But the trend isn't using iWhatever as a remote - it's using it as a viewing screen. In the country I live, there is at least one major triple-play operator that offers broadcast for iPhone/iPad, Windows 7 and Android, so you can actually watch TV without being at home looking at the screen.
You mean, providers like Meo [Portugal] (http://www.meo.pt/conhecer/tv/Pages/online.aspx) that already use IP-based infrastructure to deliver multi-channel content to virtually any major internet-connected device?
why would anyone in their right mind not use Gimp? there are no doubt others, but many people (including myself) prefer Gimp. Why go looking for something else when you already have the best? There are entire categories for the other stuff you mention, including electronics software. By comparison, what comes with Windows? Erm... ms paint, notepad, media player. you're really starting to sound like a total douchebag moron.
Not only because Gimp has bugs and an all-over-the-place interface, but it is overkill for many tasks. On windows, I use Gimp, Paint.NET, Paint Shop Pro, Fireworks and Photoshop, all for different image-related tasks. If I need some non-GUI automation, I have GraphicsMagick on my storage server. It's irrelevant what software the OS comes with for this discussion, what matters are the options you have available.
your experience has nothing to do with the experience of other windows users
Are you on the right thread? When was this about "windows users" in general? But most windows users I have close to me wouln't be able to migrate to Linux, due to many of the problems I mentioned, starting with software availability for specific tasks.
are you brain dead? i do use P4 machines (I get them for free remember). your rambling didn't really make much sense with regard to the quote you were responding to, but its what i'm coming to expect. my comment was that most people don't do anything overly intensive (email, web browsing, etc), so much of the hardware requirements for windows boxes is for the OS itself.
Your browsing may not be overly intensive, but not everyone is like you. The percentage of real-world people that need computers to work on a daily basis that use them exclusively to write a letter, lightly browse the internet and read email is not that big.
windows users are quite familiar with viruses, because they are subjected to the dreaded "viruses scanner". they don't need to know anything about viruses to know that windows is a virus magnet. you are such an idiot.
Windows users are as familiarized to viruses as the general population is with tsunamis. Again, I'd suggest you interface with some real users, outside your family circle.
obviously you haven't. are you seriously trying to convince me that custom computer products are cheaper than mass produced products? you are completely fucking clueless, but at least you have provided some entertainment. i don't think i can be fucked discussing this with you more because i prefer a slightly more intelligent opponent, but good luck.
Where did I say it was cheaper? Can't you read? I said it wasn't that expensive. It was about 30% more expensive than regular branded memory for the same application.
Stop shoving your "one size fits all" attitude down everybody's throat. If you have no real experience or insight to offer, go play with your toys and stop wasting my time.
- Less security (processes are not separated by default, unless you are running every apache process with different users somehow)
I use mpm_itk to solve this problem in small deployments. It's based on prefork, so you can specify pools of processes with different uid/gid to be used on vhosts.
One of the big problems with mod_php is that not every extension is thread-safe (gettext comes to mind), so you should use prefork anyway for generic installations, so a fcgi setup will be far more flexible.
Most modern schedulers will detect "idle processes" and adjust accordingly. Usually programs don't get an equal timeslice, but a fair one. Also, it seems everyone talks about memory but forgets that most modern operating systems use COW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy-on-write), so only the data is actually allocated in memory between forked processes.
In my (somewhat limited) experience, PHP parsing/executing isn't usually the bottleneck (except for crazy apps like Magento), the database is.
No, I'm saying that handling 150 *concurrent* clients on Apache requires an excessive amount of RAM. Because mpm_worker will spawn 150 different processes to do that(...)
Those 150 processes will be COW'ed, so they won't use 150x the RAM of a single process. Only datapages (since code segments usually aren't writable) that differ from the parent process are actually allocated. I've had Apache 1.3 setups with 1800 processes, running fine in 2GB.
Once I benchmarked several opensource CMS for a project, and their caching options. Using a simple almost-static cache mecanism, I got a P4 with 512Mb handling up to 5000 simultaneous connections, before the machine started dying of resource starvation.
Some years ago I had a server with Apache 1.3 custom compiled to handle 2048 clients (the max allowed). It was a Xeon with 2GB of ram, and at some specific time periods, it would go upto 1800 processes serving active connections (I verified them, real users). The content was mostly static, with some light php served via mod_php.
The bashing against the fork model/memory consumption is based on a fallacy - most modern operating systems implement COW, so it doesn't really matter if you have 10 or 1000 processes, because if they're not allocating data, the difference in ram usage is negligible. You waste linear address space (and some kernel memory), but no monster ram-eating.
Dynamic content is a bit different, because it's usually a cpu-bounded process. But for most php applications (the ones I have experience with), the real showstopper is the database. Install a typical application (like Joomla) on a server with a local database and stress-test it with 200 concurrent users, and the you'll see the machine die out of MySQL starvation long before the concurrent clients are a problem. The solution? Decent hardware disk controllers with write-back cache, and dedicated database servers.
List of Discontinued Microsoft Software [wikipedia.org] is it like golf, who ever has the lowest wins? For development, J++, VB6 (and prior code), VisualFox Pro, Frontpage...
I can pick a VB6 project and easily convert it to the latest version of Visual Studio. J++ was an abortion and got no traction. FrontPage projects can be opened in virtually any decent web suite, and the extensions package is still available. Microsoft now has a semi-decent web editing environment, that may be compatible (haven't tried it). The last release of Visual FoxPro isn't that old, and while the writing on the wall had been announcing its demise for years, it had a sigificant community, and is one product that made no sense to end.
You mean like IE6? Office?
IE7, IE8 and IE9 are useful updates to IE6. Office 2003 has 2 service packs, Office 2007 has at least one.
What's Microsoft's, relearn how to do it every 10 years with their shiny new tools? How's Silverlight working out?
I have no idea about the size of the silverlight community, but the few products I've seen are usually RIA backends, so It's mainly a niche tool, that probably will get the axe soon.
Re-learning everything every 10 years isn't that bad, if some backward compatibility is mantained and the product is improved. The last significant version of Delphi probably was v7, in 2002. Delphi2010 had some actual improvements, but still no 64 bit support. Meanwhile, part of the community died out. Component providers start focusing on.NET, many software houses migrated away their products.
Btw, I'm not that I'm a fan of Microsoft development tools or the ever-changing GUI framework. But.NET has been improving a lot (except that utterly shitty C# DataGrid), with frequent releases.
What I read was an article about cluster technology in use and vague mentioning of "linux workstations". The fact that most software used isn't linux-friendly, and that some major products (like Somke) had their linux versions discontinued tells much more than your not-related-to-any-studio article. Also, if you see the making-of of some of the films you mention, you usually don't see linux workstations being used for major production - you see SGI, SUN (SUN gear was hugely popular some years ago), Windows and some OSX. Yeah, just because it runs X doesn't mean it's linux.
Oh and the list you mentioned isn't right. The Matrix was rendered in a FreeBSD farm. Titanic is from 1997, so I'd like to see where you got that info. You mentioned some films released around the year 2000, that I also seriously doubt that they used linux for anything than renderfarms, if at all. SGI and SUN workstations were all the rage back then.
With access to almost 30,000 packages means there's a good chance that most of what I need is in there, but I have had to source a couple of programs from outside the repos. I just make sure they are from reputable providers (I don't use third party indexes).
Show me a good photo editing suite that's not Gimp, but supports decent colormanagement, or a web-graphic oriented tool. Or more than one decent sound editor. Or a usable electronics simulation package with a decent GUI. And the list goes on and on and on.
because you can use a modern up-to-date linux distro (yes, even with gnome3) on a P4 with 514 Mb RAM just fine. considering most computer users don't use their machines for anything that should be hardware-intensive, they are merely required to upgrade hardware because an up-to-date version of windows won't run on anything less.
That's what you say. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but my experience diverges with what you said.
i find that hard to believe, especially coming from someone who immediately before said "Why would you install a modern windows version on an old computer?", but OK. it would be interesting to see resource usage on such an installation.
Aren't you the guy who just said "considering most computer users don't use their machines for anything that should be hardware-intensive"? Pick up one of those old machines you have and try it for yourself.
that's also hard to believe, especially since much of the time CPUs are idling. the difference in idle power between a P4 and an Atom is apparently in the order of 47 watts, so assuming you left you pyewta on 24/7, that's 1.128 kWh saving per day or 411.7 kWh per year, so at $0.20 per kWh (rough average from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing [wikipedia.org]), that would be a saving of $82 per year. I could probably get a low end mobo for that price, but I'd be hard pressed to get a decent CPU as well (plus compatible RAM). maybe you could though. if you're using windows you likely paid at least $400-$600 for a low end system with an OEM license (that's for a 32-bit system with 3-4Gb RAM running Windows 7 from Australia).
I don't need you to believe it. I measured it. Again, you reply to _experimentation_ with "what you think". A dual-core atom board will cost you around 60 bucks (all-in-one, cpu included), and a stick of 2G of ram costs you around 20 bucks. It's not great, but it's up to par with a P4 2.0, with 64 bit support. And you assume windows licenses are a cost - they're not. My desktops are covered by the volume licensing of the company I work for.
viruses are a significant risk to windows computers. identity theft, phishing, email scams etc are a risk to all online computer users, but if you ask windows users what they worry about most as far as security goes, i bet viruses would be a fairly common response.
Stop living in the nineties. Most windows users can't distinguish between the pc and the printer, what do they know about viruses? Most of them don't even actually know what a virus is. Who cares what they say, and how is that relevant to facts?
only because so much of it is sold, because of the very problem with windows software, and besides only idiots buy things because they are cheap.
Stop pulling shit out of your ass. The manufacturing process became much much cheaper in the last 20 years. Have you ever ordered custom specification RAM from a memory factory? I Have. It's not that expensive.
And let's not forget the habit of discontinuing Delphi products (Kylix anywone?), or having years pass by without a useful update, and lack of a long-run clear vision: I'd used to love Delphi, and still have some application codebases on it, but we never know when the next release will be and what they will break next.
I think you need a i7 Extreme edition to run Eclipse....
The same one you need to run Visual Studio 2010? Not that I'm an Eclipse fan (I'm not), but VS is no speed beast by any metric, and it gets worse once you load external plugins, heavy components or are working with a medium codebase. That's one of the motives why I use SharpDevelop.
What about storing the whole program on chips already "in RAM", as the good old cartridge based game consoles once did. A 16 bit game having 32MB+ of data still had zero load time even on such weak processors.
Both ROMS/PROMS and EPROMS (usually used on those cartridges) aren't as fast as you remember, and they are quite slower than RAM. Most older PC's had their BIOS on a similar device, and offered a "BIOS shadow" option, that consisted in copying the BIOS content to RAM so it would execute (interrupt handlers essentially) quite faster.
they can put a progress bar in the program's task bar button - since Windows 7.
Of course that they haven't might be indicative of it being too difficult
You mean, like Chrome, Thunderbird, Media Player Classic and many other open-source programs have?
Outlook is an e-mail client and calendar application; we've been doing that since I owned a 286 with a 9600 baud modem that I had to crank by hand to start up. Why the hell does it need a "hold on, I'm getting there, be patient" screen?
I use Thunderbird because Outlook can't cope with my inbox size, using IMAP. I could turn off the local copy mechanism and run the accounts from the server, but it would be painfully slow. I guess you didn't have 25GB of data to parse on your 286 at program load.
Thunderbird works quite well, but the search doesn't seem as good as Outlook's. So there you go - Outlook takes a long time because not only is a big bloated boy, but also has to parse some weird-ass proprietary files for your data so your running experience is as smooth as possible.
This, Ad networks are proably the primary infection vector on the internet, and one of the most underrated ones. The amount of ad providers that unknowingly (or not) disseminate malicious content is staggering, but no one really cares about it.
I digress. In my experience, flaming in-your-face gays are an extreme minority -- less than ten percent of the population.
But boy, are they annoying!
As for anybody else, who cares? What each one does sexually or each one loves is their business (if legal and consentual), I couldn't care less about it.
I'd suggest you cancel your pdf Playboy subscription, and opt instead for the good ol' paper version. But I might be wrong. We may be taking about a kinkier publication.
Since are both serial connections, the data rate is equivalent, and the comparison is valid (a top-of-the-line SSD could probably saturate a SATA3/SAS connector under ideal circumstances, nevermind external storage cages and SATA multiplexers). If you talk about _useful_ payload, that's a whole different story.
The problem is, the internet does not always work in a straight line, and while most relevant infrastructure is optical, most of the switching is done on copper. Light/electron conversion causes a noticeable delay. It's not unreasonable to have different providers with different peering offering you a completely different latency when accessing a specific server.
Slashdot Mirror
But the trend isn't using iWhatever as a remote - it's using it as a viewing screen. In the country I live, there is at least one major triple-play operator that offers broadcast for iPhone/iPad, Windows 7 and Android, so you can actually watch TV without being at home looking at the screen.
People already watch TV on the iPad, at least in the country I live in. See http://www.meo.pt/conhecer/tv/Pages/online.aspx
You mean, providers like Meo [Portugal] (http://www.meo.pt/conhecer/tv/Pages/online.aspx) that already use IP-based infrastructure to deliver multi-channel content to virtually any major internet-connected device?
That's an overly productive reply. But hey, don't let facts and your lack of actual EXPERIENCE interfere with your rant.
why would anyone in their right mind not use Gimp? there are no doubt others, but many people (including myself) prefer Gimp. Why go looking for something else when you already have the best? There are entire categories for the other stuff you mention, including electronics software. By comparison, what comes with Windows? Erm... ms paint, notepad, media player. you're really starting to sound like a total douchebag moron.
Not only because Gimp has bugs and an all-over-the-place interface, but it is overkill for many tasks. On windows, I use Gimp, Paint.NET, Paint Shop Pro, Fireworks and Photoshop, all for different image-related tasks. If I need some non-GUI automation, I have GraphicsMagick on my storage server. It's irrelevant what software the OS comes with for this discussion, what matters are the options you have available.
your experience has nothing to do with the experience of other windows users
Are you on the right thread? When was this about "windows users" in general? But most windows users I have close to me wouln't be able to migrate to Linux, due to many of the problems I mentioned, starting with software availability for specific tasks.
are you brain dead? i do use P4 machines (I get them for free remember). your rambling didn't really make much sense with regard to the quote you were responding to, but its what i'm coming to expect. my comment was that most people don't do anything overly intensive (email, web browsing, etc), so much of the hardware requirements for windows boxes is for the OS itself.
Your browsing may not be overly intensive, but not everyone is like you. The percentage of real-world people that need computers to work on a daily basis that use them exclusively to write a letter, lightly browse the internet and read email is not that big.
windows users are quite familiar with viruses, because they are subjected to the dreaded "viruses scanner". they don't need to know anything about viruses to know that windows is a virus magnet. you are such an idiot.
Windows users are as familiarized to viruses as the general population is with tsunamis. Again, I'd suggest you interface with some real users, outside your family circle.
obviously you haven't. are you seriously trying to convince me that custom computer products are cheaper than mass produced products? you are completely fucking clueless, but at least you have provided some entertainment. i don't think i can be fucked discussing this with you more because i prefer a slightly more intelligent opponent, but good luck.
Where did I say it was cheaper? Can't you read? I said it wasn't that expensive. It was about 30% more expensive than regular branded memory for the same application.
Stop shoving your "one size fits all" attitude down everybody's throat. If you have no real experience or insight to offer, go play with your toys and stop wasting my time.
- Less security (processes are not separated by default, unless you are running every apache process with different users somehow)
I use mpm_itk to solve this problem in small deployments. It's based on prefork, so you can specify pools of processes with different uid/gid to be used on vhosts.
One of the big problems with mod_php is that not every extension is thread-safe (gettext comes to mind), so you should use prefork anyway for generic installations, so a fcgi setup will be far more flexible.
Most modern schedulers will detect "idle processes" and adjust accordingly. Usually programs don't get an equal timeslice, but a fair one. Also, it seems everyone talks about memory but forgets that most modern operating systems use COW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy-on-write), so only the data is actually allocated in memory between forked processes.
In my (somewhat limited) experience, PHP parsing/executing isn't usually the bottleneck (except for crazy apps like Magento), the database is.
No, I'm saying that handling 150 *concurrent* clients on Apache requires an excessive amount of RAM. Because mpm_worker will spawn 150 different processes to do that(...)
Those 150 processes will be COW'ed, so they won't use 150x the RAM of a single process. Only datapages (since code segments usually aren't writable) that differ from the parent process are actually allocated. I've had Apache 1.3 setups with 1800 processes, running fine in 2GB.
Once I benchmarked several opensource CMS for a project, and their caching options. Using a simple almost-static cache mecanism, I got a P4 with 512Mb handling up to 5000 simultaneous connections, before the machine started dying of resource starvation.
Some years ago I had a server with Apache 1.3 custom compiled to handle 2048 clients (the max allowed). It was a Xeon with 2GB of ram, and at some specific time periods, it would go upto 1800 processes serving active connections (I verified them, real users). The content was mostly static, with some light php served via mod_php.
The bashing against the fork model/memory consumption is based on a fallacy - most modern operating systems implement COW, so it doesn't really matter if you have 10 or 1000 processes, because if they're not allocating data, the difference in ram usage is negligible. You waste linear address space (and some kernel memory), but no monster ram-eating.
Dynamic content is a bit different, because it's usually a cpu-bounded process. But for most php applications (the ones I have experience with), the real showstopper is the database. Install a typical application (like Joomla) on a server with a local database and stress-test it with 200 concurrent users, and the you'll see the machine die out of MySQL starvation long before the concurrent clients are a problem. The solution? Decent hardware disk controllers with write-back cache, and dedicated database servers.
List of Discontinued Microsoft Software [wikipedia.org] is it like golf, who ever has the lowest wins? For development, J++, VB6 (and prior code), VisualFox Pro, Frontpage...
I can pick a VB6 project and easily convert it to the latest version of Visual Studio. J++ was an abortion and got no traction. FrontPage projects can be opened in virtually any decent web suite, and the extensions package is still available. Microsoft now has a semi-decent web editing environment, that may be compatible (haven't tried it). The last release of Visual FoxPro isn't that old, and while the writing on the wall had been announcing its demise for years, it had a sigificant community, and is one product that made no sense to end.
You mean like IE6? Office?
IE7, IE8 and IE9 are useful updates to IE6. Office 2003 has 2 service packs, Office 2007 has at least one.
What's Microsoft's, relearn how to do it every 10 years with their shiny new tools? How's Silverlight working out?
I have no idea about the size of the silverlight community, but the few products I've seen are usually RIA backends, so It's mainly a niche tool, that probably will get the axe soon. .NET, many software houses migrated away their products.
.NET has been improving a lot (except that utterly shitty C# DataGrid), with frequent releases.
Re-learning everything every 10 years isn't that bad, if some backward compatibility is mantained and the product is improved. The last significant version of Delphi probably was v7, in 2002. Delphi2010 had some actual improvements, but still no 64 bit support. Meanwhile, part of the community died out. Component providers start focusing on
Btw, I'm not that I'm a fan of Microsoft development tools or the ever-changing GUI framework. But
What I read was an article about cluster technology in use and vague mentioning of "linux workstations". The fact that most software used isn't linux-friendly, and that some major products (like Somke) had their linux versions discontinued tells much more than your not-related-to-any-studio article. Also, if you see the making-of of some of the films you mention, you usually don't see linux workstations being used for major production - you see SGI, SUN (SUN gear was hugely popular some years ago), Windows and some OSX. Yeah, just because it runs X doesn't mean it's linux.
Oh and the list you mentioned isn't right. The Matrix was rendered in a FreeBSD farm. Titanic is from 1997, so I'd like to see where you got that info. You mentioned some films released around the year 2000, that I also seriously doubt that they used linux for anything than renderfarms, if at all. SGI and SUN workstations were all the rage back then.
With access to almost 30,000 packages means there's a good chance that most of what I need is in there, but I have had to source a couple of programs from outside the repos. I just make sure they are from reputable providers (I don't use third party indexes).
Show me a good photo editing suite that's not Gimp, but supports decent colormanagement, or a web-graphic oriented tool. Or more than one decent sound editor. Or a usable electronics simulation package with a decent GUI. And the list goes on and on and on.
because you can use a modern up-to-date linux distro (yes, even with gnome3) on a P4 with 514 Mb RAM just fine. considering most computer users don't use their machines for anything that should be hardware-intensive, they are merely required to upgrade hardware because an up-to-date version of windows won't run on anything less.
That's what you say. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but my experience diverges with what you said.
i find that hard to believe, especially coming from someone who immediately before said "Why would you install a modern windows version on an old computer?", but OK. it would be interesting to see resource usage on such an installation.
Aren't you the guy who just said "considering most computer users don't use their machines for anything that should be hardware-intensive"? Pick up one of those old machines you have and try it for yourself.
that's also hard to believe, especially since much of the time CPUs are idling. the difference in idle power between a P4 and an Atom is apparently in the order of 47 watts, so assuming you left you pyewta on 24/7, that's 1.128 kWh saving per day or 411.7 kWh per year, so at $0.20 per kWh (rough average from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing [wikipedia.org]), that would be a saving of $82 per year. I could probably get a low end mobo for that price, but I'd be hard pressed to get a decent CPU as well (plus compatible RAM). maybe you could though. if you're using windows you likely paid at least $400-$600 for a low end system with an OEM license (that's for a 32-bit system with 3-4Gb RAM running Windows 7 from Australia).
I don't need you to believe it. I measured it. Again, you reply to _experimentation_ with "what you think". A dual-core atom board will cost you around 60 bucks (all-in-one, cpu included), and a stick of 2G of ram costs you around 20 bucks. It's not great, but it's up to par with a P4 2.0, with 64 bit support. And you assume windows licenses are a cost - they're not. My desktops are covered by the volume licensing of the company I work for.
viruses are a significant risk to windows computers. identity theft, phishing, email scams etc are a risk to all online computer users, but if you ask windows users what they worry about most as far as security goes, i bet viruses would be a fairly common response.
Stop living in the nineties. Most windows users can't distinguish between the pc and the printer, what do they know about viruses? Most of them don't even actually know what a virus is. Who cares what they say, and how is that relevant to facts?
only because so much of it is sold, because of the very problem with windows software, and besides only idiots buy things because they are cheap.
Stop pulling shit out of your ass. The manufacturing process became much much cheaper in the last 20 years. Have you ever ordered custom specification RAM from a memory factory? I Have. It's not that expensive.
And let's not forget the habit of discontinuing Delphi products (Kylix anywone?), or having years pass by without a useful update, and lack of a long-run clear vision: I'd used to love Delphi, and still have some application codebases on it, but we never know when the next release will be and what they will break next.
I think you need a i7 Extreme edition to run Eclipse....
The same one you need to run Visual Studio 2010? Not that I'm an Eclipse fan (I'm not), but VS is no speed beast by any metric, and it gets worse once you load external plugins, heavy components or are working with a medium codebase. That's one of the motives why I use SharpDevelop.
What about storing the whole program on chips already "in RAM", as the good old cartridge based game consoles once did. A 16 bit game having 32MB+ of data still had zero load time even on such weak processors.
Both ROMS/PROMS and EPROMS (usually used on those cartridges) aren't as fast as you remember, and they are quite slower than RAM. Most older PC's had their BIOS on a similar device, and offered a "BIOS shadow" option, that consisted in copying the BIOS content to RAM so it would execute (interrupt handlers essentially) quite faster.
they can put a progress bar in the program's task bar button - since Windows 7. Of course that they haven't might be indicative of it being too difficult
You mean, like Chrome, Thunderbird, Media Player Classic and many other open-source programs have?
Outlook is an e-mail client and calendar application; we've been doing that since I owned a 286 with a 9600 baud modem that I had to crank by hand to start up. Why the hell does it need a "hold on, I'm getting there, be patient" screen?
I use Thunderbird because Outlook can't cope with my inbox size, using IMAP. I could turn off the local copy mechanism and run the accounts from the server, but it would be painfully slow. I guess you didn't have 25GB of data to parse on your 286 at program load.
Thunderbird works quite well, but the search doesn't seem as good as Outlook's. So there you go - Outlook takes a long time because not only is a big bloated boy, but also has to parse some weird-ass proprietary files for your data so your running experience is as smooth as possible.
This, Ad networks are proably the primary infection vector on the internet, and one of the most underrated ones. The amount of ad providers that unknowingly (or not) disseminate malicious content is staggering, but no one really cares about it.
You mean, like a regular straight couple? Have you seen divorce statistics?
I digress. In my experience, flaming in-your-face gays are an extreme minority -- less than ten percent of the population.
But boy, are they annoying!
As for anybody else, who cares? What each one does sexually or each one loves is their business (if legal and consentual), I couldn't care less about it.
I'd suggest you cancel your pdf Playboy subscription, and opt instead for the good ol' paper version. But I might be wrong. We may be taking about a kinkier publication.
So, his copy of Photoshop will complain if you add to Hosts "127.0.0.1 activate.adobe.com"?
Since are both serial connections, the data rate is equivalent, and the comparison is valid (a top-of-the-line SSD could probably saturate a SATA3/SAS connector under ideal circumstances, nevermind external storage cages and SATA multiplexers). If you talk about _useful_ payload, that's a whole different story.
The problem is, the internet does not always work in a straight line, and while most relevant infrastructure is optical, most of the switching is done on copper. Light/electron conversion causes a noticeable delay. It's not unreasonable to have different providers with different peering offering you a completely different latency when accessing a specific server.
5ms is the latency of some mechanical disks. You are wayyy off (by an order of magnitude), but that just proves even more your point.