdot posts it. I can't rememberit the last Ask Slashdot post which was about something worthwhile.
Of course it's a PR stunt. They pretty much say that right in the article:
"We're showcasing tomorrow's technology today."
Reminds me of the whole idea behind the EPCOT center...
I live in Atlanta...hope my pr0n bandwitdh isn't affected.
Sure, I can sell software under the GPL once...but probably not more than that. Why would I want to spend months writing code, then sell it to someone, only to have them turn around and give it away to anyone, for free? How the hell am I ever going to sell more than one copy? Under this system, I had better make sure that I leave lots of features (which hopefully only I can implement) out of the release, so that I can add them later and sell the second version.
The GPL-centric view works for people like maintenence programmers and contractors, whose work is so specific that it can't be re-sold. But any software company who tries to create a generic, broadly-usable product is screwed if they release it under the GPL. All that work...for exactly one sale.
I'd like to point out that the approximate number of uses of "hack" vs. "crack" (in about 165 messages) is around 2 to 1 in favor of "hack". (~75 vs. ~40). I thought we were all trying to change the usage of "hack"? How on earth are we going to do this if we don't use it correctly ourselves?
Terms of Service
By selling to a consumer ("the USER") any programs or computer applications ("the SOFTWARE") created or licensed by you ("the COMPANY"), the COMPANY automatically gives the USER complete ownership rights, including but not limited to the right to copy, distribute, sell, or reverse-engineer the software.
All source code to the SOFTWARE must be distributed with the SOFTWARE, and complete rights to the source are granted to the USER as well.
If the USER finds any errors ("the BUGS") in the software, the COMPANY is required to immediately fix these bugs, as well as publish the revised source code.
The COMPANY enters into this agreement by selling SOFTWARE to the USER, and is legally binding to such SOFTWARE. If you do not agree to these TERMS OF SERVICE, do not sell your SOFTWARE to the USER.
Here's a partial list of things which belong to Apogee, and my opinions theretowith:
Apogee logo (sucks)
3D Realms logo (sucks worse)
Duke Nukem (not as good as Quake)
Bombshell (don't buy it)
Dr. Proton (lame)
General Phil Graves (gay)
Come get some (I'd rather not)
Hail to the king (not worth the effort)
King of action (uh-huh)
King of carnage (awful)
The yellow "Duke Nukem" title logo (putrid)
The yellow nuke symbol (should be blown up)
Planet of the Babes (ugly)
Time to Kill (should be dead already)
Zero Hour (terrible)
Max Payne (payneful)
Talon Brave (cowardly)
Prey (good. no, strike that: bad)
Shadow Warrior (BOR-ing)
Lo Wang (incomprehensible)
Pinball Wizards (song was better!)
Balls of Steel (do I need to?)
I'm sure I'll be hearing from their lawyers soon.
Sorry--I was an English major, and it doesn't piss me off. This isn't a thesis paper we're discussing--it's a marketing slogan. There's a time and place for nitpicking the fine points of grammar, and there's a time to relax and say...it works.
For one thing--great review! I honestly can't remember the last time I read such a good review of a product as complex as OS-X.
Second--great product! The one thing that always bugged me about Macs was the lack of a terminal. OK, the GUI says the file is there, but I never believe anything till I see it in ls...
More--standard UNIX command-line tools. Powerful stuff like grep underneath a shiny GUI. A nice development IDE which runs on top of opensource development tools...which is 100% The Right Way (tm).
I've never owned a Mac, but I am seriously considering purchasing one of these things whenever they come out. And I'm willing to wait as long as it takes. Paradigm shifts aren't developed overnight...It looks to me like Apple has a real next-gen OS on their hands. I think Jobs has really given them a kick in the ass. I think OSX will continue to surpass Windows in its GUI, and finally better it with its power.
Hats off to Apple!