Linux on the server requires maitnence sure.... but it is also capable of doing/running a crapload more stuff than macOS? on the server
Such as?
Seriously, name one server task you can perform with Linux which you can't with OS X. Now that X11 is becoming an integrated part of the OS, I would insist that OS X servers now do "a crapload more stuff" than a Linux server, because they can do pretty much all the UNIX-alike chores that a Linux box can do, plus some other stuff that requires OS X.
Doing math on no sleep today. I meant to say $30,000 / $200 per unit = 150. (You don't need a new $100 HD in each computer if you are doing clustering applications. There's a lot of shit you can leave out for something like this.) Will you get more out of a 150 node cluster of cheap homebrew PC's than out of a 10 node cluster of dual G5's? Possibly, depending on how efficiently your clustering software is running.
Yes, it would require more electricity, space, and babysitting. Like I said before, there probably isn't a real-world application for the results of such a test. There's a dozen reasons why a few G5's would be preferable to a shitload of Celerons, even if they did lose a contest like this (and they might not... it's hard to say without trying it out.) I just through it would be fun contest to do in a "how much can oomph can $30,000 buy you?" sort of way.
But when you presume that a 800MHz Celeron is the same speed as a dual 2GHz G5, you're just comparing apples to oranges and noticing one of them costs more.
I think you missed my point, BitGeek. Completely.
I said it would be interesting to compare which got you a more powerful cluster, $30,000 worth of Dual-G5 Macs clustered together (in other words, about 10 of them), or $30,000 worth of bottom-of-the-line Celeron boxen (in other words, about 1,500 of them).
I'm not claiming that an 800 MHz Celeron cheapie is as fast as a Dual-2Ghz G5. I'm saying that a cluster of 1500 cheap Celerons will probably get you more raw number-crunching power than 10-node cluster of G5's. It's a test that would not really apply to most people's experience, because very few people out there have the need to build a $30,000 cluster... I just think it would be a lot of geeky fun to try it.
Try to pay closer attention to what people are saying before you jump all over them.
Which raises an interesting question: If you have $30,000 to spend, what will get you more power, a cluser of a few dual-G5 Macs, or a cluster of whole shitload of cheap 800 MHz Celeron boxen?
My guess is you would get more raw power out of the room-full of cheapies, because that's kind of the whole point of clustering.
Still, it would be a fun contest... especially if I could keep one or two of the G5's when it was over.
That's because the link given here is going to what was meant to be a child window which had a specific size. It wasn't meant to be opened in your browser's main window.
Click on one of the pictures on the right-hand side of this page and you will see what I mean. A smaller window will open with the pictures, leaving your main browser window intact.
Is it just me, or does the new G5 look like a massive cheese grater from the front?
It looks more like an electic razor to me.
Unfortunately, it looks like they've abandoned the easy-access pull-down door that let you add ram and add-on cards with ease.
From the Apple web site:
Access is everything Thatâ(TM)s why the Power Mac G5â(TM)s easy-to-open side panel unlatches in a snap, giving you fast access to the slots and bays inside. Designed for no-hassle expansion, the Power Mac G5 lets you add things like memory or an AirPort Extreme card without tools. And easy-to-use drive guides let you mount high-capacity hard drives as soon as your requirements grow. Additionally, a locking mechanism on the side door prevents unauthorized access, keeping the inside of your computer safe from tampering.
In other words, they didn't just keep it, they improved it.
Re:Ironic Sig
on
Jaguar is Over
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Oh man are you stupid. All of those things are wonderful (and most are standard on PC's) but the key is that you can only install OS X on an Apple computer. The end. That is propietary.
Before you call that person "stupid," I think somebody should point out that you clearly misunderstand what is commonly meant by "proprietary hardware."
Years ago, when Apple was using NuBus and IBM was using Microchannel for their respective card expansion options, those were examples of proprietary hardware. You could only plug Microchannel cards into those IBMs, and you could not use them with any other PC (unless they licensed Microchannel from IBM.) Eventually, both the IBM PC division and the Apple designers came to their senses, and they switched to Intel's PCI design, which pretty much the rest of the home computer industry had already moved to.
Proprietary hardware is troublesome, because it restricts the availability of expansion and replacement parts. You are either locked into the original vendor, or to the handful of hardware makers who have specific hardware license agreements with the company who invented the hardware platform in question. Over the years, a lot of companies (including Apple) have attempted proprietary solutions for memory, video, expansion cards, etc. They seldom succeed, unless they manage to get the rest of the industry to adopt it as a standard.
Writing an OS that is specific to your company's computer architecture (such as OS X for the Macintosh or Solaris for Sun servers) is not an example of "proprietery hardware." It's an example of operating system software integration, and if vendor lock-in (for the complete system, not for replacement parts) doesn't scare you, it can be a very good thing.
My G3 tower has been upgraded with a third-party IDE hard drive, a third-party G4 CPU, a third-party PCI SCSI card, a third-party Firewire CD-R drive, and lots of third-party memory. All of these parts were industry-standard items which could have been installed in almost any x86 box sold in the last few years, too (except for the CPU, which could be used on any open-firmware motherboard, but then you can't drop a P4 onto an Athlon board, either.) If Apple used proprietary hardware, as you claimed, none of this would have been possible. I would have had to purchace my CPU, HD, memory, SCSI card, and CD-R from Apple themselves.
I mean think about what you are saying - if that is your criteria for being open then Microsoft has Apple beat.
Microsoft, they have never, as far as I remember, sold any proprietary hardware at all. The only hardware they sell is usually stuff like re-branded HP mice and keyboards, using either PS/2 or USB.
I'm not sure what your point about Microsoft is. Their software is not open, just as a lot of Apple's code is not open, but that doesn't really have anything to do with what we were talking about (proprietary hardware.)
(sigh) We are still talking about software that's legal for his staff to use for free. The only mistake made here was that they did not get around to registering it yet. Hardly the sort of thing Hatch was calling for a crack-down on.
Forgetting a freeware registration is in no way analogous to downloading the entire Photoshop CD image and using a cracked serial number from a warez site to run it, nor gathering up the entire Led Zeppelin catalog on your MP3 player without paying for a single album.
Okay, so you wish to retract your statement questioning whether hypocrisy is evident in this situation and instead simply point out that it is more productive to address the idea rather than the person.
I retracted nothing. The only way you can possibly perceive hypocracy in this situation is if you are trying really hard to see it, by ignoring those facts which make it clear that there's no case for hypocracy to be made.
If you want to sling mud at Senator Hatch for making a stupid suggestion, by all means sling away. His argument was indefensible. However, if you are going to insist on calling him a "hypocrite" just because his webmaster forgot to register some free software, that's where I'm saying you have left the boundry of rational discourse. The case for hypocracy here is so weak that only somebody who already had an agenda to show Hatch as a hyporcrite (whether he is or not) could possibly be interested in making it.
That's true of nearly every MP3 player. The solution is to use the "Join CD Tracks" feature in iTunes when you are ripping it. On my iPod, side one of Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" is one track, so there are no gaps between songs.
Having installed the update, the backlight now seems to fade out slowly when the timre runs out, rather than blinking off suddenly.
A much bigger deal is that this update got rid of that annoying little click noise that happened between tracks during playback. A lot of iPod owners have been complaining about that bug ever since 2.0 was released, and it's nice to see that Apple was listening to them.
I have no interest in the USB2 support, as I use Firewire. I would reccomend most Windows users do the same, unless your system happens to already have USB2 installed for some reason. Last time I checked, a Firewire card was cheaper, and the iPod updates faster on Firewire than on USB2.
If you can't comprehend the difference between blatantly ripping off software & music and happening to employ some snot-nosed MCSE to admin your web server who forgot to register some free software, then you are either as clueless as Senator Hatch was when he made his statement about damaging computers, or else you are willfully choosing to ignore the difference, because you want to see hypocricy so badly in a politician you happen to dislike.
The post I was replying to (who obviously esteems Senator Hatch a lot less than I do) was correct. The issue to focus on here is not any perceived double-standard. The issue to focus on is that his proposal was asinine.
Why are people so afraid to simply criticize ideas these days? It was a really stupid idea! That should be enough to raise the bile of anybody here, and invite plenty of scorn and ridicule, without grasping at straws for a way to attack the ethics of the person who came up with it.
Thank you for the most insightful post of the entire thread, Cpt. Splendid.
1. There is no hypocrisy or irony here, as desperate as some people are to find it.
2. Senator Hatch's suggestion was remarkably clueless.
I'm not one to criticize Hatch undeservedly... As an occational professional musician himself, Senator Hatch has often come down on the White-Hat side of music rights issues, taking the recording industry to task on the Senate floor for restricting fair use. There is a great deal to admire in his accomplishments over the years, and while he was a distant 5th place in the GOP presidential primaries last time around, I would have been far happier with him as our current president than with GWB.
That said, he exhibited stunning thick-headedness in his assertion that frying the computers of those who are using Kazaa to illegally trade music and software was a good idea revealed him to be so poorly-informed that it makes me wonder if he spoke to his advisers about this idea at all before publicly airing it. It was a stupid, stupid idea, and Senator Hatch should be ashamed that he ever uttered it.
Arguably, some baseball fan attrition has already occurred because they can't readily identify with players that make eight figure salaries.
I can identify with making eight figures a lot more redilly than I can identify with throwing a baseball accurately at 95 MPH. While it's not terribly likely that I could become the next Bill Gates or Larry Ellison, it could happen... but I will never throw a ball that fast, or dunk a basketball, or stop an NFL lineman from reaching a quarterback. I may be in better shape than a lot of my friends, but at age 33, I've developped my athleticism about as far as I'm ever going to.
What I can relate to is the effort involved in competing against somebody who is at about the same level of skill as I am. That's what I see when I watch professional sports. Kevin Garnett and Tim Duncan might as well be super-human robots, as far as I'm concerned, because they are practically a different species from me already. They are a lot faster, a lot taller, a lot stronger, can jump a lot higher, and can shoot a basketball with far greater accuracy than I ever could or ever will. However, I do know what it's like to post up against an evenly-matched 6-foot tall playground oaf, which allows me to fully appreciate and vicariously enjoy the competition between Garnett and Duncan, who are two of the best athletes in the world.
Personally, and I believe many die-hard baseball fans feel similarly, this new machine ruins the game. Pitching and hitting are arts, and the ability of a good pitcher to locate pitches just on the corners is something that is special to the game, and makes a great pitcher amazing.
How does it ruin the game if you establish as fact whether the pitcher hit that outside corner or not? A machine-measured strike zone is no different that the chalk which marks where the foul line is. Should we remove the foul lines because not letting the ump subjectively call the ball fair or foul based on his best estimate "ruins the game?"
The strike zone is not meant to be subjective. It's always the width of the plate, letters to knees. A pitch that does not pass directly over the front of the plate is always a ball. A pitch that comes in shoulder-high or ankle-high... always a ball. A belt-high pitch across the middle of the plate, always a strike. The only "subjectivity" involved is that which is intruduced by umpire error.
Personally, I can't wait until robotic plate umpires are cheap and common enough that every little-league and church league in America can use them. I play in a men's fastpitch softball league in Minnesota, and the biggest expense of our league fees is the cost of hiring somebody to umpire who can call the pitches accurately. Put a machine behind the plate, and it would only take a couple hours to train some high-school kid to call the rest of the game (base plays, balks, out-of-play fouls, etc.) It would be fantastic, and spare us the headache of hot-headed pitchers blaming their poor performance on the umps, too.
If the strike zone were the cause of "Home Run Derby" baseball, you'd expect to see an overall increase in league batting average.
Actually, a shrinking strike zone does favor the long-ball hitters, while not helping the contact guys as much. Typically, the major-league batter hitting grounders is going to be able to slap down a ball anywhere he can reach it. He doesn't need the ball put "on a tee" for him to crush it; he just needs to swat it hard enough to get it past the infield sometimes, so he can get his.250-.300 average.
The power hitters tend to have a small zone where they are most dangerous (Kent Hrbec called it his "wheelhouse".) When you shrink the strike zone, you limit the choices of where a pitcher can throw, so they will end up putting the ball exactly in a home-run hitter's favorite spot a lot more often, resulting in more deep hits for guys like Bonds, Sosa, etc.
:I am convinced that games on Linux will become a market, and anyone starting with it now will have an advantage (and bigger share of the cake) then.
I gotta disagree. There is no loyalty to brand or developpers in the game market.
If you release a kick-ass game, even if your company had been regarded by gamers everywhere as "T3h 5uck," you will sell millions of copies. If you release a crappy game, even if you are one of the most beloved game developers of all time, it will fail miserably. *cough*Daikatana*cough*
There is no real financial advantage to establishing your brand in the game market until you release a game that's good enough (and popular enough) to start a sequel franchize with (i.e., Tomb Raider, Final Fantasy, Warcraft, etc.) Even then, the sequel tie-in matters more than which company is releasing it. Would MechWarrior for the X-Box really have sold more if Activision was still doing it?
Slashdot Mirror
Such as?
Seriously, name one server task you can perform with Linux which you can't with OS X. Now that X11 is becoming an integrated part of the OS, I would insist that OS X servers now do "a crapload more stuff" than a Linux server, because they can do pretty much all the UNIX-alike chores that a Linux box can do, plus some other stuff that requires OS X.
Yes, it would require more electricity, space, and babysitting. Like I said before, there probably isn't a real-world application for the results of such a test. There's a dozen reasons why a few G5's would be preferable to a shitload of Celerons, even if they did lose a contest like this (and they might not... it's hard to say without trying it out.) I just through it would be fun contest to do in a "how much can oomph can $30,000 buy you?" sort of way.
I think you missed my point, BitGeek. Completely.
I said it would be interesting to compare which got you a more powerful cluster, $30,000 worth of Dual-G5 Macs clustered together (in other words, about 10 of them), or $30,000 worth of bottom-of-the-line Celeron boxen (in other words, about 1,500 of them).
I'm not claiming that an 800 MHz Celeron cheapie is as fast as a Dual-2Ghz G5. I'm saying that a cluster of 1500 cheap Celerons will probably get you more raw number-crunching power than 10-node cluster of G5's. It's a test that would not really apply to most people's experience, because very few people out there have the need to build a $30,000 cluster... I just think it would be a lot of geeky fun to try it.
Try to pay closer attention to what people are saying before you jump all over them.
My guess is you would get more raw power out of the room-full of cheapies, because that's kind of the whole point of clustering.
Still, it would be a fun contest... especially if I could keep one or two of the G5's when it was over.
Click on one of the pictures on the right-hand side of this page and you will see what I mean. A smaller window will open with the pictures, leaving your main browser window intact.
It looks more like an electic razor to me.
Unfortunately, it looks like they've abandoned the easy-access pull-down door that let you add ram and add-on cards with ease.
From the Apple web site:
In other words, they didn't just keep it, they improved it.
Before you call that person "stupid," I think somebody should point out that you clearly misunderstand what is commonly meant by "proprietary hardware."
Years ago, when Apple was using NuBus and IBM was using Microchannel for their respective card expansion options, those were examples of proprietary hardware. You could only plug Microchannel cards into those IBMs, and you could not use them with any other PC (unless they licensed Microchannel from IBM.) Eventually, both the IBM PC division and the Apple designers came to their senses, and they switched to Intel's PCI design, which pretty much the rest of the home computer industry had already moved to.
Proprietary hardware is troublesome, because it restricts the availability of expansion and replacement parts. You are either locked into the original vendor, or to the handful of hardware makers who have specific hardware license agreements with the company who invented the hardware platform in question. Over the years, a lot of companies (including Apple) have attempted proprietary solutions for memory, video, expansion cards, etc. They seldom succeed, unless they manage to get the rest of the industry to adopt it as a standard.
Writing an OS that is specific to your company's computer architecture (such as OS X for the Macintosh or Solaris for Sun servers) is not an example of "proprietery hardware." It's an example of operating system software integration, and if vendor lock-in (for the complete system, not for replacement parts) doesn't scare you, it can be a very good thing.
My G3 tower has been upgraded with a third-party IDE hard drive, a third-party G4 CPU, a third-party PCI SCSI card, a third-party Firewire CD-R drive, and lots of third-party memory. All of these parts were industry-standard items which could have been installed in almost any x86 box sold in the last few years, too (except for the CPU, which could be used on any open-firmware motherboard, but then you can't drop a P4 onto an Athlon board, either.) If Apple used proprietary hardware, as you claimed, none of this would have been possible. I would have had to purchace my CPU, HD, memory, SCSI card, and CD-R from Apple themselves.
I mean think about what you are saying - if that is your criteria for being open then Microsoft has Apple beat.
Microsoft, they have never, as far as I remember, sold any proprietary hardware at all. The only hardware they sell is usually stuff like re-branded HP mice and keyboards, using either PS/2 or USB.
I'm not sure what your point about Microsoft is. Their software is not open, just as a lot of Apple's code is not open, but that doesn't really have anything to do with what we were talking about (proprietary hardware.)
It is. It's called an iMac. If an iMac doesn't meet your needs, I have a news flash for you: You are not a low-end user.
We have now. He admitted that the leaked dual-970 info was true.
In other big news, Safari goes 1.0!!! (Available for download in a few hours.)
iTunes for Windows is expected next fall, though, so you won't be completely out in the cold much longer either way.
Good, then we have something we agree on. I would prefer that you live in China, too.
Forgetting a freeware registration is in no way analogous to downloading the entire Photoshop CD image and using a cracked serial number from a warez site to run it, nor gathering up the entire Led Zeppelin catalog on your MP3 player without paying for a single album.
I retracted nothing. The only way you can possibly perceive hypocracy in this situation is if you are trying really hard to see it, by ignoring those facts which make it clear that there's no case for hypocracy to be made.
If you want to sling mud at Senator Hatch for making a stupid suggestion, by all means sling away. His argument was indefensible. However, if you are going to insist on calling him a "hypocrite" just because his webmaster forgot to register some free software, that's where I'm saying you have left the boundry of rational discourse. The case for hypocracy here is so weak that only somebody who already had an agenda to show Hatch as a hyporcrite (whether he is or not) could possibly be interested in making it.
That's true of nearly every MP3 player. The solution is to use the "Join CD Tracks" feature in iTunes when you are ripping it. On my iPod, side one of Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" is one track, so there are no gaps between songs.
A much bigger deal is that this update got rid of that annoying little click noise that happened between tracks during playback. A lot of iPod owners have been complaining about that bug ever since 2.0 was released, and it's nice to see that Apple was listening to them.
I have no interest in the USB2 support, as I use Firewire. I would reccomend most Windows users do the same, unless your system happens to already have USB2 installed for some reason. Last time I checked, a Firewire card was cheaper, and the iPod updates faster on Firewire than on USB2.
Because he eats humanitables?
It's not amazing that architectural firms use Macs. ArchiCad is the best tool out there for building design, and IIRC it is a Mac-only product.
The post I was replying to (who obviously esteems Senator Hatch a lot less than I do) was correct. The issue to focus on here is not any perceived double-standard. The issue to focus on is that his proposal was asinine.
Why are people so afraid to simply criticize ideas these days? It was a really stupid idea! That should be enough to raise the bile of anybody here, and invite plenty of scorn and ridicule, without grasping at straws for a way to attack the ethics of the person who came up with it.
If that day comes, say "hi" to Alec Baldwin and Barbra Streisand for me, okay?
1. There is no hypocrisy or irony here, as desperate as some people are to find it.
2. Senator Hatch's suggestion was remarkably clueless.
I'm not one to criticize Hatch undeservedly... As an occational professional musician himself, Senator Hatch has often come down on the White-Hat side of music rights issues, taking the recording industry to task on the Senate floor for restricting fair use. There is a great deal to admire in his accomplishments over the years, and while he was a distant 5th place in the GOP presidential primaries last time around, I would have been far happier with him as our current president than with GWB.
That said, he exhibited stunning thick-headedness in his assertion that frying the computers of those who are using Kazaa to illegally trade music and software was a good idea revealed him to be so poorly-informed that it makes me wonder if he spoke to his advisers about this idea at all before publicly airing it. It was a stupid, stupid idea, and Senator Hatch should be ashamed that he ever uttered it.
I can identify with making eight figures a lot more redilly than I can identify with throwing a baseball accurately at 95 MPH. While it's not terribly likely that I could become the next Bill Gates or Larry Ellison, it could happen... but I will never throw a ball that fast, or dunk a basketball, or stop an NFL lineman from reaching a quarterback. I may be in better shape than a lot of my friends, but at age 33, I've developped my athleticism about as far as I'm ever going to.
What I can relate to is the effort involved in competing against somebody who is at about the same level of skill as I am. That's what I see when I watch professional sports. Kevin Garnett and Tim Duncan might as well be super-human robots, as far as I'm concerned, because they are practically a different species from me already. They are a lot faster, a lot taller, a lot stronger, can jump a lot higher, and can shoot a basketball with far greater accuracy than I ever could or ever will. However, I do know what it's like to post up against an evenly-matched 6-foot tall playground oaf, which allows me to fully appreciate and vicariously enjoy the competition between Garnett and Duncan, who are two of the best athletes in the world.
Pissing off Curt Schilling is easier than giving cancer to a white lab rat. The fact that he once got mad at one only proves knew it existed.
How does it ruin the game if you establish as fact whether the pitcher hit that outside corner or not? A machine-measured strike zone is no different that the chalk which marks where the foul line is. Should we remove the foul lines because not letting the ump subjectively call the ball fair or foul based on his best estimate "ruins the game?"
The strike zone is not meant to be subjective. It's always the width of the plate, letters to knees. A pitch that does not pass directly over the front of the plate is always a ball. A pitch that comes in shoulder-high or ankle-high... always a ball. A belt-high pitch across the middle of the plate, always a strike. The only "subjectivity" involved is that which is intruduced by umpire error.
Personally, I can't wait until robotic plate umpires are cheap and common enough that every little-league and church league in America can use them. I play in a men's fastpitch softball league in Minnesota, and the biggest expense of our league fees is the cost of hiring somebody to umpire who can call the pitches accurately. Put a machine behind the plate, and it would only take a couple hours to train some high-school kid to call the rest of the game (base plays, balks, out-of-play fouls, etc.) It would be fantastic, and spare us the headache of hot-headed pitchers blaming their poor performance on the umps, too.
Actually, a shrinking strike zone does favor the long-ball hitters, while not helping the contact guys as much. Typically, the major-league batter hitting grounders is going to be able to slap down a ball anywhere he can reach it. He doesn't need the ball put "on a tee" for him to crush it; he just needs to swat it hard enough to get it past the infield sometimes, so he can get his .250-.300 average.
The power hitters tend to have a small zone where they are most dangerous (Kent Hrbec called it his "wheelhouse".) When you shrink the strike zone, you limit the choices of where a pitcher can throw, so they will end up putting the ball exactly in a home-run hitter's favorite spot a lot more often, resulting in more deep hits for guys like Bonds, Sosa, etc.
I gotta disagree. There is no loyalty to brand or developpers in the game market.
If you release a kick-ass game, even if your company had been regarded by gamers everywhere as "T3h 5uck," you will sell millions of copies. If you release a crappy game, even if you are one of the most beloved game developers of all time, it will fail miserably. *cough*Daikatana*cough*
There is no real financial advantage to establishing your brand in the game market until you release a game that's good enough (and popular enough) to start a sequel franchize with (i.e., Tomb Raider, Final Fantasy, Warcraft, etc.) Even then, the sequel tie-in matters more than which company is releasing it. Would MechWarrior for the X-Box really have sold more if Activision was still doing it?