Ubuntu uses S3 for Ubuntu One (their online backup service). The mirrors are provided by third-parties (mostly universities, a couple of DoE labs, etc).
I'm sure mark pays for some of the servers.. but most of them aren't paid. Argonne National Labs, I'm sure doesn't get a payment for mirroring things for example.
And the money wasn't the argument Wil made.. it was only about the speed.
You really don't know much about ftp do you? 1) ftp supports resuming downloads.. most clients do to.. use wget... 2) a 10gbit connection can support more than one ftp download
I don't doubt that bittorrent is useful for smaller distros (I know that is true)... but Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian--the big distros.. rarely have problems with their mirrors around release time anymore. So my post really only applies to Will using Ubuntu. If he said linuX-gamers or something, I probably wouldn't even have posted.
irrelevant.. Will Wheaton's download screenshot shows him downloading at 1.75MB/sec over bittorrent. 1.75MB = 14-18mbit/sec. I downloaded at 2-3x that over ftp, and there were plenty of fast mirrors available.
Several years ago he might have had a point.. but Ubuntu has one of the best selections of mirrors available.. many of them on 10gbit or at least 1gbit connections. At least for Ubuntu, bittorrent really is NOT required.
He's on the big bang theory and eureka (and probably some others i've forgotten). looks different than on star trek though.. would have thought it was a completely different person.
How many non copyright infringing uses are there for bittorrent that (non-geek) people are familiar?
^ this. Until bittorrent is used by normal people for something legitimate, it's always going to be associated with pirating. It really just needs one really popular legal use... netflix streaming over bittorrent, or adobe giving you a bittotrent link after you purchase software (of course, neither of those would actually work.. also needed: someone more creative than myself:)
I second this. I downloaded Ubuntu 12.04 CDs and DVDs the day it was released, and I was able to easily find an ftp mirror that saturated my 40mbit connection.
Businesses do not care about 'eyeballs' when it comes to online advertising. That was the way old media sold ads - the number of tv views; radio listeners; etc. Because there was no way to track the response from the ad.
But online media has tracking. You can tell exactly what % purchase; how much each customer is worth; etc, etc etc. And any ads that don't have a clear ROI eventually die. Banner ads didn't disappear because of the number of 'eyeballs'.. they disappeared because they have terrible metrics.
Yes, I know how stocks are valued. That's why my first sentence says it's a terrible metric. The article uses the stock price to say Ballmer should be fired.
Why would you remove him? In the past 10 years he has increased revenue 3x to 73b and net income 3.3x to 25b. A year after he become ceo the xbox was launched, and it now has 49% marketshare.
If I only care about the stock price, then ballmer has been terrible. But if I care about the actual health of the company? Then ballmer has been pretty great. I think anyone who seriously thinks he should be replaced really only cares about their own profits from the stock.. we really don't need more companies that only care about this quarter's profits and CEOs who only value their own stock options.
Microsoft's stock price - while fairly high - has remained constant for ten years, while many of its competitors have seen enormous growth
Stock price is a terrible metric. For example, it will value a company that has increased its revenue from 25 billion to 73 billion, and increased its net income from 7.35 billion to 23.34 billion in 10 years exactly the same.
Now to me, 25 billion is less than 73 billion, and 7.35 billion is less than 23.34 billion... so I would think if a company did that, their share price would be higher, right?
Yet, that's exactly the position Microsoft finds itself in. Is this Microsoft's fault, or the investors who don't know basic math?
Well they can say that, but they generate around $100 million/yr in revenue. Compared to other internet companies, a value of 10x revenue isn't all that high. So they don't really have 1bn of untapped potential -- $100 million may be all that they can extract with that level of traffic.
For comparison, facebook had 1.1b in revenue last quarter (so lets say 4.4b/year).. and it's worth upwards of 100b.. which is 22.7x revenue.
So if that's the measure, then facebook is leaving MORE money on the table than Craigslist.
Yes, you're right: if a facebook replacement is completely different than everything in the past 20 years, then it might not require more computing power.
Of course, the trend over the last 20 years has been MORE computing power for everything...
"cares about it's users"? Are you kidding me? Do you know how much it costs to run facebook? For bandwidth, servers, electricity, etc for 900 million users?
$600 million for equipment in 2011, and another $500 million this year. (source)
That's just for equipment. Plus you have to pay for developers, server admins, office space, etc, etc, etc.
Anyone who thinks they are going to start a service to replace facebook without making money their #1 priority is an idiot who will fail the moment they have to open a hundred million $ data center.
Nope, we would definitely unify. Aliens would show up, round us up like cattle, and make themselves I nice steak.
Cows don't try to get humans to side with them against other cows... and humans don't care either -- they're all going to be turned into tasty hamburgers.
Slashdot Mirror
Ubuntu uses S3 for Ubuntu One (their online backup service). The mirrors are provided by third-parties (mostly universities, a couple of DoE labs, etc).
I'm sure mark pays for some of the servers.. but most of them aren't paid. Argonne National Labs, I'm sure doesn't get a payment for mirroring things for example.
And the money wasn't the argument Wil made.. it was only about the speed.
You really don't know much about ftp do you? 1) ftp supports resuming downloads.. most clients do to.. use wget... 2) a 10gbit connection can support more than one ftp download
I don't doubt that bittorrent is useful for smaller distros (I know that is true)... but Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian--the big distros.. rarely have problems with their mirrors around release time anymore. So my post really only applies to Will using Ubuntu. If he said linuX-gamers or something, I probably wouldn't even have posted.
irrelevant.. Will Wheaton's download screenshot shows him downloading at 1.75MB/sec over bittorrent. 1.75MB = 14-18mbit/sec. I downloaded at 2-3x that over ftp, and there were plenty of fast mirrors available.
Several years ago he might have had a point.. but Ubuntu has one of the best selections of mirrors available.. many of them on 10gbit or at least 1gbit connections. At least for Ubuntu, bittorrent really is NOT required.
He's on the big bang theory and eureka (and probably some others i've forgotten). looks different than on star trek though.. would have thought it was a completely different person.
How many non copyright infringing uses are there for bittorrent that (non-geek) people are familiar?
^ this. Until bittorrent is used by normal people for something legitimate, it's always going to be associated with pirating. It really just needs one really popular legal use... netflix streaming over bittorrent, or adobe giving you a bittotrent link after you purchase software (of course, neither of those would actually work.. also needed: someone more creative than myself :)
I second this. I downloaded Ubuntu 12.04 CDs and DVDs the day it was released, and I was able to easily find an ftp mirror that saturated my 40mbit connection.
Businesses do not care about 'eyeballs' when it comes to online advertising. That was the way old media sold ads - the number of tv views; radio listeners; etc. Because there was no way to track the response from the ad.
But online media has tracking. You can tell exactly what % purchase; how much each customer is worth; etc, etc etc. And any ads that don't have a clear ROI eventually die. Banner ads didn't disappear because of the number of 'eyeballs'.. they disappeared because they have terrible metrics.
Google adwords has 44% of the total online advertising market. Guess why?
Yes, I know how stocks are valued. That's why my first sentence says it's a terrible metric. The article uses the stock price to say Ballmer should be fired.
... and the data was from NPD.. not from microsoft. which you would know if you actually read it.
Sorry but it's not the number 1 console worldwide.
You fail at reading comprehension. I posted a link that clearly said it outsold all other consoles in 2011 worldwide.
No 1 console worldwide.. 49% marketshare
Except that the Wii has outsold the Xbox 360 worldwide
See that underline thingy.. click on it, and read the words on that page.
Xbox outsold, in number of units, all other consoles, including the Wii, in 2011.
Gates is still the Chairman.
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/exec/billg/
Why would you remove him? In the past 10 years he has increased revenue 3x to 73b and net income 3.3x to 25b. A year after he become ceo the xbox was launched, and it now has 49% marketshare.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=msft
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/2001/jul01/07-19Q014ER.aspx
If I only care about the stock price, then ballmer has been terrible. But if I care about the actual health of the company? Then ballmer has been pretty great. I think anyone who seriously thinks he should be replaced really only cares about their own profits from the stock.. we really don't need more companies that only care about this quarter's profits and CEOs who only value their own stock options.
produce the next product that would end up in every home - but Microsoft, under Ballmer's guidance, didn't.
BS. Ballmer took over in 2000.. the XBox was released in 2001.
No 1 console worldwide.. 49% marketshare
If that doesn't count, then what would?
Microsoft's stock price - while fairly high - has remained constant for ten years, while many of its competitors have seen enormous growth
Stock price is a terrible metric. For example, it will value a company that has increased its revenue from 25 billion to 73 billion, and increased its net income from 7.35 billion to 23.34 billion in 10 years exactly the same.
Now to me, 25 billion is less than 73 billion, and 7.35 billion is less than 23.34 billion... so I would think if a company did that, their share price would be higher, right?
Yet, that's exactly the position Microsoft finds itself in. Is this Microsoft's fault, or the investors who don't know basic math?
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=msft
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/press/2001/jul01/07-19Q014ER.aspx
Well they can say that, but they generate around $100 million/yr in revenue. Compared to other internet companies, a value of 10x revenue isn't all that high. So they don't really have 1bn of untapped potential -- $100 million may be all that they can extract with that level of traffic.
For comparison, facebook had 1.1b in revenue last quarter (so lets say 4.4b/year).. and it's worth upwards of 100b.. which is 22.7x revenue.
So if that's the measure, then facebook is leaving MORE money on the table than Craigslist.
Anonymous member says something stupid. News at 11.
Sure to be followed up by doing something stupid.
Facebook is MORE efficient than Craigslist. Craigslist has 28 employees serving 1 billion pages/month.
Facebook has 3500 employees serving 1 trillion pages/month
Craigslist: 35.7 million pages/employee
Facebook: 285.7 million pages/employee
So how does that contradict my point? Huge websites are not free or cheap.
Yes, you're right: if a facebook replacement is completely different than everything in the past 20 years, then it might not require more computing power.
Of course, the trend over the last 20 years has been MORE computing power for everything...
"cares about it's users"? Are you kidding me? Do you know how much it costs to run facebook? For bandwidth, servers, electricity, etc for 900 million users?
$600 million for equipment in 2011, and another $500 million this year. (source)
That's just for equipment. Plus you have to pay for developers, server admins, office space, etc, etc, etc.
Anyone who thinks they are going to start a service to replace facebook without making money their #1 priority is an idiot who will fail the moment they have to open a hundred million $ data center.
Um.. the borg cube also travels through subspace.. so it obviously doesn't need to be aerodynamic.
Nope, we would definitely unify. Aliens would show up, round us up like cattle, and make themselves I nice steak.
Cows don't try to get humans to side with them against other cows... and humans don't care either -- they're all going to be turned into tasty hamburgers.
That's why you don't design spaceships. The Enterprise had a great design because it was aerodynamic.. one of the most important things in space.
I'm calling bullshit on your post.
Other than trojans being bundled with pirated copies, do you ACTUALLY know of a photoshop virus?
I wasn't able to find one using google.. so they're definitely rare.
But since you think viruses for CS are all over the place.. why don't you post your proof.