Agree with you, and for people who are running 1995 hardware, they will find that 1995 software like fvwm is already written and debugged, just waiting for their download. I don't want to see today's coders coding against the platform of some welfare case who can't afford a $400 computer.
And of course these loans are used to help US Airways compete against other Americans who do not have the benefit of a govt bailout. Why is the givt afraid to let the market pick a winner as it will anyway? So much for our "free market"...the US rammed free trade down the world's collective throat in the 80s but now it seeks the same type of protections and subsidies it once mocked as European socialism.
If you work in one of the industries of the nineteenth century, namely farming or steel, the politicians call you "regular Americans" and bail you out with subsidies and trade protections. If you are one of the far more numerous IT workers whose taxes bankroll the nation, you get a shrug and a suggestion you go back to school.
The government has been managing telcos for decades (i.e. charging levies for rural connectin subsidies). Cable companies have had their own oversight as well, right down to the municipal level. Governments have been "picking winners" in the communications market for a very long time and will continue to do so in order to prevent what they perceive as scenarios where service can be lost entirely.
Wireless should change this - because the provider does not have to make an investment in hardware (even if just wiring) to each destination location, it will be easier for players to enter and exit the market. Until then, you can't use the word capitalism with a straight face when describing the telco markets.
Aren't searches sent to, and derived by, single search engine domains?
Google, Yahoo etc of course crawl the web at large, but even if you want to throw a peer network at crawling, aren't you mitigating freshness?
What I can see is a DNS-like system for propogating metadata in to the interior of the network, and maybe a caching mechanism as a result...not sure if this is what they mean.
How much data do you *really* want backed up? I have lots of MP3s ripped, but I have "backups" on CD. The OS and prtograms I can always reload. That leaves me with about five megs of my own data I do not want to ever lose. There are dozens of free repositories that will handle this.
For larger, business-driven uses, you probably want something like DataSafe. They will keep media for you in a very safe place. Or better yet, keep your whole business disaster protected -have more than one live site for IT operations.
Smarter programmable nodes at the interior of the network with true APIs, scriptable filtering, etc will go a long way to rapid response to stopping worms and spam as close to the point of origin as possible. Cisco prefers the router to be big, expensive, and stupid...routing as a concept needs a kick in the pants.
Since web services use HTTP as a transport, in the worst case this turns the internet into a HTTP/web optimized network, which is fine by me, let everyone else figure out how to encapsulate their applications in HTTP (which I predict will eventually happen with everything anyway).
If we want to stop spam, worms, etc earlier in the network (closer to the point of origin and further away from target sights), than the dumb router has to be replaced with a generalized device that has APIs and can shape traffic based on more than load but also external factors like worm identification etc.
This would also help caching - caches like Akamai are described in high level detail as being at the edge but you have to peek into the interior of the network to locate your edge cache in the first palce...so why not actually cache at the router?
Whats in it for Intel is people using PC like devices for routing, not Cisco equipment
Ogg Vorbis hasn't taken over the world, but people are using it and some vendors are supporting it. Theora will likely never slay Quicktime et al but that doens't mean a meaningful community of users can't emerge.
Don't discount the business value of these open formats - for a hardware or tools vendor it is one less license to pay.
Okay...so maybe apt-rpm did not handle package blah. Are you installing blah at work? By your own explanation of what the box will do, this is unlikely, so why do you care? You seem to e predicating your argument on features you will by your own admission never use.
I think he was looking for some silly fanboy justifications he could point at his boss, but instead got some real answers that don't jive with his (patently idiotic) reasons for going with unapproved wares that may void a support contract, while doing absolutely nothing that the supported distro can't.
Still have no idea why the guy would put so much at risk to run utterly mundane code on an OS that is barely differentiating for these tasks.
Come on, if we're talking about stuff like perl, apache, etc, any of the distros will work. There is no real compelling, differentiating reason to use Debian for such mundane stuff. Or do you think that perl cannot run correctly on Red Hat?
That is most certainly wrong: by using a more expressive syntax, you are able to convey more exactly what it is you are requesting, and thereby enable the database to optimize better.
But any company going this route would have to basically start over again and forsake the decades+ optimization made to the current model. I doubt they would be able to produce a better performing product, although I grant you this is a conjecture.
I don't think oracle is quite the fastest general-purpose SQL(semi)compliant RDBMS there is - it trades speed in favor of integrity.
According to some TPC benchmarks, Oracle is in fact the fastest.
AMEN, and slimware already exists and is debugged
on
Database File System
·
· Score: 1
I agree that I want software that starts to exploit my system instead of wanting forsaking features to minimize resource use....particularly when the resources are fairly abundant.
Added to which, if someone wants "slimware", its already out there - it was written in 1995. If you are stuck with a 486, boo-hoo, fortunately there was a time when this was the cutting edge, and during that time people wrote and optimized code like lynx and fvwm and xview. So the code is there if you still need it, stop complaining!
I am tired of the posts on here telling us about the crippled/lameduck hardware some welfare case is running, and how we all need to accomodate him. For Christ's sake folks, you can get a P4 desktop for $500.
Not true. It quite possible to create a product that would "out-perform" Oracle if that was the only criteria.
If you think you can build a product that meets all of the requirements that Oracle does, yet performs better in the average case...well, I call BS. Don't respond with MySQL performing better because by admission MySQL does not meet the same requirements as Oracle.
Google will realize what Yahoo realized years ago - your users are not necessarily friendlies. Many will exploit and manipulate services for their own purposes. A few years ago a company was linking Yahoo IDs to provide a backup system for his entire company's data via Yahoo Briefcase.
Google will need to start doing this - just stating an abuse policy is not good enough, they will need to start detecting abuse and counteracting, otherwise they will go broke trying to buy enough drives to make the exploiters happy.
Oracle et al have spent decades optimizing their products for SQL as they implement it. The chances of a better designed syntax resulting in a faster database is slim. I don't give REL or any other SQL++ contender much chance at this point, if even on the legacy argument alone.
Yes because the cost of RAM is really the driving factor in PC design these days. ???? The cost of shipping this unit is probably more than the cost of the RAM.
Slashdot Mirror
Agree with you, and for people who are running 1995 hardware, they will find that 1995 software like fvwm is already written and debugged, just waiting for their download. I don't want to see today's coders coding against the platform of some welfare case who can't afford a $400 computer.
And of course these loans are used to help US Airways compete against other Americans who do not have the benefit of a govt bailout. Why is the givt afraid to let the market pick a winner as it will anyway? So much for our "free market"...the US rammed free trade down the world's collective throat in the 80s but now it seeks the same type of protections and subsidies it once mocked as European socialism.
If you work in one of the industries of the nineteenth century, namely farming or steel, the politicians call you "regular Americans" and bail you out with subsidies and trade protections. If you are one of the far more numerous IT workers whose taxes bankroll the nation, you get a shrug and a suggestion you go back to school.
x86/AMD pretty much rules the linux market to date, although it would be great to see an alternative get entrenched.
Wireless should change this - because the provider does not have to make an investment in hardware (even if just wiring) to each destination location, it will be easier for players to enter and exit the market. Until then, you can't use the word capitalism with a straight face when describing the telco markets.
Google, Yahoo etc of course crawl the web at large, but even if you want to throw a peer network at crawling, aren't you mitigating freshness?
What I can see is a DNS-like system for propogating metadata in to the interior of the network, and maybe a caching mechanism as a result...not sure if this is what they mean.
For larger, business-driven uses, you probably want something like DataSafe. They will keep media for you in a very safe place. Or better yet, keep your whole business disaster protected -have more than one live site for IT operations.
Smarter programmable nodes at the interior of the network with true APIs, scriptable filtering, etc will go a long way to rapid response to stopping worms and spam as close to the point of origin as possible. Cisco prefers the router to be big, expensive, and stupid...routing as a concept needs a kick in the pants.
Since web services use HTTP as a transport, in the worst case this turns the internet into a HTTP/web optimized network, which is fine by me, let everyone else figure out how to encapsulate their applications in HTTP (which I predict will eventually happen with everything anyway).
This would also help caching - caches like Akamai are described in high level detail as being at the edge but you have to peek into the interior of the network to locate your edge cache in the first palce...so why not actually cache at the router?
Whats in it for Intel is people using PC like devices for routing, not Cisco equipment
Don't discount the business value of these open formats - for a hardware or tools vendor it is one less license to pay.
See: Debian, White Box, Fedora Core 2, etc etc etc.
Userlinux is an answer to a question no one was asking.
You're right they aren't scrapped, and they won't be, there is no super-majority to override GWB's veto, which is already promised.
Without them, the coders might have to go and find relationships that last more than 15 minutes, and the code output would suffer.
Okay...so maybe apt-rpm did not handle package blah. Are you installing blah at work? By your own explanation of what the box will do, this is unlikely, so why do you care? You seem to e predicating your argument on features you will by your own admission never use.
Still have no idea why the guy would put so much at risk to run utterly mundane code on an OS that is barely differentiating for these tasks.
Come on, if we're talking about stuff like perl, apache, etc, any of the distros will work. There is no real compelling, differentiating reason to use Debian for such mundane stuff. Or do you think that perl cannot run correctly on Red Hat?
But any company going this route would have to basically start over again and forsake the decades+ optimization made to the current model. I doubt they would be able to produce a better performing product, although I grant you this is a conjecture.
According to some TPC benchmarks, Oracle is in fact the fastest.
Added to which, if someone wants "slimware", its already out there - it was written in 1995. If you are stuck with a 486, boo-hoo, fortunately there was a time when this was the cutting edge, and during that time people wrote and optimized code like lynx and fvwm and xview. So the code is there if you still need it, stop complaining!
I am tired of the posts on here telling us about the crippled/lameduck hardware some welfare case is running, and how we all need to accomodate him. For Christ's sake folks, you can get a P4 desktop for $500.
If you think you can build a product that meets all of the requirements that Oracle does, yet performs better in the average case...well, I call BS. Don't respond with MySQL performing better because by admission MySQL does not meet the same requirements as Oracle.
Google will need to start doing this - just stating an abuse policy is not good enough, they will need to start detecting abuse and counteracting, otherwise they will go broke trying to buy enough drives to make the exploiters happy.
Oracle et al have spent decades optimizing their products for SQL as they implement it. The chances of a better designed syntax resulting in a faster database is slim. I don't give REL or any other SQL++ contender much chance at this point, if even on the legacy argument alone.
Yes because the cost of RAM is really the driving factor in PC design these days. ???? The cost of shipping this unit is probably more than the cost of the RAM.