Yep. It makes more sense for Linus' Minix = LINIX. I've often wondered if the pronunciation issue "Lin-ix" vs. "Lin-ux" comes from LINIX / LINUX name that even though LINIX didn't last long it lasted long enough to get into the oral culture.
Another is that because many devices move that model doesn't match the actual path to those devices for very long so it doesn't fit everyone
I'd drop the the "so it doesn't fit everyone". Devices shouldn't be reached by their IP address they should be registering their location as they move to a static device(s) if they need to get push information. If they don't need to get they they just conduct a transaction. The same way today that applications don't use ARP, even though ARP is part of the physical route but abstract it through IP.
Since plenty of routing information changes daily anyway and hardware already has to cope perhaps a lot of unique address that move between providers is not such a big deal to handle anyway.
Routing tables are a very big deal to handle. If there are no routing tables at all routers can resolve packets almost instantly and that reduces latency across the board. The nth bit of the IP address can literally for the router be choice of circuit the packet goes down which means it could even resolve fully in hardware in 0 time over just being a pass through. If you want a table of which route to take store that away from the routing / switching and resolve that at the application level.
I don't know that the Open Group even claims to represent Open Source at all. They represented Open Standards which was an earlier movement about interoperability between commercial vendors. They claim to represent interests of "customers" not "users" as per Open Source. They claim to work with various "suppliers" not "developers", etc...
Yes. There is no particular reason your first 64 bits would be dynamic at all. It is the same as in the v4 world the ISP can give you a dynamic address(es) or a static address(es). In v6 they can (and should) give you something like 8 subnets for your home (i.e. 8 64 bit addresses spaces) and those should be longish term.
How is it annoying. You have basically an address like
Your global location::printer identifier:printer number Much easier than v4 if you want meaningful addresses. You have so much space you don't have to be random.
I think IPv6 is pretty good, not perfect but not bad. We go back to a world where everyone has plenty of IPs and we design networks in a way which ties Level 3 and Level 2 closer together. Yeah I think we could consider those alternatives even if we weren't running out of IPs. The change would likely be too expensive which is why the emergency is driving the other useful features.
You are right about last mile. The carriers are working on last mile issues. I suspect the scarcity will create the incentives as the carriers want to free up blocks to sell off addresses.
That's a good point. Terrible policy IMHO. The first 64 bits of an IPv6 addresses should correspond to physical fiber and physical routers. Customers shouldn't have any right to IP continuity that should be under the control of carriers and ISP. DNS should be the lookup for customers.
UNIX is a registered trademark. UNIX as an entity pre-existed that trademark. UNIX is used as a word in ways that aren't associated with the Open Group. They've been fighting real hard to assert that UNIX isn't a generic term because if it is a generic term they lose their trademark. The fact that they've had to fight its use as a generic term is something even the Open Group agrees to. It is you who is ignoring verifiable facts.
Well IMHO I'd say more important for The Open Group (POSIX) to figure out what role they should play in a world where we don't have a variety of mostly coequal Unixes. A rather a highly fragmented family of Unixes in Linux including Android, a very popular desktop Unix that violates most of the Unix norms in spirit in OSX, and the only remaining big box Unix (AIX) is more aimed at bring over cool features from mainframe. None of them really care about running each other's software. So really the question is what role should the The Open Group play in such a world?
UNIX" has a specific meaning, both in terms of branding and adhering to a defined standard.
I disagree. I don't think UNIX is a brand. I think it is a cultural movement that led to a variety of products of which the Open Software movement of the 1990s was a part.
since any standard that excludes Apple and Microsoft is not a standard.
I'd agree with that providing you mean "personal computing standard" or "desktop standard" or whatever. Yes, absolutely. That was precisely my position with Internet Explorer any standard Microsoft didn't buy into isn't a standard.
I'd agree that Linux configs are like Windows.INI.
What's different between Linux and Windows though is that Linux has a culture of documenting its configuration files so that users and administrators understand the various setting and can change them. Windows doesn't have that culture. So that Windows admins, and users often have no way to ever know what the registry entries mean..INI files were often an intermediate case with context and clear variable names. They quite often could be user modified. Whether registry was a step forward or a step backward really comes down to what you want out of your unified configuration system.
Given Linux's intellectual and usage dominance I'd say that the old Open Systems approach clearly no longer works. A standard that excludes Linux is not a standard. So I'm coming down that POSIX / Open Group should not be the definition of UNIX.
Apple did announce why the project failed. ZFS on consumer grade hardware with consumer interactions was too dangerous. Things like pulling an external drive out during mid write could corrupt an entire ZFS volume. Apple simply couldn't get ZFS to work under the conditions their systems need it to. They had to backout completely and come up with a plan-B. The developer who worked on this left Apple and now produces a better ZFS for OSX. That company got bought by Oracle so Oracle owns it now.
No they aren't. You are correct in 2006 they announced that the WinFS team was being moved under the SQLServer group and in 2008 they completed a less ambitious product to allow SQL Server to store and access arbitrary files efficiently.
The developer involved left Apple, went off to found his own company. Completed the work and then got acquired by Oracle. http://getgreenbytes.com/solut... So it is in some sense done. The question is whether Apple is going to buy an Oracle product or Oracle will sell or...
The fact you don't know about something doesn't mean the other person is talking out of their ass.
First of all, if the system worked like you explain it then having the decode - block itself get corrupted would render every single file relying on it invalid, so you'd still end up having to maintain at least a second copy of the decode - block and checksums for them both, but you'd still have two points of breakage that, if ever corrupted, would still render everything corrupted. That's really shitty design.
Well first off the decode matrix is derivable. It wouldn't necessarily be a block. Moreover a 6000x6000 matrix is 4.5m you can have to copies of it and it wouldn't have any impact on storage.
. . Then do the same while you enabled recovery mode, ie. the compression system writes a second decode - block in the file, and the file will certainly get even bigger. Go on, try it, you'll see.
Of course it gets bigger with error correct. But using a complex code not by very much. As the check matrix gets larger (i.e. more computationally complex) the cost goes to zero. The cost in terms of storage is slightly worse than 1 -> 1+1/n where n is the number of bits in the encoding.
but seriously how well is this tech conference decision thing going?
I think pretty well. The technical community has managed to advance and keep up a good rate of advancement, disrupting itself over and over and over again to produce superior products.
You don't have checksum blocks in the space efficient method. Rather in the computational way I'm talking about it is a transformation. You might have something like every 6354 bits becomes 6311 bits after the complex transformation. It doesn't slow down the read but you have to do math.
There is a 3rd possibility. As the size of the dataset increases you can construct a more complex error correcting code on that dataset with loss of spacing being 1/n. Note that's essentially saving information about the decoding and then the coded information, sort of like how compression works. Which for most files would be essentially free. And of course you could combine with this compression by default which might very well result in a net savings. But then you pick up computational complexity. With extra CPUs though having a CPU (or hardware in the drive) dedicated to handling that isn't unreasonable.
Yes absolutely great idea! Rather than having technical decisions being made at tech conferences and among developers, system administrators and analysts we should move that authority over to legislature. Because we all know we are going to see a far better weighing of the costs and benefits of various technology choices by the legislature than by technology marketplace.
Apple used HFS+ because it worked to successfully migrate people from Mac OS9, it supported a unix / MacOS hybrid. They continue to use it because it has been good enough and many of the more robust filesystems were pretty heavyweight. I'd like something like BTFS too. But I don't think the people who disagree with me should be jailed.
Slashdot Mirror
LINIX = Linus' Minix
Linux = a Unix variant (the letters for Unix are in there)
Yep. It makes more sense for Linus' Minix = LINIX. I've often wondered if the pronunciation issue "Lin-ix" vs. "Lin-ux" comes from LINIX / LINUX name that even though LINIX didn't last long it lasted long enough to get into the oral culture.
I'd drop the the "so it doesn't fit everyone". Devices shouldn't be reached by their IP address they should be registering their location as they move to a static device(s) if they need to get push information. If they don't need to get they they just conduct a transaction. The same way today that applications don't use ARP, even though ARP is part of the physical route but abstract it through IP.
Routing tables are a very big deal to handle. If there are no routing tables at all routers can resolve packets almost instantly and that reduces latency across the board. The nth bit of the IP address can literally for the router be choice of circuit the packet goes down which means it could even resolve fully in hardware in 0 time over just being a pass through. If you want a table of which route to take store that away from the routing / switching and resolve that at the application level.
Small correction. Ari created a directory called "LINIX", the more unixy "LINUX" was one more stage.
Glad you agree on the main point.
I don't know that the Open Group even claims to represent Open Source at all. They represented Open Standards which was an earlier movement about interoperability between commercial vendors. They claim to represent interests of "customers" not "users" as per Open Source. They claim to work with various "suppliers" not "developers", etc...
Yes. There is no particular reason your first 64 bits would be dynamic at all. It is the same as in the v4 world the ISP can give you a dynamic address(es) or a static address(es). In v6 they can (and should) give you something like 8 subnets for your home (i.e. 8 64 bit addresses spaces) and those should be longish term.
How is it annoying. You have basically an address like
Your global location::printer identifier:printer number
Much easier than v4 if you want meaningful addresses. You have so much space you don't have to be random.
I think IPv6 is pretty good, not perfect but not bad. We go back to a world where everyone has plenty of IPs and we design networks in a way which ties Level 3 and Level 2 closer together. Yeah I think we could consider those alternatives even if we weren't running out of IPs. The change would likely be too expensive which is why the emergency is driving the other useful features.
You are right about last mile. The carriers are working on last mile issues. I suspect the scarcity will create the incentives as the carriers want to free up blocks to sell off addresses.
That's a good point. Terrible policy IMHO. The first 64 bits of an IPv6 addresses should correspond to physical fiber and physical routers. Customers shouldn't have any right to IP continuity that should be under the control of carriers and ISP. DNS should be the lookup for customers.
UNIX is a registered trademark. UNIX as an entity pre-existed that trademark. UNIX is used as a word in ways that aren't associated with the Open Group. They've been fighting real hard to assert that UNIX isn't a generic term because if it is a generic term they lose their trademark. The fact that they've had to fight its use as a generic term is something even the Open Group agrees to. It is you who is ignoring verifiable facts.
Well IMHO I'd say more important for The Open Group (POSIX) to figure out what role they should play in a world where we don't have a variety of mostly coequal Unixes. A rather a highly fragmented family of Unixes in Linux including Android, a very popular desktop Unix that violates most of the Unix norms in spirit in OSX, and the only remaining big box Unix (AIX) is more aimed at bring over cool features from mainframe. None of them really care about running each other's software. So really the question is what role should the The Open Group play in such a world?
I disagree. I don't think UNIX is a brand. I think it is a cultural movement that led to a variety of products of which the Open Software movement of the 1990s was a part.
I'd agree with that providing you mean "personal computing standard" or "desktop standard" or whatever. Yes, absolutely. That was precisely my position with Internet Explorer any standard Microsoft didn't buy into isn't a standard.
I'd agree that Linux configs are like Windows .INI.
What's different between Linux and Windows though is that Linux has a culture of documenting its configuration files so that users and administrators understand the various setting and can change them. Windows doesn't have that culture. So that Windows admins, and users often have no way to ever know what the registry entries mean. .INI files were often an intermediate case with context and clear variable names. They quite often could be user modified. Whether registry was a step forward or a step backward really comes down to what you want out of your unified configuration system.
Not it doesn't. LINUX stands for "Linus' Minix".
Given Linux's intellectual and usage dominance I'd say that the old Open Systems approach clearly no longer works. A standard that excludes Linux is not a standard. So I'm coming down that POSIX / Open Group should not be the definition of UNIX.
Apple did announce why the project failed. ZFS on consumer grade hardware with consumer interactions was too dangerous. Things like pulling an external drive out during mid write could corrupt an entire ZFS volume. Apple simply couldn't get ZFS to work under the conditions their systems need it to. They had to backout completely and come up with a plan-B. The developer who worked on this left Apple and now produces a better ZFS for OSX. That company got bought by Oracle so Oracle owns it now.
No they aren't. You are correct in 2006 they announced that the WinFS team was being moved under the SQLServer group and in 2008 they completed a less ambitious product to allow SQL Server to store and access arbitrary files efficiently.
The developer involved left Apple, went off to found his own company. Completed the work and then got acquired by Oracle. http://getgreenbytes.com/solut... ...
So it is in some sense done. The question is whether Apple is going to buy an Oracle product or Oracle will sell or
BTW this anon is absolutely correct. Worth modding up.
The fact you don't know about something doesn't mean the other person is talking out of their ass.
Well first off the decode matrix is derivable. It wouldn't necessarily be a block. Moreover a 6000x6000 matrix is 4.5m you can have to copies of it and it wouldn't have any impact on storage.
Of course it gets bigger with error correct. But using a complex code not by very much. As the check matrix gets larger (i.e. more computationally complex) the cost goes to zero. The cost in terms of storage is slightly worse than 1 -> 1+1/n where n is the number of bits in the encoding.
I think pretty well. The technical community has managed to advance and keep up a good rate of advancement, disrupting itself over and over and over again to produce superior products.
You don't have checksum blocks in the space efficient method. Rather in the computational way I'm talking about it is a transformation. You might have something like every 6354 bits becomes 6311 bits after the complex transformation. It doesn't slow down the read but you have to do math.
There is a 3rd possibility. As the size of the dataset increases you can construct a more complex error correcting code on that dataset with loss of spacing being 1/n. Note that's essentially saving information about the decoding and then the coded information, sort of like how compression works. Which for most files would be essentially free. And of course you could combine with this compression by default which might very well result in a net savings. But then you pick up computational complexity. With extra CPUs though having a CPU (or hardware in the drive) dedicated to handling that isn't unreasonable.
Yes absolutely great idea! Rather than having technical decisions being made at tech conferences and among developers, system administrators and analysts we should move that authority over to legislature. Because we all know we are going to see a far better weighing of the costs and benefits of various technology choices by the legislature than by technology marketplace.
Apple used HFS+ because it worked to successfully migrate people from Mac OS9, it supported a unix / MacOS hybrid. They continue to use it because it has been good enough and many of the more robust filesystems were pretty heavyweight. I'd like something like BTFS too. But I don't think the people who disagree with me should be jailed.