That's great that RH finally passed that mark... that's on top of the good news they've been announcing for the past few years.. from their revenue growth through the recession (thanks to the subscription model), to their entry into the fortune 500.
But does anyone here think Bill Gates or Microsoft stays awake worried about RH? They pulled in 72x more revenue, 159x more profits, and have 63x more cash on hand (50.69b vs 808m) than Red Hat. Microsoft even has a better profit margin than RH (32.5% vs 13.3%).
In Google's example, the number of goroutine calls was 5000. In the link you posted, it was set to 300,000, and he got:
3.14159598691202
In other words, 2 additional accurate digits.
I get that this is supposed to show how Go handles a large number of concurrent processes (not to calculate pi).. but shouldn't it still be accurate? especially if you are making 300,000 calls and are only posting 15 digits of pi
A few seconds?! I was just testing # of rounds w/ SHA512 for password encryption. The system has a AMD Sempron 140 -- a $30, single core processor. Plus, it runs XenServer... so subtract some % for the virtualization overhead.
And if you want more, here is one small piece of evidence: 9000€ collected in 3 months to fund Nepomuk
Nepomuk is a desktop framework that cost 17 million euros to develop. And they raised 9000 over 3 months?! That's only 3k/mo... not even enough to hire 1 developer. And you expect that one person to maintain an entire desktop framework?!
If they can keep that up, in just 472 years they will have collected enough to pay for the initial development costs.
The real problem isn't people using Linux because it's free.. If a developer wants to create a piece of software and give it away, or they sign up to work on a project that they know will be free, there really isn't a problem.
The problem is when those users, start making demands that cost the developers money. They demand features from a commercial version be added to the free version; or they demand tech support; or even just free downloads instead of a torrent. (Yes, that download of Ubuntu wasn't free.. can you imagine how much it costs Ubuntu to provide millions of downloads of a 2gb+ file?!)
And unfortunately, the most demanding people are usually those who aren't developers, who don't care about the software, and just want something for free.
What discount would Apple give them? They have _maybe_ 100 of these (probably a lot less). That's not a volume purchase. And there are some people that would have purchased iPads, but decided to rent them instead, and decided they didn't like it.
I really don't see what the upside is for Apple to negotiate with them.
Of course they are losing money on the iPad. It's a product that will get people to sign up for their service. It's like that 1 good song on a CD album. Or that $50 HD on sale today only on an ad flyer for Best Buy -- while everything else is regular price.
And so far, I would say their going pretty good. They got an article on slashdot. And now I know they exist. +1 for brand recognition.
Pointless. The patent wouldn't have stopped someone from patenting cataloging a large amount of factual information in an indexed fashion with a computer
It may also be that people don't seem to get a lot of value for their training dollars
Russ Roberts/Econtalk recently did an interview with adam davidson. He looked at a manufacturing company (car parts). This company tried training their workers previously, and about half of the workers did not make it through the training (for various reasons).
Now these are unskilled workers, so maybe you think it wouldn't apply to IT workers. But IT is a very broad topic. If you're great at kernel programming, that doesn't tell me you would be great at game programming, for example. Or even that you would be able to learn it well enough to do a good job.
If you pay to train someone you may be paying them to leave
Davidson made this point as well. If the worker completes the training, they have more opportunities. They are more competitive, and more companies will be willing to hire them. At the very least, they expect to be paid more for their increased skills.
So a company pays to train the worker. Then they have to pay that worker more and/or the worker may leave the company for another company.
And that company the employee left for... they get to pay the same increased wage for that worker (as the company that did the training), and yet they did not pay a dime for that training.
So of course companies no longer pay for training.
I'll play along. Name one company using text ads in February 1998.. go ahead.. I'll wait.
In February 1998 (7 months before Google was started) there was a company called GoTo.com. They were renamed to Overture, and then eventually sold to Yahoo.
Those text ads you see on Google, Facebook, etc. Guess who created those.
Those first 3 were from Yahoo's acquisition of Overture -- the company that invented the text ads that google uses. Overture was originally named GoTo.com, and was started in February 1998 -- 7 months before Google was founded.
Went to visit my sister in SanFran about 5 years ago. It started pouring down rain, couldn't see anything 10 feet in front of the car on the highway. No one slowed down or turned on their headlights. It freaked me out.
Each extra qubit in a quantum machine doubles the number of simultaneous operations it can perform. It is this which gives quantum computing its power. Two entangled qubits permit four operations; three permit eight; and so on. A 300-qubit computer could perform more concurrent operations than there are atoms in the visible universe.
Everything you say is true, but: Compared to Gentoo, FreeBSD can be a joy to operate.:)
lol
I've noticed Gentoo isn't used much on servers either
I never toyed with Redhat or its derivatives, due to an ephemeral dislike for RPM that has yet to fade.
There are some big downsides to RHEL.. I'm not a huge fan of the distro.. but 10 years of support(!)
It's pretty much the only distro that is supported for a decent amount of time. FBSD: 2 years. Debian: 2 years. Fedora/SUSE: 1-1.5 years. Who wants to upgrade their server every 1-2 years?
Ubuntu LTS is 3 years on the desktop and 5 years on the server.. but they focus so much on the desktop that I have some doubts that it would be a good server choice.
, they laid it all right out for me and had me initial it.
Did you actually read what you initialed? Because there were a number of people who were lied to by their brokers when signing the paperwork (don't know what %.. but it was a scandal a while ago).
My post was written tongue-in-cheek... I've been using FBSD on my servers for years, and on my desktop since 3.4 until 6 months ago. Honestly, trying to get FreeBSD working on Xen was the first time I really wondered about where the project was going. They're 10+ years late to the party.. for a server OS to miss the move to virtualized servers... Other than that, FreeBSD is a great server OS.
The installer in 9.0 is disappointing.. they switched from sysinstall to a new installer "bsdinstall".. but bsdinstall isn't really mature. They stripped out a bunch of options, and a minimal install is quite a bit bigger than a minimal 8.x install with sysinstall. Not sure how much of that is bsdinstall v 9.0 though.
They never did do much of anything on the desktop.. KDE was always incredibly buggy, Finally got frustrated enough with it to wipe it from my desktop, and install CentOS. Should have done that years ago. FreeBSD really is server-only.
I really like FreeBSD.. but I don't think it's as big a mystery about why it hasn't caught on.. It's a smaller project so they have to compromise on some things. Like the lack of desktop support.. fewer desktop users == fewer people who know it == fewer servers. Lack of virtualization...
Updates: have you ever tried to update freebsd?
Security updates: download the patch, apply it to the source tree, and rebuild that part of the OS.
Package updates: packages are frozen when the release is made.. security fixes are not backported to the frozen version.. so if there's a security hole in postgresql 9.1.0, you need to use ports and compile postgresql 9.1.1 from source.
OS upgrade: there are binary updates now (that was introduced maybe 4 years ago).. but traditionally you upgraded freebsd by downloading the OS source. Wait a few days and monitor the mailing list to see if anyone posted any problems, then compile the kernel, compile the OS, and then merge the config file changes between the two releases. Takes several hours.
The reason the BSDs have been festering for the past decade
As a FreeBSD user since 3.4, I resent that statement. Just recently I was trying to get a FreeBSD domU working on XenServer... 7.x was unusable; 8.x was a little better but still unusable/unstable.. but 9.0 works and has been stable (with a couple of minor problems). It's only 2012, and FreeBSD already has near production-quality virtualization. FreeBSD is really on the cutting edge of this 'virtualization' tech...
And just a couple of major versions ago, we got BINARY UPDATES.
Things are getting really exciting. Watch out Linux. FreeBSD is creating some really cutting-edge software.
Your benchmark compares HAMMER, ZFS, UFS, and EXT, when really HAMMER is most similar to ZFS. And in the benchmark, those two are pretty similar. The difference between the two: ZFS expects virtually unlimited RAM and will consume GBs easily; HAMMER will work with as little as 256MB of RAM.
Slashdot Mirror
That's great that RH finally passed that mark... that's on top of the good news they've been announcing for the past few years.. from their revenue growth through the recession (thanks to the subscription model), to their entry into the fortune 500.
But does anyone here think Bill Gates or Microsoft stays awake worried about RH? They pulled in 72x more revenue, 159x more profits, and have 63x more cash on hand (50.69b vs 808m) than Red Hat. Microsoft even has a better profit margin than RH (32.5% vs 13.3%).
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=msft
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=RHT+Key+Statistics
In Google's example, the number of goroutine calls was 5000. In the link you posted, it was set to 300,000, and he got:
3.14159598691202
In other words, 2 additional accurate digits.
I get that this is supposed to show how Go handles a large number of concurrent processes (not to calculate pi).. but shouldn't it still be accurate? especially if you are making 300,000 calls and are only posting 15 digits of pi
This is interesting... If you run the Concurrent Pi example program on the Go website.. it prints:
3.1417926135957908
But it should be:
3.1415926535897932
It's wrong starting with the 5th digit...
What kind of language is that inaccurate? And why would they use it as an example program?!
A few seconds?! I was just testing # of rounds w/ SHA512 for password encryption. The system has a AMD Sempron 140 -- a $30, single core processor. Plus, it runs XenServer... so subtract some % for the virtualization overhead.
Results: 10,000 rounds of SHA512 in 96ms
And if you want more, here is one small piece of evidence: 9000€ collected in 3 months to fund Nepomuk
Nepomuk is a desktop framework that cost 17 million euros to develop. And they raised 9000 over 3 months?! That's only 3k/mo... not even enough to hire 1 developer. And you expect that one person to maintain an entire desktop framework?!
If they can keep that up, in just 472 years they will have collected enough to pay for the initial development costs.
The real problem isn't people using Linux because it's free.. If a developer wants to create a piece of software and give it away, or they sign up to work on a project that they know will be free, there really isn't a problem.
The problem is when those users, start making demands that cost the developers money. They demand features from a commercial version be added to the free version; or they demand tech support; or even just free downloads instead of a torrent. (Yes, that download of Ubuntu wasn't free.. can you imagine how much it costs Ubuntu to provide millions of downloads of a 2gb+ file?!)
And unfortunately, the most demanding people are usually those who aren't developers, who don't care about the software, and just want something for free.
What discount would Apple give them? They have _maybe_ 100 of these (probably a lot less). That's not a volume purchase. And there are some people that would have purchased iPads, but decided to rent them instead, and decided they didn't like it.
I really don't see what the upside is for Apple to negotiate with them.
Of course they are losing money on the iPad. It's a product that will get people to sign up for their service. It's like that 1 good song on a CD album. Or that $50 HD on sale today only on an ad flyer for Best Buy -- while everything else is regular price.
And so far, I would say their going pretty good. They got an article on slashdot. And now I know they exist. +1 for brand recognition.
Pointless. The patent wouldn't have stopped someone from patenting cataloging a large amount of factual information in an indexed fashion with a computer
It may also be that people don't seem to get a lot of value for their training dollars
Russ Roberts/Econtalk recently did an interview with adam davidson. He looked at a manufacturing company (car parts). This company tried training their workers previously, and about half of the workers did not make it through the training (for various reasons).
Now these are unskilled workers, so maybe you think it wouldn't apply to IT workers. But IT is a very broad topic. If you're great at kernel programming, that doesn't tell me you would be great at game programming, for example. Or even that you would be able to learn it well enough to do a good job.
If you pay to train someone you may be paying them to leave
Davidson made this point as well. If the worker completes the training, they have more opportunities. They are more competitive, and more companies will be willing to hire them. At the very least, they expect to be paid more for their increased skills.
So a company pays to train the worker. Then they have to pay that worker more and/or the worker may leave the company for another company.
And that company the employee left for... they get to pay the same increased wage for that worker (as the company that did the training), and yet they did not pay a dime for that training.
So of course companies no longer pay for training.
I'll play along. Name one company using text ads in February 1998.. go ahead.. I'll wait.
In February 1998 (7 months before Google was started) there was a company called GoTo.com. They were renamed to Overture, and then eventually sold to Yahoo.
Those text ads you see on Google, Facebook, etc. Guess who created those.
Those first 3 were from Yahoo's acquisition of Overture -- the company that invented the text ads that google uses. Overture was originally named GoTo.com, and was started in February 1998 -- 7 months before Google was founded.
So Yahoo may have a real case here.
Went to visit my sister in SanFran about 5 years ago. It started pouring down rain, couldn't see anything 10 feet in front of the car on the highway. No one slowed down or turned on their headlights. It freaked me out.
So I call BS on your post.
In 5 years, assuming doubling every 18 months, it will only be about 10.5x faster.
68% + 42% = 100% eh? Maybe quitting video games would be a good thing for you. It would give you more time to study math.
slashdot... where two posts saying exactly the opposite of each other are both marked +5 informative.
AMD owns ATI
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/BiotechCrops/
Soybeans: 94%
Corn: 72%
The first GM crop was planted in the US in 1996
You only budgeted $60,000 for a used car?
A single Bugatti Veyron is $2.4 million, in today's dollars.
Seriously, guys?
The Economist had an interesting article a couple days ago.. at least it's interesting if you don't really know the details of quantum computing:
Quantum computing: An uncertain future
Each extra qubit in a quantum machine doubles the number of simultaneous operations it can perform. It is this which gives quantum computing its power. Two entangled qubits permit four operations; three permit eight; and so on. A 300-qubit computer could perform more concurrent operations than there are atoms in the visible universe.
Everything you say is true, but: Compared to Gentoo, FreeBSD can be a joy to operate. :)
lol
I've noticed Gentoo isn't used much on servers either
I never toyed with Redhat or its derivatives, due to an ephemeral dislike for RPM that has yet to fade.
There are some big downsides to RHEL.. I'm not a huge fan of the distro.. but 10 years of support(!)
It's pretty much the only distro that is supported for a decent amount of time. FBSD: 2 years. Debian: 2 years. Fedora/SUSE: 1-1.5 years. Who wants to upgrade their server every 1-2 years?
Ubuntu LTS is 3 years on the desktop and 5 years on the server.. but they focus so much on the desktop that I have some doubts that it would be a good server choice.
I pretty much agree with your post.. but:
, they laid it all right out for me and had me initial it.
Did you actually read what you initialed? Because there were a number of people who were lied to by their brokers when signing the paperwork (don't know what %.. but it was a scandal a while ago).
My post was written tongue-in-cheek... I've been using FBSD on my servers for years, and on my desktop since 3.4 until 6 months ago. Honestly, trying to get FreeBSD working on Xen was the first time I really wondered about where the project was going. They're 10+ years late to the party.. for a server OS to miss the move to virtualized servers... Other than that, FreeBSD is a great server OS.
The installer in 9.0 is disappointing.. they switched from sysinstall to a new installer "bsdinstall".. but bsdinstall isn't really mature. They stripped out a bunch of options, and a minimal install is quite a bit bigger than a minimal 8.x install with sysinstall. Not sure how much of that is bsdinstall v 9.0 though.
They never did do much of anything on the desktop.. KDE was always incredibly buggy, Finally got frustrated enough with it to wipe it from my desktop, and install CentOS. Should have done that years ago. FreeBSD really is server-only.
I really like FreeBSD.. but I don't think it's as big a mystery about why it hasn't caught on.. It's a smaller project so they have to compromise on some things. Like the lack of desktop support.. fewer desktop users == fewer people who know it == fewer servers. Lack of virtualization...
Updates: have you ever tried to update freebsd?
Security updates: download the patch, apply it to the source tree, and rebuild that part of the OS.
Package updates: packages are frozen when the release is made.. security fixes are not backported to the frozen version.. so if there's a security hole in postgresql 9.1.0, you need to use ports and compile postgresql 9.1.1 from source.
OS upgrade: there are binary updates now (that was introduced maybe 4 years ago).. but traditionally you upgraded freebsd by downloading the OS source. Wait a few days and monitor the mailing list to see if anyone posted any problems, then compile the kernel, compile the OS, and then merge the config file changes between the two releases. Takes several hours.
Then compare that to Linux.
The reason the BSDs have been festering for the past decade
As a FreeBSD user since 3.4, I resent that statement. Just recently I was trying to get a FreeBSD domU working on XenServer... 7.x was unusable; 8.x was a little better but still unusable/unstable.. but 9.0 works and has been stable (with a couple of minor problems). It's only 2012, and FreeBSD already has near production-quality virtualization. FreeBSD is really on the cutting edge of this 'virtualization' tech...
And just a couple of major versions ago, we got BINARY UPDATES.
Things are getting really exciting. Watch out Linux. FreeBSD is creating some really cutting-edge software.
Your benchmark compares HAMMER, ZFS, UFS, and EXT, when really HAMMER is most similar to ZFS. And in the benchmark, those two are pretty similar. The difference between the two: ZFS expects virtually unlimited RAM and will consume GBs easily; HAMMER will work with as little as 256MB of RAM.