Adam, you've confused a SAN with an HSM (hierarchical storage management) system. They're not the same thing. In fact, they're really kind of incompatible ideas. In a SAN, you have a number of computers talking directly to a number of storage devices, without any arbitration in between. In other words, it's like talking to a file server, only without the file server*.
An HSM system, on the other hand, uses software running on a file server to consolidate several different kinds of storage devices into one logical filesystem. As you write to the filesystem (over the LAN), the server puts the data on disks. When the disks start to get full, the server begins, in the background, moving data from the disks to an automated tape library, gradually freeing up disk storage as it goes. This happens without the client's knowledge; it looks like the server just has a whole lot of disk space available. When the client requests a file that's not on disk, the server stalls for a bit while it retrieves the data off of tape, then it returns the data to the client. So in an HSM system, client-to-server writes are really fast, but reads can be really, really slow.
Since a SAN depends on directly attaching computers to storage without a server in between, and HSM depends on having a server there to manage the different types of storage devices, they're kind of incompatible ideas.
* Reminds me of the old Einstein quote about radio. "You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat."
...unless your hobies include rendering and editing Pixar-like shorts with your wife/girlfriend/dog/hamster working in tandem on one or more other workstations...
Come on, dude, don't be silly. Everybody knows hamsters are no good at animation.
Actually, that's not "a cool thing to do" with a SAN. That's the sole purpose of a SAN: to let multiple computers talk to the same set of storage devices. Depending on how your SAN is set up, you may use software to connect (logically) only one computer to each storage LUN, or you may be able to have multiple computers talking to the same storage LUN through some kind of arbitrated filesystem like CXFS.
A storage area network consists of storage devices directly attached to computers, via a star, bus, or fabric topology. Computer-to-computer networks are not storage area networks. They are simply LANs, local area networks.
What you described-- a server with filesystem sharing software-- is technically just a file server. A file server that comes with software and storage preconfigured, all in one box, is called a filer or a NAS appliance. Since what you described isn't preconfigured, it's just a file server.
Right now, the vast majority of storage area networks use fibre channel as the physical interconnect. Fibre channel was designed to be switchable, in fact; you can connect multiple storage devices-- devices, not servers; things like RAIDs and tape libraries-- to multiple servers via a switch, and those things can all talk to one another via the fabric.
Better than the mushmouthed "doubleyoo emm ay" or "ay ay cee" or even mp3pro.
Which reminds me of this old piece of trivia. WWW, the acronym meaning "world wide web," is the only known acronym in the English language to actually have more syllables than the phrase it's supposedly short for.
Not really apropos of anything, but amusing nonetheless.
So the only metric of computer value is raw speed? Personally, I think a Cray would make a terrible desktop system. It's expensive and noisy and it doesn't play Unreal Tournament worth a damn.
The analogy stands. "When you get one of those chairs, you see and feel the difference," you said. Well, when you get a Mac, you see and feel the difference.
I can't speak for Solaris, but the GNU software that's shipped with IRIX is all optional stuff, not installed by default. The core IRIX operating system, including all the user-space shells and utilities and whatnot, is made up of BSD, AT&T, and SGI code. Not a piece of GNU code in the whole thing.
You can install GNU stuff if you want to; the software packages come on the OS CDs, and the programs go into a hierarchy rooted at/usr/gnu. But, like I said, GNU stuff is not there by default.
RMS must hate SGI. Which, perversely, makes me respect SGI just a little bit more.
People think Ogg Vorbis has a bad sounding name? GNU/Linux is 10x worse!
Depends on whether you pronounce the "guh" and the "slash." "Noo Lih-nucks" isn't too bad, but it's ambiguous. People think you're saying "New Linux," which confuses the mundanes.
"Guh-noo Slash Lih-nucks" is really, really ugly, though.
But, in the final analysis, I'm sorry to say that I have to disagree with you. Ogg Vorbis-- or, as my friend calls it, "Ugh Mumble"-- is still the Worst. Name. Ever.
This is probably redundant (and should be moderated as such, if it is), but I just had to collect my favorite little gems.
The largest division in the community is between people who appreciate free software as a social and ethical issue and consider proprietary software a social problem (supporters of the free software movement), and those whose cite only practical benefits and present free software only as an efficient development model (the open source movement).
GNU Law #1: Never, ever, pass by an opportunity to turn the conversation toward our particular political and social agenda. And don't be ashamed to really stretch to make the connection, either.
People who value freedom are more likely to call the system "GNU/Linux"...
You're not against freedom, are you?
The shortest legitimate name for this system is "GNU", but we call it "GNU/Linux" for the reasons given below. [...] It would be ungentlemanly to ask people to stop giving any credit to Linus Torvalds. He did write an important component of the system.
Well, that's mighty generous of you, Richard, throwing Linus a bone like that.
In Spanish we sometimes say "GNU con Linux".
Dude, a Google web search turned up exactly one instance of the phrase "GNU con Linux," in this context: "Todo esto es curro, pero entre todos podríamos remover GNU con Linux...ehr... digo Roma con Santiago..." Not being a speaker of Spanish, it looks to me like this example is just using "con" as a conjunction, like saying "GNU and Linux."
There were no matches at all for "GNU con Linux" as a phrase on Google Groups.
The widespread practice of adding non-free software to the GNU/Linux system is a major problem for our community. It teaches the users that non-free software is ok, and that using it is part of the spirit of "Linux".
I really don't know what to say here. The pedantry of this statement shocks and amazes me. If the phrase "It teaches the users that [blah blah] is ok" were included in a leaked Microsoft memo, I'd be up in arms. The thought that RMS would publish this sort of statement publicly is just bewildering.
With this understanding, they can start to recognize Lindows and so-called "United Linux" as perverted, adulterated versions of GNU.
Sounding more and more like L. Ron Hubbard here, RMS.
If the Linux User Group in your area has the problems describe above, we suggest you either campaign within the group to change its orientation (and name) or start a new group.
Go found your own user group... but not in a way that divides the community or anything.
[Linus] has never advocated the ideal of freedom to cooperate, which is why the name "Linux" is mostly disconnected from that ideal.
So let me get this straight. If you have never actively advocated an ideal, then you must necessarily be opposed to that ideal. And if that ideal is freedom, then we've got a real problem on our hands! Linus is opposed to freedom, everybody! Sheesh.
He goes even further, and rebukes anyone who suggests that engineers and scientists should consider social consequences of our technical work--rejecting the lessons society learned from the development of the atom bomb.
Comparing programming as a hobby to the effort to build the atomic bomb is pretty arrogant, Richard. Once again, you've shown that your ego is way out of proportion to your contributions.
People who laugh at our request probably have picked up that mistaken picture--they think our work was done by Linus, so they laugh when we ask for credit for it.
Actually, Richard, we laugh because you are asking for credit for it. Asking for credit in this way is rude and overbearing. The most common responses are to get angry, or to laugh. I'm choosing to laugh, simply so that I may not get angry.
EXACTLY. That's the best word I've heard yet to describe Gnu's attitude: pushy.
Which is ironic, since they like to spend so much time talking about freedom and self-determination. Well, guys, we're all free to call Linux whatever we want. Bossing us around isn't going to make you any friends.
When I hear, "preaching to the choir," I think you're talking about trying to convince people who already agree with you. I don't think that's what's happening here at all.
I think there's probably one guy in the world who agrees with everything on the gnu.org web site. And I don't have to tell you who he is.
This FAQ isn't preaching to the choir. It's preaching to a bunch of people who (1) don't really care, and who (2) don't like to be preached to. It's preaching to the cannibals.
Who cares? Market share is not the key to success in business. Profitability is the key to success in business. Say your kid has a lemonade stand. Do you think he's worried about competing with PepsiCo and Coca-Cola for a slice of that elusive cold beverage market? Of course not. He just wants to make a little more out of each pitcher of lemonade than he had to put into it.
Apple's the same way. They really don't care about selling to 90% of the computer market. They care about selling enough machines, at sufficient profit margins, to keep the lights on and keep the talent employed.
The analogy, posted elsewhere, to cars is flawed and wrong. A better analogy is furniture and consumer appliances. Apple is more like Herman Miller or Bang and Olufsen. Herman Miller sells an $800 office chair. An $800 office chair! Do you think market share is their goal? Do you think their business model is based on conquering the office furniture market and hitting a 90% share target? Whatever.
The API is one thing, but all code would have to be recompiled if nothing else. Also, I believe there are endianness issues, but I haven't had my coffee yet and I'm too lazy to look it up.
And why not release free tools into open source, so piles of developers are writing software for Apple for free?
The OS X developer tools are free. They come with every new machine for free, and they can be downloaded from the Apple developer web site for free. Anybody can develop for OS X... even you.
(This, of course, has nothing to do with releasing developer tools as open source. There's zero reason for Apple to release the source code for their developer tools.)
I doubt very seriously that SGI's servers will come with either Gnome or KDE. These machines-- multi-hundred-thousand dollar systems that start with 32 Itanium 2 processors and scale up from there-- aren't meant for interactive use. They're multiuser server systems. That said, SGI might include an X server, or even a desktop environment, just pro forma.
You don't get it. SGI wasn't talking about porting IRIX to PCs. They were talking about porting IRIX to Intel architecture CPUs, and then putting those CPUs in Origin-series servers.
This is, in fact, basically what they've done. The new product line coming in January is an evolution of the Origin system architecture that can support either MIPS or IA-64 (in this case, McKinley [Itanium 2]) CPUs, with IRIX on the MIPS systems and Linux on the IA-64 systems. Whether they're going to ship both MIPS and IA-64 systems or just IA-64 systems is unclear at this time, but the prevailing opinion is that you'll be able to buy either. Same architecture, different CPU, different OS.
What WolfWithoutAClause was talking about is called bacteriophage therapy. A bacteriophage is a type of virus that attacks bacteria. ("Bacteriophage" literally means bacterium eater.) Bacteriophages were discovered in 1917. In the 1920's and 1930's, bacteriophages were used to treat bacterial infections like typhus and cholera. The results were very mixed.
In the 1940's, bacteriophage therapy fell out of favor as penicillin became more and more popular.
Recent studies of bacteriophage therapy in Eastern Europe and in Asia have tentatively concluded that it can, when properly employed, approach the effectiveness of antibiotic therapy.
But there is a problem. Bacteriophages and antibiotics work in pretty much the same way, albeit through different mechanisms: the agent in use attacks the bacteria population present in the patient, killing all those that are susceptible. Neither antibiotics nor bacteriophages kill 100% of the bacterial infection, because bacteria mutate and evolve quite rapidly. If bacteriophage therapy were in as widespread use as antibiotic therapy is today, we'd see the same basic problems: resistant strains appearing thanks to therapeutic culling of the susceptible populations.
Particularly if he picked it up off of a catheter. Maybe I'm not following the instructions, but I'm not currently rinsing out my urethra with antibacterial Dial.
'tail -f whatever.log'? Impossible on Windows without extra software.
Um... technically it's impossible on Linux without extra software, too. The "tail" command is part of GNU textutils, which of course comes with pretty much every no-cost UNIX distribution. But that doesn't mean it's not extra software.
Sorry to split hairs, but let's at least be honest here.
Slashdot Mirror
Adam, you've confused a SAN with an HSM (hierarchical storage management) system. They're not the same thing. In fact, they're really kind of incompatible ideas. In a SAN, you have a number of computers talking directly to a number of storage devices, without any arbitration in between. In other words, it's like talking to a file server, only without the file server*.
An HSM system, on the other hand, uses software running on a file server to consolidate several different kinds of storage devices into one logical filesystem. As you write to the filesystem (over the LAN), the server puts the data on disks. When the disks start to get full, the server begins, in the background, moving data from the disks to an automated tape library, gradually freeing up disk storage as it goes. This happens without the client's knowledge; it looks like the server just has a whole lot of disk space available. When the client requests a file that's not on disk, the server stalls for a bit while it retrieves the data off of tape, then it returns the data to the client. So in an HSM system, client-to-server writes are really fast, but reads can be really, really slow.
Since a SAN depends on directly attaching computers to storage without a server in between, and HSM depends on having a server there to manage the different types of storage devices, they're kind of incompatible ideas.
* Reminds me of the old Einstein quote about radio. "You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat."
...unless your hobies include rendering and editing Pixar-like shorts with your wife/girlfriend/dog/hamster working in tandem on one or more other workstations...
Come on, dude, don't be silly. Everybody knows hamsters are no good at animation.
Actually, that's not "a cool thing to do" with a SAN. That's the sole purpose of a SAN: to let multiple computers talk to the same set of storage devices. Depending on how your SAN is set up, you may use software to connect (logically) only one computer to each storage LUN, or you may be able to have multiple computers talking to the same storage LUN through some kind of arbitrated filesystem like CXFS.
Ummm... no.
A storage area network consists of storage devices directly attached to computers, via a star, bus, or fabric topology. Computer-to-computer networks are not storage area networks. They are simply LANs, local area networks.
What you described-- a server with filesystem sharing software-- is technically just a file server. A file server that comes with software and storage preconfigured, all in one box, is called a filer or a NAS appliance. Since what you described isn't preconfigured, it's just a file server.
Right now, the vast majority of storage area networks use fibre channel as the physical interconnect. Fibre channel was designed to be switchable, in fact; you can connect multiple storage devices-- devices, not servers; things like RAIDs and tape libraries-- to multiple servers via a switch, and those things can all talk to one another via the fabric.
You're confusing SAN (storage area network) with NAS (network-attached storage). Understandable mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.
Better than the mushmouthed "doubleyoo emm ay" or "ay ay cee" or even mp3pro.
Which reminds me of this old piece of trivia. WWW, the acronym meaning "world wide web," is the only known acronym in the English language to actually have more syllables than the phrase it's supposedly short for.
Not really apropos of anything, but amusing nonetheless.
So the only metric of computer value is raw speed? Personally, I think a Cray would make a terrible desktop system. It's expensive and noisy and it doesn't play Unreal Tournament worth a damn.
The analogy stands. "When you get one of those chairs, you see and feel the difference," you said. Well, when you get a Mac, you see and feel the difference.
And Solaris and Irix need to be renamed as well!
/usr/gnu. But, like I said, GNU stuff is not there by default.
I can't speak for Solaris, but the GNU software that's shipped with IRIX is all optional stuff, not installed by default. The core IRIX operating system, including all the user-space shells and utilities and whatnot, is made up of BSD, AT&T, and SGI code. Not a piece of GNU code in the whole thing.
You can install GNU stuff if you want to; the software packages come on the OS CDs, and the programs go into a hierarchy rooted at
RMS must hate SGI. Which, perversely, makes me respect SGI just a little bit more.
Nope. The only piece of GNU software that's essential is the C library, for which there are alternatives available. Everything else is just a utility.
I could handle begging. It's the demanding that gets on my nerves.
People think Ogg Vorbis has a bad sounding name? GNU/Linux is 10x worse!
Depends on whether you pronounce the "guh" and the "slash." "Noo Lih-nucks" isn't too bad, but it's ambiguous. People think you're saying "New Linux," which confuses the mundanes.
"Guh-noo Slash Lih-nucks" is really, really ugly, though.
But, in the final analysis, I'm sorry to say that I have to disagree with you. Ogg Vorbis-- or, as my friend calls it, "Ugh Mumble"-- is still the Worst. Name. Ever.
This is probably redundant (and should be moderated as such, if it is), but I just had to collect my favorite little gems.
The largest division in the community is between people who appreciate free software as a social and ethical issue and consider proprietary software a social problem (supporters of the free software movement), and those whose cite only practical benefits and present free software only as an efficient development model (the open source movement).
GNU Law #1: Never, ever, pass by an opportunity to turn the conversation toward our particular political and social agenda. And don't be ashamed to really stretch to make the connection, either.
People who value freedom are more likely to call the system "GNU/Linux"...
You're not against freedom, are you?
The shortest legitimate name for this system is "GNU", but we call it "GNU/Linux" for the reasons given below. [...] It would be ungentlemanly to ask people to stop giving any credit to Linus Torvalds. He did write an important component of the system.
Well, that's mighty generous of you, Richard, throwing Linus a bone like that.
In Spanish we sometimes say "GNU con Linux".
Dude, a Google web search turned up exactly one instance of the phrase "GNU con Linux," in this context: "Todo esto es curro, pero entre todos podríamos remover GNU con Linux...ehr... digo Roma con Santiago..." Not being a speaker of Spanish, it looks to me like this example is just using "con" as a conjunction, like saying "GNU and Linux."
There were no matches at all for "GNU con Linux" as a phrase on Google Groups.
The widespread practice of adding non-free software to the GNU/Linux system is a major problem for our community. It teaches the users that non-free software is ok, and that using it is part of the spirit of "Linux".
I really don't know what to say here. The pedantry of this statement shocks and amazes me. If the phrase "It teaches the users that [blah blah] is ok" were included in a leaked Microsoft memo, I'd be up in arms. The thought that RMS would publish this sort of statement publicly is just bewildering.
With this understanding, they can start to recognize Lindows and so-called "United Linux" as perverted, adulterated versions of GNU.
Sounding more and more like L. Ron Hubbard here, RMS.
If the Linux User Group in your area has the problems describe above, we suggest you either campaign within the group to change its orientation (and name) or start a new group.
Go found your own user group... but not in a way that divides the community or anything.
[Linus] has never advocated the ideal of freedom to cooperate, which is why the name "Linux" is mostly disconnected from that ideal.
So let me get this straight. If you have never actively advocated an ideal, then you must necessarily be opposed to that ideal. And if that ideal is freedom, then we've got a real problem on our hands! Linus is opposed to freedom, everybody! Sheesh.
He goes even further, and rebukes anyone who suggests that engineers and scientists should consider social consequences of our technical work--rejecting the lessons society learned from the development of the atom bomb.
Comparing programming as a hobby to the effort to build the atomic bomb is pretty arrogant, Richard. Once again, you've shown that your ego is way out of proportion to your contributions.
People who laugh at our request probably have picked up that mistaken picture--they think our work was done by Linus, so they laugh when we ask for credit for it.
Actually, Richard, we laugh because you are asking for credit for it. Asking for credit in this way is rude and overbearing. The most common responses are to get angry, or to laugh. I'm choosing to laugh, simply so that I may not get angry.
pronounce it with a silent gnu
Man, I'd give anything to live in a world where the GNU was silent.
EXACTLY. That's the best word I've heard yet to describe Gnu's attitude: pushy.
Which is ironic, since they like to spend so much time talking about freedom and self-determination. Well, guys, we're all free to call Linux whatever we want. Bossing us around isn't going to make you any friends.
When I hear, "preaching to the choir," I think you're talking about trying to convince people who already agree with you. I don't think that's what's happening here at all.
I think there's probably one guy in the world who agrees with everything on the gnu.org web site. And I don't have to tell you who he is.
This FAQ isn't preaching to the choir. It's preaching to a bunch of people who (1) don't really care, and who (2) don't like to be preached to. It's preaching to the cannibals.
You know, for a group that claims to be all about freedom, GNU's public communications sure are bossy.
Who cares? Market share is not the key to success in business. Profitability is the key to success in business. Say your kid has a lemonade stand. Do you think he's worried about competing with PepsiCo and Coca-Cola for a slice of that elusive cold beverage market? Of course not. He just wants to make a little more out of each pitcher of lemonade than he had to put into it.
Apple's the same way. They really don't care about selling to 90% of the computer market. They care about selling enough machines, at sufficient profit margins, to keep the lights on and keep the talent employed.
The analogy, posted elsewhere, to cars is flawed and wrong. A better analogy is furniture and consumer appliances. Apple is more like Herman Miller or Bang and Olufsen. Herman Miller sells an $800 office chair. An $800 office chair! Do you think market share is their goal? Do you think their business model is based on conquering the office furniture market and hitting a 90% share target? Whatever.
The API is one thing, but all code would have to be recompiled if nothing else. Also, I believe there are endianness issues, but I haven't had my coffee yet and I'm too lazy to look it up.
And why not release free tools into open source, so piles of developers are writing software for Apple for free?
The OS X developer tools are free. They come with every new machine for free, and they can be downloaded from the Apple developer web site for free. Anybody can develop for OS X... even you.
(This, of course, has nothing to do with releasing developer tools as open source. There's zero reason for Apple to release the source code for their developer tools.)
No, you misunderstand. He's not copyrighting the method of not posting, he's copyrighting the act itself.
I doubt very seriously that SGI's servers will come with either Gnome or KDE. These machines-- multi-hundred-thousand dollar systems that start with 32 Itanium 2 processors and scale up from there-- aren't meant for interactive use. They're multiuser server systems. That said, SGI might include an X server, or even a desktop environment, just pro forma.
That's also the primary risk factor associated with bacteriophage therapy. Mutant viruses are a bad thing, not a good thing.
You don't get it. SGI wasn't talking about porting IRIX to PCs. They were talking about porting IRIX to Intel architecture CPUs, and then putting those CPUs in Origin-series servers.
This is, in fact, basically what they've done. The new product line coming in January is an evolution of the Origin system architecture that can support either MIPS or IA-64 (in this case, McKinley [Itanium 2]) CPUs, with IRIX on the MIPS systems and Linux on the IA-64 systems. Whether they're going to ship both MIPS and IA-64 systems or just IA-64 systems is unclear at this time, but the prevailing opinion is that you'll be able to buy either. Same architecture, different CPU, different OS.
More information is appropriate here.
What WolfWithoutAClause was talking about is called bacteriophage therapy. A bacteriophage is a type of virus that attacks bacteria. ("Bacteriophage" literally means bacterium eater.) Bacteriophages were discovered in 1917. In the 1920's and 1930's, bacteriophages were used to treat bacterial infections like typhus and cholera. The results were very mixed.
In the 1940's, bacteriophage therapy fell out of favor as penicillin became more and more popular.
Recent studies of bacteriophage therapy in Eastern Europe and in Asia have tentatively concluded that it can, when properly employed, approach the effectiveness of antibiotic therapy.
But there is a problem. Bacteriophages and antibiotics work in pretty much the same way, albeit through different mechanisms: the agent in use attacks the bacteria population present in the patient, killing all those that are susceptible. Neither antibiotics nor bacteriophages kill 100% of the bacterial infection, because bacteria mutate and evolve quite rapidly. If bacteriophage therapy were in as widespread use as antibiotic therapy is today, we'd see the same basic problems: resistant strains appearing thanks to therapeutic culling of the susceptible populations.
Particularly if he picked it up off of a catheter. Maybe I'm not following the instructions, but I'm not currently rinsing out my urethra with antibacterial Dial.
'tail -f whatever.log'? Impossible on Windows without extra software.
Um... technically it's impossible on Linux without extra software, too. The "tail" command is part of GNU textutils, which of course comes with pretty much every no-cost UNIX distribution. But that doesn't mean it's not extra software.
Sorry to split hairs, but let's at least be honest here.