As I pointed out previously, incompetent programmers require more servers. Their code spends more time not running, requires a larger support infrastructure to deal with the problems created and generally reduces profits all round.
These days it's difficult to point at a specific individual, but teams are easy. You can see which teams are a group of competent engineers and which are just a clusterfuck[1] of developers.
Running a server is cheap. Paying a developer is not.
Civilisation is largely about the multiplication of human effort through the consumption of energy and automation. So, we multiply this developer's effort by a couple of thousand when running one machine and then do the same on another several hundred machines beyond. Each costs several thousand dollars to purchase and several thousand more every year in electricity, in cooling, networking, management and maintenance.
So, the effects of developer incompetence are also multiplied several thousand times often across hundreds or thousands of systems. Millions if we're really lucky.
So it isn't just one server, it's just one extra datacenter. It often pays to hire better people.
running a server for a day - $1
You think you get a real server for that? You get a tiny division of a server for that kind of money.
2) why doesn't these big server farms start looking at migrating code from PHP to C or C++ when the PHP+web design is solid?
The network effect. They migrate to Java instead.
Speed to delivery is nearly always primary importance.
Indicating speculative projects and disposable code.
English generally applies the neuter pronoun to inanimate objects, ships are a rare exception, the occupants (almost exclusively male) spend months at sea inside them, their lives depend on them.
I think the savings in deployment and long term maintenance of these terminal units are just an illusion.
1: Unix/Linux systems[10] use copy on write. You load an application or library once and use it for the many users who are running the same application. The application runs significantly faster because the CPU cache and even more significantly, disk I/O cache hit rates are far higher than on a desktop system which is running half a dozen unrelated apps. This means you don't need 1000 servers to handle the load of 1000 desktops, or even 100. Your system utilisation goes from ~3% to ~90%.
Desktops. No maintenance. No 3 year upgrade cycle. The money can be spent adding business value instead.
Your desktop support problems switch from a linearly increasing management headache to the logarithmically increasing infrastructure management headache which you already have anyway.
2: You need a service desk anyway. You don't however need a desktop support guy for every floor, or local mail and file servers with the additional storage and management cost that implies. With a centralised infrastructure, distributed filesystems like AFS actually make sense, and can reduce or eliminate data duplication and duplication of business processes.
3: In what way is a remote desktop one size fits all? 95% of business users barely need more than email. Those who do need more can be provided workstations/whatever if the advantage is obvious enough.
4: You run a redundant distributed compute cluster. See Condor, GridEngine etc. The nodes are independent. Killing one, or even some of them just means others get used. You lose the network or network services? Exactly how useful is a standalone PC anyway?
although terminals are able to a certain degree to deliver these, it is often awkward and demands more than a cheap disk-less unit.
The cheap diskless units are bog standard PCs without disks. If you can stream it to a PC, you can stream it to a PC running as an X-term. ESD just isn't that difficult to set up
Sure C++ would be faster running but not necessarily more efficient in terms of dollars.
I think you'll find that the servers come out of the operational budget, not the development one. So the costs of running 10x more servers don't factor into development effort. The costs should of course be charged back to the dev teams.
And you can relatively easily open the battery cases. You may have to be willing to desolder the existing cells, but if you can't be fucked doing that then pay the bloody price and shut up.
Not as quick as with hardware virtualisation and consumes rather too many host cycles, but kqemu in particular is pretty straightforward to set up on older CPUs with rhel or centos (just make sure the kernel module version is compatible with the emulator).
Yes, you are very lucky to have scientists to think for you. Thats our job.
That's one of the dumbest things I've heard in a while. Scientists don't think for anyone but themselves, they are there to provide testable theories which fit testable facts.
and so shouldn't be complaining when those specialists consider each others (peer reviewed) conclusions to be inherently more valuable
The problem with this is that scientists who are skeptical are excluded and you end up with little cliques of self reinforcing dogma. Religion, if you will.
I have to use outlook in a corporate environment and for large volumes of emails (tens plus per day), it's basically useless. Hours per day can be spent on the busy work of manipulating, searching and filtering.
Computers are there to do repetitive tasks and mail classification is exactly that. We are even able to automatically classify mail as spam or not, these days so automatically classifying, sorting, tagging and prioritising emails isn't new. Yet where are the mail clients which do so?
All that seems to happen is that the mail clients change GUI widgets, storage engines, gui widgets, storage engines etc etc... They are no cleverer today than PINE was 20 years ago.
So, we're back to procmail, bogofilter and a couple of custom scripts to autotag and prioritise emails.
What I would like (no chance) is if they charged/less/ if you were a low bandwidth user.
That is the default behaviour of usage based fees.
What most ISPs would like, is to charge you a good fee no matter what you use, then charge you again if you use more than their average projections. This is ironically what 95% of users want as well. Most don't realise they are subsidising the heavy users.
Slashdot Mirror
As I pointed out previously, incompetent programmers require more servers. Their code spends more time not running, requires a larger support infrastructure to deal with the problems created and generally reduces profits all round.
These days it's difficult to point at a specific individual, but teams are easy. You can see which teams are a group of competent engineers and which are just a clusterfuck[1] of developers.
[1] the collective noun for developers.
Cars, planes are usually also neuter. Ships are the main exception.
Running a server is cheap.
Paying a developer is not.
Civilisation is largely about the multiplication of human effort through the consumption of energy and automation. So, we multiply this developer's effort by a couple of thousand when running one machine and then do the same on another several hundred machines beyond. Each costs several thousand dollars to purchase and several thousand more every year in electricity, in cooling, networking, management and maintenance.
So, the effects of developer incompetence are also multiplied several thousand times often across hundreds or thousands of systems. Millions if we're really lucky.
So it isn't just one server, it's just one extra datacenter. It often pays to hire better people.
running a server for a day - $1
You think you get a real server for that? You get a tiny division of a server for that kind of money.
2) why doesn't these big server farms start looking at migrating code from PHP to C or C++ when the PHP+web design is solid?
The network effect. They migrate to Java instead.
Speed to delivery is nearly always primary importance.
Indicating speculative projects and disposable code.
English generally applies the neuter pronoun to inanimate objects, ships are a rare exception, the occupants (almost exclusively male) spend months at sea inside them, their lives depend on them.
A robot as a she? nah.
I think the savings in deployment and long term maintenance of these terminal units are just an illusion.
1: Unix/Linux systems[10] use copy on write. You load an application or library once and use it for the many users who are running the same application. The application runs significantly faster because the CPU cache and even more significantly, disk I/O cache hit rates are far higher than on a desktop system which is running half a dozen unrelated apps. This means you don't need 1000 servers to handle the load of 1000 desktops, or even 100. Your system utilisation goes from ~3% to ~90%.
Desktops. No maintenance. No 3 year upgrade cycle. The money can be spent adding business value instead.
Your desktop support problems switch from a linearly increasing management headache to the logarithmically increasing infrastructure management headache which you already have anyway.
2: You need a service desk anyway. You don't however need a desktop support guy for every floor, or local mail and file servers with the additional storage and management cost that implies. With a centralised infrastructure, distributed filesystems like AFS actually make sense, and can reduce or eliminate data duplication and duplication of business processes.
3: In what way is a remote desktop one size fits all? 95% of business users barely need more than email. Those who do need more can be provided workstations/whatever if the advantage is obvious enough.
4: You run a redundant distributed compute cluster. See Condor, GridEngine etc. The nodes are independent. Killing one, or even some of them just means others get used. You lose the network or network services? Exactly how useful is a standalone PC anyway?
although terminals are able to a certain degree to deliver these, it is often awkward and demands more than a cheap disk-less unit.
The cheap diskless units are bog standard PCs without disks. If you can stream it to a PC, you can stream it to a PC running as an X-term. ESD just isn't that difficult to set up
[10] Windows terminal servers are another matter.
It's a phenomenon we have also noted.
Sure C++ would be faster running but not necessarily more efficient in terms of dollars.
I think you'll find that the servers come out of the operational budget, not the development one. So the costs of running 10x more servers don't factor into development effort. The costs should of course be charged back to the dev teams.
It implies that 9 out of 10 times people choose some other product. OMG how dare they.
You could always define "smartphones" to be phones produced by Apple, then they could have 100% of that market.
e.g.
http://www.infoq.com/resource/articles/agile-kanban-boards/en/resources/Fig1_task-board.jpg
The details being recorded in whichever bug/ticket tracking system you fancy.
Clearly they have to give it back.
And you can relatively easily open the battery cases. You may have to be willing to desolder the existing cells, but if you can't be fucked doing that then pay the bloody price and shut up.
The fed caused the current financial crisis.
Hth.
Not as quick as with hardware virtualisation and consumes rather too many host cycles, but kqemu in particular is pretty straightforward to set up on older CPUs with rhel or centos (just make sure the kernel module version is compatible with the emulator).
And you? You're giving it to them, *every* which way.
Who's competent and incompetent?
Y'know, there by default vs reinstalling your kernel and patching everything every release etc.
Yes, you are very lucky to have scientists to think for you. Thats our job.
That's one of the dumbest things I've heard in a while. Scientists don't think for anyone but themselves, they are there to provide testable theories which fit testable facts.
and so shouldn't be complaining when those specialists consider each others (peer reviewed) conclusions to be inherently more valuable
The problem with this is that scientists who are skeptical are excluded and you end up with little cliques of self reinforcing dogma. Religion, if you will.
The words "Fuck that" spring to mind.
Huge salt desert in Australia which used to be an inland sea. It's about 15m below sea level
Dig 2 canals. boom. you have an inland sea again. Australia stops being a huge desert.
You'd need 2 canals at opposite ends to pump the salt out.
And Apple sues Nokia for what? The process for creating black shiny things?
Smith is a good choice if you're on the run from the police.
Hosting in cloud doesn't automagically make your sites more secure.
You mean... I still have to have people who can "manage" my systems?
NOOOO!!!!
Outlook, sucks. Thunderbird isn't a lot better.
I have to use outlook in a corporate environment and for large volumes of emails (tens plus per day), it's basically useless. Hours per day can be spent on the busy work of manipulating, searching and filtering.
Computers are there to do repetitive tasks and mail classification is exactly that. We are even able to automatically classify mail as spam or not, these days so automatically classifying, sorting, tagging and prioritising emails isn't new. Yet where are the mail clients which do so?
All that seems to happen is that the mail clients change GUI widgets, storage engines, gui widgets, storage engines etc etc... They are no cleverer today than PINE was 20 years ago.
So, we're back to procmail, bogofilter and a couple of custom scripts to autotag and prioritise emails.
What I would like (no chance) is if they charged /less/ if you were a low bandwidth user.
That is the default behaviour of usage based fees.
What most ISPs would like, is to charge you a good fee no matter what you use, then charge you again if you use more than their average projections. This is ironically what 95% of users want as well. Most don't realise they are subsidising the heavy users.
Hmmm yes but no.
And yet it's being worked on.
e.g.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.elecom.2006.08.029
Natrium is called SODIUM in English.
The chemical name is Natrium. Clearly English is wrong.
Also, if it would work, sodium is much heavier than lithium.
and much lighter than nickel.
Chemically very similar to Lithium. Plenty of Natrium around.