and found much the same that the most the remote servers we were using would allow us to pull was about 5MB/s sustained.
Did you rule out the possibility that it was just the end-to-end latency, because the server was far away?
Remember, with the TCP protocol, as end-to-end latency or distance increases: the maximum
possible throughput decreases, and the minimum TCP buffer/window size required to achieve the
maximum possible speed increases.
E.g. at 100ms round-trip latency, you have to have a TCP buffer size in excess of 256 Kilobytes,
to get a throughput of 20 Megabits/Second; which requires special tuning at both ends of the connection.
If your TCP buffers are stuck at 64K; the best possible transfer speed at that latency will be 5 Megabits; even if
you have 1 Gigabit of throughput to the server, and the server has 1 Gigabit of throughput to you end-to-end.
Think possibly you could archive them up, instead, and seal them in a manner, that the package
won't be opened by anyone, except in a hundred years or so, when the copyright expires?:)
He says he's dumped them all (made copies), and now is looking to sell them. Doesn't anyone see the legal issue here?
It's likely fair use, because it's a personal copy, for use in testing/refining his coding that emulates a SNES and interoperates
with the software, and doesn't impact the commercial value of the product, as it's not for sale anymore -- and he's
not consuming the content.
A web browser sending web searches to a web search engine is different than a desktop manager sending desktop searches to an online store.
It's not different enough.... in modern OSes, the "Desktop" or "Start screen" is becoming just as much an online resource as a web site is; as everything is moving into the cloud, even the desktop.
It is not unreasonable or unexpected for a search initiated from the desktop
to be able to expand the search to online resources as well.
You know... the versions of Ubuntu I used had no 'desktop search feature'.
Are we complaining that a new search tool actually uses online resources to search?
Have you ever used Google desktop?
I believe you might well find that other desktop search tools submit queries to remote sites as well.....
Ultimately, do you think the end users mind that their apps are closed source?
Most of the world's developer mind share is closed source.
If you want your OS to be successful, you have to embrace developers.
Which means you have to support both closed source and open source applications.
And you have to make it just as easy for both types of apps to be deployed as well.
If unusual or extra steps are required to deploy a closed source app on your platform,
most closed source devs will simply ignore it.
Most applications that are professionally designed, and do what users will want will be closed source,
due to the cost. It is a minority of projects that are developed as open source -- most of them get
funding from large corporations.
Linux itself is the exception to the rule rather than the rule.
By making one questionable move after another we begin to believe Ubuntu's business model has failed.
They're making moves you or someone else find's questionable.
But I do not believe a businessperson would find their latest moves questionable;
in fact, I think a businessperson might find their latest moves to be brilliant.
The only question will be, if the community tolerates their latest moves.
Will you still recommend Ubuntu?
What exactly are your objections to their latest moves, and are they really 'valid' objections;
or are they just fears, that Canonical is losing sight of Linux community principals?
Certainly, there is nothing wrong with offering an open source product, that allows users
to buy things from you.
As long as the technology and connection standards on client and communication protocols are open source, and i'm free to take the code,
and can easily make changes, so my app store is what things will be bought from instead of Canonicals,
on my special build of Ubuntu..
Well, that seems like a problem to me. Having our society based perpetually on a "growth" economy seems unrealistic in the long term.
A problem with that is, there is continuous population growth.
If there is no economic growth or stagnant economy, then there is also no job growth.
Or the growth in population outpaces job growth consistently. In addition, without economic growth, there becomes increased demand for things like food -- as the lack of economic growth means little growth in resources to produce those things.
Since you have a finite number of jobs, and a growing population, the inherit
result is, you have a reduction in the percentage of people who can get jobs.
Thanks to government welfare programs; people who can't get jobs still get food
and shelter, therefore, they still survive and reproduce, despite not being "fit",
E.g. Natural selection doesn't apply, the rate of population growth accelerates,
because the welfare programs actually reward parents who have larger numbers of children by giving them more money/resources.
The population keeps growing, until the government implodes, due to no longer being able to pay its debts, pay for those people, AND no longer being able to print lots of extra money to cover its debts, causing a massive calamity, which is not good for any involved.
Not just safety, it will probably be prudent for security reasons... unmanned vehicle driving with valuable goods = ripe for thieves.
That's what the armored police bots are for. Try and rob a delivery vehicle, and one will come, hit you
with a sleeping gas/stun gun, scoop you up, and toss you in the automated prisoner delivery truck, to
be dumped in the robot jail pen.
I think you're missing the previous poster's point, that the chinese won't be able to buy goods in general because the former workers will be unemployed and have no income.
What makes you think they won't still have factories, with human workers trying to compete against robot-run factories?
Yeah, humans may cost more, but they are more adaptable to solving new problems -- robots will be expensive to completely retool, as products change.
When Google's self-driving vehicles become common, delivery is gone as well.
I suspect they will legally be required to have a person manning any vehicle on the road, for safety reasons.
And a vehicle driving itself is one thing -- that doesn't take care of unloading the goods.
The impact of holding down labor costs is that income of the market is going down.
Not really, there is one labor cost they control -- their own workers; this not a 'income reduction' for workers - it is a: not having to hire and retain as many minimum wage assembly line workers.
They still have to pay their local taxes.
They will still increase utilization of infrastructure, that their tax dollars are used to pay for.
Local government will still use the tax money to hire workers.
They will still need to buy services and products from companies employing human workers - in the purchase and delivery of materials required to build and operate their automated facilities.
But there is a hypothetical case where everything we need can be made by robots, even the robots. In that case we would need a new economic system to distribute wealth.
How do you figure that? If you have an unrestricted supply of robots to make everything you need, even more robots... it seems you have obsoleted "wealth", so there is no need or point in attempting to find a new economic system.
The concept of wealth, is predicated on the idea, that you have something worthwhile to trade.
If robots can make everything, then you laboring to make something is no longer an item that holds any value for trade.
And neither is the robots, nor anything they can make. Their value is reduced to the value of the property rights to raw materials that comprise them.
Which ultimately means the robot owner can't afford or justify the cost of paying the electricity bill required to operate the robots.
That would become an immediate problem for the owner(s) of the robots -- as there is no point in their robots making things, they won't be able to trade, or gain an advantage by having their robots make; then the only thing it makes sense to do is have the robots make things required by the owners.
It's just as much a problem for robot owners as anyone else.
The only reason the robot owners would want money from other people is to trade for things they want.
If other people can't provide the robots' owners with anything of value, then again, the robots' owners
have no benefit in "profiting", by selling things for worthless money.
The potential to earn money or profit is of no value, if the robots' owner can't use the money to pay other people for goods or services (goods or services that the owner needs because their robot can't make them -- which don't exist, if the robots
can make anything).
I believe you have a self-correcting system there; the robots also render owning robots less profitable,
possibly less profitable than the costs of maintaining the robots themselves, at which point they get scrapped
for their raw material value.
Those Chinese workers? They used to buy US goods. Not any more.
What about when the US exports the goods to China, that were designed by US companies in the first place?
I understand wanting to keep manufacturing in the US --- most likely this reduces risks like Chinese manufacturing companies
stealing proprietary secrets, or creating pirated/copycat versions.
Automation guarantees that we will, eventually, have 50+% permanent unemployment.
No it does not. Complete automation would mean that people have to switch jobs to things that aren't automated.
There is and will remain all kinds of work available for people who are willing to take any job that provides them a better opportunity than their present situation.
If the reason it can be done in the US is automation there's very little difference in terms of employment -- The capital holders get to keep more of their capital,
Who do you think is designing, monitor, and maintain/repair the automation systems,
and build the factories?
More robots?
Robots doing most of the high precision raw labor, doesn't mean there won't be significant need for additional skilled human workers.
Hate to break it to you, but that $500 figure was per person, not per household.,br Its $1037 per household. For a 2 year loan at 10%, the household pays $1255 or $52.29/month.
That's still cheaper than $69.99 a month for 3 megabit cable internet, plus modem lease.
And still likely to be much more reliable, than the Cable tech which can't sync up when it's raining, gives only 256k up,
and never gives more than a third of the promised download speed.
Okay, sorry if I misread your post. But what's the value of free fiber if nothing is connected to it? And how is that different than what happens today?
What happens today is a monopoly over the last mile, and little competition for internet connectivity service for consumers, resulting in perpetually propped up costs for the consumer, little incentive for internet providers to provide a better experience, better support, or more reliable service -- crap like data metering, and nickel and diming -- fees like cable modem leases. Only large providers such as Ma Bell, Verizon, and big cable companies. are successful offering an internet service to consumers.
And their support techs are drones following a flow chart.
Which by design can't deal with real service issues, without a lot of wheel spinning "You restarted the modem? It still doesn't work? Did you try restarting again?"; by design problems can only be fixed through escalation, which might take days, and good luck with that.
DSL and Cable are "bottlenecked" technologies, meaning, the performance and reliability that can be delivered over them are limited. The DSL and Cable providers are unable or unwilling to bring fiber to everyone.
There are few providers, and the monthly rates for end users are much higher per megabit, than the data rates charged to enterprises who need to buy bandwidth.
Naked fiber to everyone's house, would greatly lower the barrier to entry for ISPs -- it could be back like the dialup days again, where there were literally thousands of local ISPs able to possibly enter the market,, providing reliable friendly, fast service.
Internet speeds would increase, and costs would go down.
There's no real reason your internet service should cost more than your telephone service.
The PSTN infrastructure is more complicated, and the equipment massively more expensive!
It's a good thing then that Internet bandwidth is all free and doesn't actually cost anything.
I said fiber free for life; free interconnection to a local Transport fabric. Not internet bandwidth
Or infrastructure upgrades. Or tech support. Or spares and maintenance.
When was the last time you needed tech support on your water lines, sewage lines, or electricity lines?
Not the transport provider's responsibility. If your fiber breaks, or stops passing light, then that falls under repair costs, that you better have insured against, otherwise, there will be a fee for that repair.
Infrastructure upgrades aren't required to continue to provide the same service level to the same number of users.
The cost of infrastructure upgrades gets divided by new users connecting, just as the original infrastructure cost got divided by users signing up.
Spares/maintenance again falls under infrastructure repair; the cost is negligible compared to the cost of installing the fiber. Your cost for the fiber could well include the setting aside of a fund used to buy treasury notes, whose interest payments will be used for the purpose of maintaining equipment.
They could ask the households to cover the cost.
To signup for the service, and have fiber built to you, you agree to sign a contract to pay $500,
which you can finance over 2 years at 10% interest;
coming to $25 a month for 2 years, then free for life.
Possibly a $2 to $5 / month optional insurance charge to cover any damage caused by backhoes or other disasters.
And a $1/month port fee to keep the fiber lit.
Considering the average price of DSL per household is about $50 a month or $600 a year... fiber begins to look darn cheap.
Slashdot Mirror
and found much the same that the most the remote servers we were using would allow us to pull was about 5MB/s sustained.
Did you rule out the possibility that it was just the end-to-end latency, because the server was far away?
Remember, with the TCP protocol, as end-to-end latency or distance increases: the maximum possible throughput decreases, and the minimum TCP buffer/window size required to achieve the maximum possible speed increases.
E.g. at 100ms round-trip latency, you have to have a TCP buffer size in excess of 256 Kilobytes, to get a throughput of 20 Megabits/Second; which requires special tuning at both ends of the connection.
If your TCP buffers are stuck at 64K; the best possible transfer speed at that latency will be 5 Megabits; even if you have 1 Gigabit of throughput to the server, and the server has 1 Gigabit of throughput to you end-to-end.
Think possibly you could archive them up, instead, and seal them in a manner, that the package won't be opened by anyone, except in a hundred years or so, when the copyright expires? :)
He says he's dumped them all (made copies), and now is looking to sell them. Doesn't anyone see the legal issue here?
It's likely fair use, because it's a personal copy, for use in testing/refining his coding that emulates a SNES and interoperates with the software, and doesn't impact the commercial value of the product, as it's not for sale anymore -- and he's not consuming the content.
Tor's bandwidth and latency are sufficiently abysmal that it acts as a throttle.
What happens when you have 10,000,000 government operated Tor nodes designed for the sole purpose of DoS'ing one hidden service?
The limited bandwidth and latency of ToR services should help, not hurt a DoS attack against the service itself....
DoS attack against the ToR hidden service; from inside the ToR network.
A web browser sending web searches to a web search engine is different than a desktop manager sending desktop searches to an online store.
It's not different enough.... in modern OSes, the "Desktop" or "Start screen" is becoming just as much an online resource as a web site is; as everything is moving into the cloud, even the desktop.
It is not unreasonable or unexpected for a search initiated from the desktop to be able to expand the search to online resources as well.
You know... the versions of Ubuntu I used had no 'desktop search feature'. Are we complaining that a new search tool actually uses online resources to search?
Have you ever used Google desktop? I believe you might well find that other desktop search tools submit queries to remote sites as well.....
I shouldn't have to research my operating system every year to make sure it hasn't changed it's core principles.
Which core principal did they change, or what exactly are they doing that violates one of them, and how does that violate the principal?
Are you upset that Firefox sends searches to Google by default?
Ultimately, do you think the end users mind that their apps are closed source?
Most of the world's developer mind share is closed source. If you want your OS to be successful, you have to embrace developers. Which means you have to support both closed source and open source applications.
And you have to make it just as easy for both types of apps to be deployed as well. If unusual or extra steps are required to deploy a closed source app on your platform, most closed source devs will simply ignore it.
Most applications that are professionally designed, and do what users will want will be closed source, due to the cost. It is a minority of projects that are developed as open source -- most of them get funding from large corporations.
Linux itself is the exception to the rule rather than the rule.
By making one questionable move after another we begin to believe Ubuntu's business model has failed.
They're making moves you or someone else find's questionable. But I do not believe a businessperson would find their latest moves questionable; in fact, I think a businessperson might find their latest moves to be brilliant.
The only question will be, if the community tolerates their latest moves. Will you still recommend Ubuntu?
What exactly are your objections to their latest moves, and are they really 'valid' objections; or are they just fears, that Canonical is losing sight of Linux community principals?
Certainly, there is nothing wrong with offering an open source product, that allows users to buy things from you.
As long as the technology and connection standards on client and communication protocols are open source, and i'm free to take the code, and can easily make changes, so my app store is what things will be bought from instead of Canonicals, on my special build of Ubuntu..
Well, that seems like a problem to me. Having our society based perpetually on a "growth" economy seems unrealistic in the long term.
A problem with that is, there is continuous population growth.
If there is no economic growth or stagnant economy, then there is also no job growth. Or the growth in population outpaces job growth consistently. In addition, without economic growth, there becomes increased demand for things like food -- as the lack of economic growth means little growth in resources to produce those things.
Since you have a finite number of jobs, and a growing population, the inherit result is, you have a reduction in the percentage of people who can get jobs.
Thanks to government welfare programs; people who can't get jobs still get food and shelter, therefore, they still survive and reproduce, despite not being "fit", E.g. Natural selection doesn't apply, the rate of population growth accelerates, because the welfare programs actually reward parents who have larger numbers of children by giving them more money/resources.
The population keeps growing, until the government implodes, due to no longer being able to pay its debts, pay for those people, AND no longer being able to print lots of extra money to cover its debts, causing a massive calamity, which is not good for any involved.
Not just safety, it will probably be prudent for security reasons ... unmanned vehicle driving with valuable goods = ripe for thieves.
That's what the armored police bots are for. Try and rob a delivery vehicle, and one will come, hit you with a sleeping gas/stun gun, scoop you up, and toss you in the automated prisoner delivery truck, to be dumped in the robot jail pen.
I think you're missing the previous poster's point, that the chinese won't be able to buy goods in general because the former workers will be unemployed and have no income.
What makes you think they won't still have factories, with human workers trying to compete against robot-run factories?
Yeah, humans may cost more, but they are more adaptable to solving new problems -- robots will be expensive to completely retool, as products change.
When Google's self-driving vehicles become common, delivery is gone as well.
I suspect they will legally be required to have a person manning any vehicle on the road, for safety reasons. And a vehicle driving itself is one thing -- that doesn't take care of unloading the goods.
The impact of holding down labor costs is that income of the market is going down.
Not really, there is one labor cost they control -- their own workers; this not a 'income reduction' for workers - it is a: not having to hire and retain as many minimum wage assembly line workers.
They still have to pay their local taxes.
They will still increase utilization of infrastructure, that their tax dollars are used to pay for. Local government will still use the tax money to hire workers.
They will still need to buy services and products from companies employing human workers - in the purchase and delivery of materials required to build and operate their automated facilities.
But there is a hypothetical case where everything we need can be made by robots, even the robots. In that case we would need a new economic system to distribute wealth.
How do you figure that? If you have an unrestricted supply of robots to make everything you need, even more robots... it seems you have obsoleted "wealth", so there is no need or point in attempting to find a new economic system.
The concept of wealth, is predicated on the idea, that you have something worthwhile to trade. If robots can make everything, then you laboring to make something is no longer an item that holds any value for trade.
And neither is the robots, nor anything they can make. Their value is reduced to the value of the property rights to raw materials that comprise them. Which ultimately means the robot owner can't afford or justify the cost of paying the electricity bill required to operate the robots.
That would become an immediate problem for the owner(s) of the robots -- as there is no point in their robots making things, they won't be able to trade, or gain an advantage by having their robots make; then the only thing it makes sense to do is have the robots make things required by the owners.
It's just as much a problem for robot owners as anyone else.
The only reason the robot owners would want money from other people is to trade for things they want. If other people can't provide the robots' owners with anything of value, then again, the robots' owners have no benefit in "profiting", by selling things for worthless money.
The potential to earn money or profit is of no value, if the robots' owner can't use the money to pay other people for goods or services (goods or services that the owner needs because their robot can't make them -- which don't exist, if the robots can make anything).
I believe you have a self-correcting system there; the robots also render owning robots less profitable, possibly less profitable than the costs of maintaining the robots themselves, at which point they get scrapped for their raw material value.
Those Chinese workers? They used to buy US goods. Not any more.
What about when the US exports the goods to China, that were designed by US companies in the first place?
I understand wanting to keep manufacturing in the US --- most likely this reduces risks like Chinese manufacturing companies stealing proprietary secrets, or creating pirated/copycat versions.
Automation guarantees that we will, eventually, have 50+% permanent unemployment.
No it does not. Complete automation would mean that people have to switch jobs to things that aren't automated.
There is and will remain all kinds of work available for people who are willing to take any job that provides them a better opportunity than their present situation.
If the reason it can be done in the US is automation there's very little difference in terms of employment -- The capital holders get to keep more of their capital,
Who do you think is designing, monitor, and maintain/repair the automation systems, and build the factories? More robots?
Robots doing most of the high precision raw labor, doesn't mean there won't be significant need for additional skilled human workers.
You want service too? That $52.29/moth just covers the installation cost. Note how Google doesnt offer 1gbps for less than $70/month.
They don't charge $70 a month for 5 megabits.
Hate to break it to you, but that $500 figure was per person, not per household. ,br Its $1037 per household. For a 2 year loan at 10%, the household pays $1255 or $52.29/month.
That's still cheaper than $69.99 a month for 3 megabit cable internet, plus modem lease.
And still likely to be much more reliable, than the Cable tech which can't sync up when it's raining, gives only 256k up, and never gives more than a third of the promised download speed.
Okay, sorry if I misread your post. But what's the value of free fiber if nothing is connected to it? And how is that different than what happens today?
What happens today is a monopoly over the last mile, and little competition for internet connectivity service for consumers, resulting in perpetually propped up costs for the consumer, little incentive for internet providers to provide a better experience, better support, or more reliable service -- crap like data metering, and nickel and diming -- fees like cable modem leases. Only large providers such as Ma Bell, Verizon, and big cable companies. are successful offering an internet service to consumers.
And their support techs are drones following a flow chart. Which by design can't deal with real service issues, without a lot of wheel spinning "You restarted the modem? It still doesn't work? Did you try restarting again?"; by design problems can only be fixed through escalation, which might take days, and good luck with that.
DSL and Cable are "bottlenecked" technologies, meaning, the performance and reliability that can be delivered over them are limited. The DSL and Cable providers are unable or unwilling to bring fiber to everyone.
There are few providers, and the monthly rates for end users are much higher per megabit, than the data rates charged to enterprises who need to buy bandwidth.
Naked fiber to everyone's house, would greatly lower the barrier to entry for ISPs -- it could be back like the dialup days again, where there were literally thousands of local ISPs able to possibly enter the market,, providing reliable friendly, fast service.
Internet speeds would increase, and costs would go down.
There's no real reason your internet service should cost more than your telephone service. The PSTN infrastructure is more complicated, and the equipment massively more expensive!
It's a good thing then that Internet bandwidth is all free and doesn't actually cost anything.
I said fiber free for life; free interconnection to a local Transport fabric. Not internet bandwidth
Or infrastructure upgrades. Or tech support. Or spares and maintenance.
When was the last time you needed tech support on your water lines, sewage lines, or electricity lines? Not the transport provider's responsibility. If your fiber breaks, or stops passing light, then that falls under repair costs, that you better have insured against, otherwise, there will be a fee for that repair.
Infrastructure upgrades aren't required to continue to provide the same service level to the same number of users. The cost of infrastructure upgrades gets divided by new users connecting, just as the original infrastructure cost got divided by users signing up.
Spares/maintenance again falls under infrastructure repair; the cost is negligible compared to the cost of installing the fiber. Your cost for the fiber could well include the setting aside of a fund used to buy treasury notes, whose interest payments will be used for the purpose of maintaining equipment.
It is more like $500. Still ridiculously cheap.
They could ask the households to cover the cost. To signup for the service, and have fiber built to you, you agree to sign a contract to pay $500, which you can finance over 2 years at 10% interest; coming to $25 a month for 2 years, then free for life.
Possibly a $2 to $5 / month optional insurance charge to cover any damage caused by backhoes or other disasters. And a $1/month port fee to keep the fiber lit.
Considering the average price of DSL per household is about $50 a month or $600 a year... fiber begins to look darn cheap.