This post, from the author of a similar system, breaks down the pros and cons of an email-like approach to the problem.
One simple but painfully restrictive solution is to duplicate the data for each user. Basically what this means is turning the service into an email system. Each user is given a mailbox and whenever someone they are following publishes a status, it is copied into their inbox, as well as into all the other followers' inboxes. This brings the solution in line with existing systems such as webmail services where data partitioning alone can accomplish great scaling. But this comes at a price. First the data storage grows significantly faster and requires much more disk space, together with increased backup cost. Second, it makes other actions much more complex such as erasing a message once sent.
I had the same problem with the thrashing... disabled everything I could find, and it still wouldn't stop. Eventually I found an option to change how often the index updated under Power Saving, of all places. I'd give you more specific directions, but I'm not running Vista anymore. It's somewhere in the giant tree of options that spills forth when you adjust the power settings.
Mouse1: Fire Mouse2: Forward D: Strafe Left F: Strafe Right Space: Backwards S: Jump C: Next Weapon
E usually gets mapped to "use" or something like that.
This is how I was taught to play back in the original Doom days when I switched from gamepade to mouse. I've become extremely good at it (although I'm not as competitive as I was back in the day) but I don't know if I'd go so far as to recommend it to anyone. The hardest part was learning not to "lock up" by hitting forward and backward at the same time, since they're on different hands.
on my P4 1.6GHz...
on
Electronic Life
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
ben@mojo ~/test$ time echo '5.01*5.02-5.03/2.04*100.5+3.06+20.07-200.08+300.0 9/1.10' | bc -80.80
I'm sorry, but your friend is riding the Microsoft train, and probably isn't getting off anytime soon. Microsoft implemented many proprietary extensions to JavaScript (and the DOM -- the API for accessing the document through JavaScript), and if you rely on them then your code will not work in non-MS browsers. The assertion that Mozilla takes 4x the code is ridiculous. I've found that writing standards compliant code will run almost unchanged on any modern browser, particularly if you use the DOM.
Sadly, however, MS is not alone with their bad JS interpreter. Of course, Netscape 4 and IE 4 were almost completely incompatible, and Opera has terrible DOM support (and is, IMHO, a weak browser with poor support for CSS).
The world of web design has changed completely in the last year, with the stabilization of Mozilla, and the improved compliance of IE 6 (and to a lesser degree, 5.5). Sadly, many web designers and programmers seek to lock clients into the "old" way of doing things, rather than re-learn their trade. The proliferation of IE does not help this matter, as many lazy developers see it as their only target.
A great place to track the latest web design "revolution" is webstandards.org.
To digress for a moment, I don't think that most recorded music (especially commercial music) accurately represents anything even remotely like a live performance. This is because of all the layering and studio tricks that the recording industry uses to make music "perfect" (read: sterile). Does this mean that I think that CD quality is the be-all and end-all of quality? Of course not. The point is, that when 90% of the music-buying public (who essentially drive the industry) can't tell the sound difference because their livingroom stereo is a discman with battery powered speakers, then they aren't going to adopt it. I certainly don't think that the music industry is "suffering" from CD quality music. I like to think of myself as someone who truly experiences music, not just listens to it, but I can count the number of times where I've been in a position to truly appreciate DVD quality audio on one hand. Yes, I have a nice stereo system, and I have a DVD video player with surround sound. Why? Because I can see/hear the difference in both visual and audio quality over analog tape. Plus, I like the advantages that the DVD format has over tape (extras, alternate soundtracks, etc). But I don't think that I will be adopting DVD audio anytime soon, because I take music with me wherever I go. I only watch movies in one place.
I guess the question is: will people bother to buy it? The transition to digital audio (via CD) was easy for most people to make, since the difference in quality was obvious. Also, the new optical medium allowed for unprecedented ease-of-use (track skipping, random play, etc). For the most part, people were willing to give up vinyl and cassettes and move to this new media.
However, for a high majority of the population, CD quality is more than good enough. I'd say that most people don't have the equipment to fully realize the entire range of sound that a CD can produce. If they did, why has MP3 become so popluar? Why are people willing to move to a format that's "near-CD" quality? Because to most people, it sounds just as good, it works on equipment that they already have, and it provides unprecedented ease-of use. You can create your own mixes, playlists, and store a huge amount of music in a small amount of space. The only advantages that that DVD-Audio has to offer are increased quality (which most people can't appreciate) and longer play times (at a time when most albums come in well under the 80 mins available on CD).
I think that this format may very well fall into the same category as laserdisk: great for a small minority of the population, but essentially ignored by most people. And it should be.
It seems to me that TrollTech have every right to want to make money off of their hard work. By open-sourcing the *nix side of it, they allow open source developers to use their product. Let's face it: most open source developers are *not* using Windows, and if Qt had not been open-sourced, these programmers simply would have found a solution that was. However, people working in the Windows world are *used* to paying through the nose for every piece of software they run; from the operating system right down to their text editors. TrollTech is much more likely to be able to make a buck here, and probably had to do a lot more work to get their product to run.
There's no doubt that there's a lot of arrogance on the internet... especially in a place when freedom of expression is encouraged. However, I find it amusing that someone would choose to bash to arrogance and close mindedness of an entire group, and then turn around and stick an "esquire" on the end of their name.
Slashdot Mirror
I had the same problem with the thrashing... disabled everything I could find, and it still wouldn't stop. Eventually I found an option to change how often the index updated under Power Saving, of all places. I'd give you more specific directions, but I'm not running Vista anymore. It's somewhere in the giant tree of options that spills forth when you adjust the power settings.
You're almost as freakish as me...
Mouse1: Fire
Mouse2: Forward
D: Strafe Left
F: Strafe Right
Space: Backwards
S: Jump
C: Next Weapon
E usually gets mapped to "use" or something like that.
This is how I was taught to play back in the original Doom days when I switched from gamepade to mouse. I've become extremely good at it (although I'm not as competitive as I was back in the day) but I don't know if I'd go so far as to recommend it to anyone. The hardest part was learning not to "lock up" by hitting forward and backward at the same time, since they're on different hands.
I'm sorry, but your friend is riding the Microsoft train, and probably isn't getting off anytime soon. Microsoft implemented many proprietary extensions to JavaScript (and the DOM -- the API for accessing the document through JavaScript), and if you rely on them then your code will not work in non-MS browsers. The assertion that Mozilla takes 4x the code is ridiculous. I've found that writing standards compliant code will run almost unchanged on any modern browser, particularly if you use the DOM.
Sadly, however, MS is not alone with their bad JS interpreter. Of course, Netscape 4 and IE 4 were almost completely incompatible, and Opera has terrible DOM support (and is, IMHO, a weak browser with poor support for CSS).
The world of web design has changed completely in the last year, with the stabilization of Mozilla, and the improved compliance of IE 6 (and to a lesser degree, 5.5). Sadly, many web designers and programmers seek to lock clients into the "old" way of doing things, rather than re-learn their trade. The proliferation of IE does not help this matter, as many lazy developers see it as their only target.
A great place to track the latest web design "revolution" is webstandards.org.
Forget ICANN... support new.net!
Actually, that would be Michelangelo's Adam :)
To digress for a moment, I don't think that most recorded music (especially commercial music) accurately represents anything even remotely like a live performance. This is because of all the layering and studio tricks that the recording industry uses to make music "perfect" (read: sterile). Does this mean that I think that CD quality is the be-all and end-all of quality? Of course not. The point is, that when 90% of the music-buying public (who essentially drive the industry) can't tell the sound difference because their livingroom stereo is a discman with battery powered speakers, then they aren't going to adopt it. I certainly don't think that the music industry is "suffering" from CD quality music.
I like to think of myself as someone who truly experiences music, not just listens to it, but I can count the number of times where I've been in a position to truly appreciate DVD quality audio on one hand. Yes, I have a nice stereo system, and I have a DVD video player with surround sound. Why? Because I can see/hear the difference in both visual and audio quality over analog tape. Plus, I like the advantages that the DVD format has over tape (extras, alternate soundtracks, etc). But I don't think that I will be adopting DVD audio anytime soon, because I take music with me wherever I go. I only watch movies in one place.
I guess the question is: will people bother to buy it? The transition to digital audio (via CD) was easy for most people to make, since the difference in quality was obvious. Also, the new optical medium allowed for unprecedented ease-of-use (track skipping, random play, etc). For the most part, people were willing to give up vinyl and cassettes and move to this new media.
However, for a high majority of the population, CD quality is more than good enough. I'd say that most people don't have the equipment to fully realize the entire range of sound that a CD can produce. If they did, why has MP3 become so popluar? Why are people willing to move to a format that's "near-CD" quality? Because to most people, it sounds just as good, it works on equipment that they already have, and it provides unprecedented ease-of use. You can create your own mixes, playlists, and store a huge amount of music in a small amount of space. The only advantages that that DVD-Audio has to offer are increased quality (which most people can't appreciate) and longer play times (at a time when most albums come in well under the 80 mins available on CD).
I think that this format may very well fall into the same category as laserdisk: great for a small minority of the population, but essentially ignored by most people. And it should be.
It seems to me that TrollTech have every right to want to make money off of their hard work. By open-sourcing the *nix side of it, they allow open source developers to use their product. Let's face it: most open source developers are *not* using Windows, and if Qt had not been open-sourced, these programmers simply would have found a solution that was. However, people working in the Windows world are *used* to paying through the nose for every piece of software they run; from the operating system right down to their text editors. TrollTech is much more likely to be able to make a buck here, and probably had to do a lot more work to get their product to run.
There's no doubt that there's a lot of arrogance on the internet... especially in a place when freedom of expression is encouraged. However, I find it amusing that someone would choose to bash to arrogance and close mindedness of an entire group, and then turn around and stick an "esquire" on the end of their name.