A vast majority of large data centers run Linux as their infrastructure, and run Linux as the host OS on the data center servers. There, is that clear enough even for a Microsoft troll?
Let me try to explain this in simple terms for you. People do not blame Linux for Knight's trading losses because they do not believe the error had nothing to do with Linux. People do blame Microsoft for the LSE outage because they believe it had everything to do with Microsoft.
Note: the famous seven hour outage not the first, there were three others before it, all coinciding with high volume. Not particularly high volume compared to contemporaneous Linux platforms, but apparently too high for the Microsoft platform.
Incidentally, when LSE decided to eject the Microsoft platform, they also ejected the executive who brought in the Microsoft platform in the first place. Something to keep in mind for any exec contemplating going with Microsoft for a critical application.
Don't kid yourself, TradElect was a poster child for Microsoft's server and tools strategy. The project was swarming with Microsoft engineers. But you don't have to believe me, the financial industry rightly perceived Accenture as Microsoft's sock puppet.
Actually, this was an all too rare case of the industry dumping the blame where it belonged: squarely in Microsoft's lap. Not that Accenture deserves any praise mind you.
Since that fiasco, Microsoft's presence in financial platforms immediately dropped to zero. We can be thankful for that, and it demonstrates clearly where the industry thinks the blame lies.
1) Do not use Microsoft products 2) Rinse and repeat. Don't tell me it's unavoidable because that's bullshit. There is always a choice, you are just too comfortable and/or inflexible to use an alternative.
These days Microsoft is the "alternative" and Linux is the incumbent. A vast majority of large data centers run on Linux. Microsoft is the outsider trying to break in, but without any compelling story beyond pure spin and with a chronically horrible brand reputation. I sense that a few diehard Microsoft-addled PHBs will go the Azure way nonetheless, and hilarity will ensue for everyone except the victims.
Who in their right mind would throw down that kind of recurring cash for Azure?
Modern hardware is insanely capable, reliable and cheap.
More to the point, who would bet that kind of cash, and their corporate health and/or reputation, on Microsoft? Case in point, the 7 hour outage on the London Stock Exchange, blamed on Microsoft's Tradelect electronic trading platform. Microsoft was trying to ramp the system up to 10,000 messages/second at that point, a pitifully small number compared to contemporary platforms based on Linux. Not only was Microsoft unable to achieve even remotely respectable performance, they were unable to design and implement a system that could resist catastrophic failure, or when it did fail, bring it back up in less than a day. One can reasonably ask, did Microsoft ever test the failure modes of this system, even once? And what does this say about the efficacy of the.NET + MSQL database platform this was built on?
As a direct result of this incident, LSE decided to replace the Microsoft system with a Linux-based platform developed in Sri-Lanka, presumably by competent engineers not harrassed by the likes of Steve Ballmer.
What are the chances of the Tradelect fiasco playing out again on Microsoft's cloud platform? I would say, virtually 100%. Everybody who wants the equivalent of having their business model towed back to shore after suffering the Microsoft effect, please raise your hand and repeat: please, can I have some more of that!
The docx/Office Open XML format [wikipedia.org] was standardized, and the specification is open. This part has been solved already.
Docx/OOXML is a fake standard, pushed through by Microsoft by bribery and packing the ISO committees. OOXML is full of "specifications" of the form "like Word does it". Spelling this in XML does not change a thing: the formats remain as tied to the closed and arbitrary program code as they ever were.
Because debugging did not even make the list, I must assume that the author is only an armchair programmer, or only writes toy programs. And why is "choosing names" rated harder than "designing"? This opinion could only come from someone who is often required to choose names, but never to design.
The only way to get even less window space in relation to interior volume would be to design it as a sphere. Even a borg cube would have more windows.
May I suggest a modest design improvement: dig a canal to the bay and moor Steve Job's equally iconic and ugly yacht right in the center of the frisbee ring. The point is so nobody forgets him, right?
So this is a big middle finger to the open source driver developers
If they had decided to ship the box with Windows, you might have a point. Otherwise, this is shaping up to be a huge expansion of Linux's presence in the non-server PC market. Definitely the opposite of the proverbial finger.
But AMD isn't out of the running yet. By "carefully designed to cost less" they strongly imply they have an AMD build in mind, either APC or discrete card or both. And when they say "be tiny or super quiet" they seem to be talking about ARM. By sticking with standard hardware they are in a position to deliver a wide range of options to satisfy the needs not just of hard core gamers, but casual users on a budget.
If you sell 100,000 units and save a buck a part, you've paid for the engineer time for a whole year.
That's just the point: a highly capable ARM processor can be had for a buck these days in quantity, and still dropping. You can't save a buck because it only costs a buck. Now you are back to that expensive engineering team, and the marketing campaign that is being held up.
Your washing machine doesn't even need a 32-bit processor.
You would be surprised The question is, do you want to put up with 8051 weirdo nastiness or a nice clean arm design. The original 8051 was about 30K transistors, so was the ARM 2. Which would you rather program?
Since those days, transistor density increased more than a factor of a thousand, essentially wiping out the cost advantage of 8 and 16 bit processors, they all cost less than a buck. And see this coherent argument for why a 32 bit arm may be more efficient than an 8 bit 8051 variant: it takes way fewer cycles to get things done.
Finally, there is productivity. Quick to market counts for a lot, and low engineering costs means shorter, more agressive product cycles. The modern manufacturer just can't afford to have expensive engineers futzing around with processor limitations.
I don't know about you, but my new LG washing machine seems to put a lot of thought into what it's doing in order to get the clothes clean using the least amount of power and water, with dozens of different options. They probably saved some parts cost by implementing the motor controller in software. I would not be surprised at all to learn that they spent a buck to put a 32 bit arm core in it. My next washing machine will be on my home network and when it's done it will notify my cell phone. Probably running Linux.
I seriously doubt that ARM itself is going to develop the 32-bit platform much beyond where it is today. And if they ever decide to jump to Intel, Atom is also 64-bit.
Do you seriously think your washing machine needs a 64 bit processor? And do you have any idea how many more applicance-level processors you have in your home than cell phones and tablets? And how many people in the world want a phone but do not want to pay anything remotely close to $500 for it?
The IPhone 5s has 1 GB RAM. That is less than 4 GB. Inescapable conclusion is that the state reason is pure spin. Let's be honest, Tim Cook couldn't think of any actual innovation to build into the phone so doubling the processor width and increasing the battery size is as far as his paper pusher imagination could take him. Face it, Tim Cook is an operations guy, not a visionary.
What Apple absolutely needed to do this time was:
1) Not a product refresh! A new model please. 2) Bigger screen... duh. 3) Banish the dot-for-dot resolution albatross that ties ios products to multiples of 640 horizontal resolution
For extra credit:
4) Removable battery 5) Expandable flash slot
Apple's final score: zero for five. Better luck next time.
It seems apparent that you view yourself as a well rounded individual, full of the milk of human kindness and particularly expert in the ways of finance. Go ahead and think that if it makes you feel better.
"Many analysts are not happy with the actual iPhones unveiled by Apple Inc. (AAPL) on Tuesday. They’re concerned that the iPhone 5C isn’t priced low enough to be able to adequately address emerging markets."
"Garcha also noted that the specs of both handsets are “not quite on par” with those of other high-end handsets."
Ouch! Conservative prediction: general trend for Apple is down, for market share, for sales and for stock price. Go ahead and think of it as a retrace after a runup if it makes you feel better.
No they don't, they introduce a refresh with minor changes every other year. That model just doesn't cut it any more with competitors introducing genuine new models every six months or so.
Slashdot Mirror
A vast majority of large data centers run Linux as their infrastructure, and run Linux as the host OS on the data center servers. There, is that clear enough even for a Microsoft troll?
Let me try to explain this in simple terms for you. People do not blame Linux for Knight's trading losses because they do not believe the error had nothing to do with Linux. People do blame Microsoft for the LSE outage because they believe it had everything to do with Microsoft.
Note: the famous seven hour outage not the first, there were three others before it, all coinciding with high volume. Not particularly high volume compared to contemporaneous Linux platforms, but apparently too high for the Microsoft platform.
Incidentally, when LSE decided to eject the Microsoft platform, they also ejected the executive who brought in the Microsoft platform in the first place. Something to keep in mind for any exec contemplating going with Microsoft for a critical application.
Don't kid yourself, TradElect was a poster child for Microsoft's server and tools strategy. The project was swarming with Microsoft engineers. But you don't have to believe me, the financial industry rightly perceived Accenture as Microsoft's sock puppet.
Actually, this was an all too rare case of the industry dumping the blame where it belonged: squarely in Microsoft's lap. Not that Accenture deserves any praise mind you.
What makes this whole story especially sweet is the way Microsoft crowed about its LSE win. Not surprisingly, Microsoft pulled down http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/facts/default.mspx long ago, but the net remembers it.
Since that fiasco, Microsoft's presence in financial platforms immediately dropped to zero. We can be thankful for that, and it demonstrates clearly where the industry thinks the blame lies.
1) Do not use Microsoft products 2) Rinse and repeat. Don't tell me it's unavoidable because that's bullshit. There is always a choice, you are just too comfortable and/or inflexible to use an alternative.
These days Microsoft is the "alternative" and Linux is the incumbent. A vast majority of large data centers run on Linux. Microsoft is the outsider trying to break in, but without any compelling story beyond pure spin and with a chronically horrible brand reputation. I sense that a few diehard Microsoft-addled PHBs will go the Azure way nonetheless, and hilarity will ensue for everyone except the victims.
Who in their right mind would throw down that kind of recurring cash for Azure?
Modern hardware is insanely capable, reliable and cheap.
More to the point, who would bet that kind of cash, and their corporate health and/or reputation, on Microsoft? Case in point, the 7 hour outage on the London Stock Exchange, blamed on Microsoft's Tradelect electronic trading platform. Microsoft was trying to ramp the system up to 10,000 messages/second at that point, a pitifully small number compared to contemporary platforms based on Linux. Not only was Microsoft unable to achieve even remotely respectable performance, they were unable to design and implement a system that could resist catastrophic failure, or when it did fail, bring it back up in less than a day. One can reasonably ask, did Microsoft ever test the failure modes of this system, even once? And what does this say about the efficacy of the .NET + MSQL database platform this was built on?
As a direct result of this incident, LSE decided to replace the Microsoft system with a Linux-based platform developed in Sri-Lanka, presumably by competent engineers not harrassed by the likes of Steve Ballmer.
What are the chances of the Tradelect fiasco playing out again on Microsoft's cloud platform? I would say, virtually 100%. Everybody who wants the equivalent of having their business model towed back to shore after suffering the Microsoft effect, please raise your hand and repeat: please, can I have some more of that!
The docx/Office Open XML format [wikipedia.org] was standardized, and the specification is open. This part has been solved already.
Docx/OOXML is a fake standard, pushed through by Microsoft by bribery and packing the ISO committees. OOXML is full of "specifications" of the form "like Word does it". Spelling this in XML does not change a thing: the formats remain as tied to the closed and arbitrary program code as they ever were.
Because debugging did not even make the list, I must assume that the author is only an armchair programmer, or only writes toy programs. And why is "choosing names" rated harder than "designing"? This opinion could only come from someone who is often required to choose names, but never to design.
The only way to get even less window space in relation to interior volume would be to design it as a sphere. Even a borg cube would have more windows.
May I suggest a modest design improvement: dig a canal to the bay and moor Steve Job's equally iconic and ugly yacht right in the center of the frisbee ring. The point is so nobody forgets him, right?
800X600? What is that, an old pda?
It's basically just a PC masquerading as a console.
Much like the XBox, except not locked down and without the Microsoft Tax.
800x600, what kind of troll is that?
So this is a big middle finger to the open source driver developers
If they had decided to ship the box with Windows, you might have a point. Otherwise, this is shaping up to be a huge expansion of Linux's presence in the non-server PC market. Definitely the opposite of the proverbial finger.
But AMD isn't out of the running yet. By "carefully designed to cost less" they strongly imply they have an AMD build in mind, either APC or discrete card or both. And when they say "be tiny or super quiet" they seem to be talking about ARM. By sticking with standard hardware they are in a position to deliver a wide range of options to satisfy the needs not just of hard core gamers, but casual users on a budget.
They're getting ready for the coronation of Elop
What's stupid is paying $900 for a phone...
You can stop right there.
Chemical weapons are particularly effective at killing women, children and noncombatants, and in a particularly horrible way.
If you sell 100,000 units and save a buck a part, you've paid for the engineer time for a whole year.
That's just the point: a highly capable ARM processor can be had for a buck these days in quantity, and still dropping. You can't save a buck because it only costs a buck. Now you are back to that expensive engineering team, and the marketing campaign that is being held up.
Old enough to know what happens to Apple corp when Steve Jobs goes away.
Your washing machine doesn't even need a 32-bit processor.
You would be surprised The question is, do you want to put up with 8051 weirdo nastiness or a nice clean arm design. The original 8051 was about 30K transistors, so was the ARM 2. Which would you rather program?
Since those days, transistor density increased more than a factor of a thousand, essentially wiping out the cost advantage of 8 and 16 bit processors, they all cost less than a buck. And see this coherent argument for why a 32 bit arm may be more efficient than an 8 bit 8051 variant: it takes way fewer cycles to get things done.
Finally, there is productivity. Quick to market counts for a lot, and low engineering costs means shorter, more agressive product cycles. The modern manufacturer just can't afford to have expensive engineers futzing around with processor limitations.
I don't know about you, but my new LG washing machine seems to put a lot of thought into what it's doing in order to get the clothes clean using the least amount of power and water, with dozens of different options. They probably saved some parts cost by implementing the motor controller in software. I would not be surprised at all to learn that they spent a buck to put a 32 bit arm core in it. My next washing machine will be on my home network and when it's done it will notify my cell phone. Probably running Linux.
I seriously doubt that ARM itself is going to develop the 32-bit platform much beyond where it is today. And if they ever decide to jump to Intel, Atom is also 64-bit.
Do you seriously think your washing machine needs a 64 bit processor? And do you have any idea how many more applicance-level processors you have in your home than cell phones and tablets? And how many people in the world want a phone but do not want to pay anything remotely close to $500 for it?
Gee I am awed by your wholehearted support of Apple's slide into irrelevance. Great job, keep it up.
I suspect they went to 64-bit for the simple reason that it is the direction ARM is going.
I (like many others) suspect that they went for 64 bits to hand the marketing department a bigger number to crow about.
The IPhone 5s has 1 GB RAM. That is less than 4 GB. Inescapable conclusion is that the state reason is pure spin. Let's be honest, Tim Cook couldn't think of any actual innovation to build into the phone so doubling the processor width and increasing the battery size is as far as his paper pusher imagination could take him. Face it, Tim Cook is an operations guy, not a visionary.
What Apple absolutely needed to do this time was:
1) Not a product refresh! A new model please.
2) Bigger screen... duh.
3) Banish the dot-for-dot resolution albatross that ties ios products to multiples of 640 horizontal resolution
For extra credit:
4) Removable battery
5) Expandable flash slot
Apple's final score: zero for five. Better luck next time.
It seems apparent that you view yourself as a well rounded individual, full of the milk of human kindness and particularly expert in the ways of finance. Go ahead and think that if it makes you feel better.
Wow, you really are a koolaid guzzler. Why believe me?
"Many analysts are not happy with the actual iPhones unveiled by Apple Inc. (AAPL) on Tuesday. They’re concerned that the iPhone 5C isn’t priced low enough to be able to adequately address emerging markets."
"Garcha also noted that the specs of both handsets are “not quite on par” with those of other high-end handsets."
Ouch! Conservative prediction: general trend for Apple is down, for market share, for sales and for stock price. Go ahead and think of it as a retrace after a runup if it makes you feel better.
They release a new model every year.
No they don't, they introduce a refresh with minor changes every other year. That model just doesn't cut it any more with competitors introducing genuine new models every six months or so.