Please, please, give us the algorithm that will detect this usage pattern without either using great gobs of memory to record past usage, or using a lot of CPU time. Until someone does this, the LRU algorithm is simple and works fairly well for the most programs.
My favourite alternative to LRU is a simple throw out a random page. In most "normal" cases LRU will perform better, as obviously it will never throw out a heavily used page, but the random method does not meet the wall once a program like this comes along. You are in effect scarifying the peak performance for better protection against cases like this.
Re:MS doesn't actually turn a profit.
on
Microsoft's Future
·
· Score: 1
If you are able to find good sources to this, you should write a letter to the Economist. The letter section there is important and its readers have somewhat more influence than us (slashdot readers).
If you are scaring the investors enough, you might even contribute to the downfall you predict.
Putting stuff from Earth to Moon costs the same amount of energy as putting it in parking orbit and then sending it
to the Moon. So unless you bring materials from somewhere else (asteroids?), those intermediate orbiting stations
would be useless. The reason astronauts came back in a reentry capsule is that their speed was too high and it
would take too much fuel to decelerate to Earth orbit velocities. They would have had to lug that fuel with them
all the way. Not very feasible, even if there was an orbiting station. Putting stuff on the Moon in general is not that
expensive, if you don't want to bring it back, like parts for a base for example. My guess is, they could have set
up a base on the Moon instead of ISS for about the same amount of money.
The point about using intermediate bases are that
there is then something you don't have to bring
all the way to the moon and back. E.g. landing
gear for earth could be used only from earth
orbit and landing gear for the moon in moon orbit.
Even some of the fuel should be possible to transfer in a low cost but long time transfer
that uses the moons gravity to assist.
A moon base would have been better use of money than the ISS though. After all - the purpose of
the back side of the moon is to enable astronomy.
Just think what could be done with a radio
telescope across most of the back of the moon.
I heard it on radio this morning, but the source they mentioned was slashdot. Now there are confirmations in the online newspapers too. The big serious paper Aftenposten tells that they have confirmation from the police.
This looks real.
Re:The downfall of MS and the rise of OS
on
ESR talks in Dublin
·
· Score: 1
Interesting how ESR predicts that MS is going to collapse before the antitrust lawsuit gets settled. Personally I'm not that confident of that -- "bad" as MS may be, they aren't dumb, and I'm sure they'll figure out a way to survive. But I agree with ESR that MS won't be quite what it is today.
I actually took his prediction to be catious. The antitrust lawsuit can take a long time before it is settled.
I happen to think that once the troubles for MS comes, it will hit hard and fast enough to surprice most of us. Why? Because MS is too dependent on beeing a monopoly for its income, and thereby also the value of its stocks. Once there is an alternative that looks good enough for major costomers to begin to switch - the monopoly power is gone.
Once your marcet share has reached 100%, it can only go one way.
The Internet creates mountains of public -- not secret -- data that needs to be analyzed -- a job for which expensive eavesdropping equipment is of no use.
Perhaps the best way to keep something secret is to make it public?
Re:"Another well-researched", my fanny...
on
Gartner Slams Linux
·
· Score: 1
Ok, I did not make my point clear enough.
It is good to come up with arguments like the one I responded to. In fact it is that sort of arguments that can convince many not to listen to the FUD. But anyone can make a list of claims. It is the quality of the claims that really matters, like it is the quality of the reports from the Gartner Group that matters.
The list of references can tell a lot about the quality of your claims. Say we took a look at the report from Gartner Group, and found that a majority of the references were from microsoft, we could - and would - draw our conclusions. (By the way - I do not claim that their references are mainly from microsoft.) If we make a list of claims about Gartner Group, and back the claims up with references, dates etc. it will eventually be listened to.
Take a look at any slashdot discussion, and you will find a lot of loud shouting, and the occational excelent point. It is mainly a question of determining what is what.
In this case it was a posting with good points, only lacking the references to make it an excelent point.
In case you had not noticed - slashdot now have gained the eyes of journalists. Make your claims as easy to check as possible, and that will make the journalists more likely to believe you and not the FUD.
Re:"Another well-researched", my fanny...
on
Gartner Slams Linux
·
· Score: 1
> 1: Apple would be in Chapter 7 bankruptcy
> > 2: Linux would either > a: be non-existent > b: have over a 50% market share > > 3: Novell would be out of business > > 4: Microsoft Windows NT would have nearly a 100% market share > on servers and desktops, and > > 5: so would OS/2 > > 6: Microsoft SQL Server would have killed off Oracle > > 7: We'd all have fully interactive TV sets now > (shouting at your TV doesn't count - most of them don't answer).
I have one problem with your list.
I'm not able to determine whether you are making it all up, or your 8 points are well researched. I can make a guess, but that is not as good. I could try to research it, but may be I don't have the time.
If you had included a reference, preferably with web address, I could easily check one or two, and that would have convinced me one way or another. What is more important - everyone who later had a discussion about this report could kill off the opposition with well researched arguments.
In the war that quite clearly is on the horizon, unsubstantiated statements (on both sides) are going to be numerous. Well researched and referenced ones will be important, and make it much more difficult for the opposition to continue with FUD.
As to which side I hope will win the war, the fact that I suggest sharing your research with the community should be hint enough.
This should be a possibility for other linux user groups too. Then perhaps the penguin could sing other places than at Villa Birdsong.
During the summer, I saw something about some hotel chain (Unfortunately I don't remember which) that planned to install PCs in every room. This should be a double opportunity for the linux community.
Someone who manages to convince some hotel chain that linux is better for them could earn some money.
By getting the business people who visits these hotels to try it, perhaps some of them would ask why this OS is not used in their own company.
some points from the article: (quick and dirty translation)
The small company Bellboy did in 1993 secure a patent on internet trade in Norway and Europe. It will now demand payment from everyone who sells goods and services over internet and telephone.
Rolf Willhelmsen applied for patent on decemper 17th 1993 on a method to make realtime access and trade over network or telephone. About at the same time www and mosaic were launced.
The application process means that only now in 1999 can he start to demand licence-fee for among others the international airline ticketing system Amadeus.
[My comment: I would have thought that Amadeus was older, which surely would make this patent void.]
The rest of the article was mainly reactions.
In a sidebar:
Norwegian patent nr 17 98 88 describes a system where the user over a public net can see the true delivery sityation, then directly order, and at the end get a confirmation in realtime.
[My comment: Perhaps this is a step away from the previous situation where algorithms could not get patent in Norway.]
um... Lucas wrote: Also have it not show other people's moderations to the moderators (everything, regardless, would appear as being posted by the Anonymous Coward with a score of 1.
This is not a good idea. I just tried the meta-moderation, and one of the cases where I was unable to judge if the moderation was fair or not, was one underrated.
The fact that the score the moderator saw when moderating is not available, may also a problem in other contexts. The fifth interesting may not be fair, even if the first one was. Moderation has to be done in context, but meta-moderation need som context too.
These letters should not have been sent, and the letters should not have been posted like this either. But they have. What can "we" learn from this, like "we" learnt from their test.
The test was probably hand-picked by microsoft to show nt at its best and linux at its worst. It did, however, point out a weakness in linux, and made sure it could be corrected.
This time mindcraft makes public a weakness in the way "we" respond to less than glowing view of linux. The letters have certainly been hand-picked. Make sure that this also is corrected!
This kind of attitude also goes for the/. itself. Moderating down well written articles that are critical of some aspect of linux, flaming, and moderating up flames are all things that put "us" in a bad light.
Let us use this then as an education. Tell those who flames that it will hurt the side they support as much as the other side. Try to moderate in a way that makes a debate better, even if it means increasing the score of someone you disagrees with.
Just as these flames comes back to "us" to haunt "us", posting them like this may come back to haunt mindcraft. Let them worry about that. Let "us" use this as a way to make an improvement.
If that happens, mindcraft may happen to do linux another favour - in the long run.
..., pointing out that Internet polls are of no statistical value, whatever the result.
The polls have no statistical value, but can still have commercial value. A poll like this will make people aware of their interest in making something for linux.
What better way to get free advertisement space on slashdot than putting up a poll on the web site about a possible port?
Slashdot Mirror
My favourite alternative to LRU is a simple throw out a random page. In most "normal" cases LRU will perform better, as obviously it will never throw out a heavily used page, but the random method does not meet the wall once a program like this comes along. You are in effect scarifying the peak performance for better protection against cases like this.
If you are scaring the investors enough, you might even contribute to the downfall you predict.
The point about using intermediate bases are that there is then something you don't have to bring all the way to the moon and back. E.g. landing gear for earth could be used only from earth orbit and landing gear for the moon in moon orbit. Even some of the fuel should be possible to transfer in a low cost but long time transfer that uses the moons gravity to assist.
A moon base would have been better use of money than the ISS though. After all - the purpose of the back side of the moon is to enable astronomy. Just think what could be done with a radio telescope across most of the back of the moon.
To go from United Paramount Network to a site with Support EFF's DVD Legal Fund prominently on the first page was not what I would have expected.
Try the help menu. Help->Customize.
Now if only I could use gnus to submit this to slaskdot :-)
I heard it on radio this morning, but the source they mentioned was slashdot. Now there are confirmations in the online newspapers too. The big serious paper Aftenposten tells that they have confirmation from the police.
This looks real.
Interesting how ESR predicts that MS is going to collapse before the antitrust lawsuit gets settled. Personally I'm not that confident of that -- "bad" as MS may be, they aren't dumb, and I'm sure they'll figure out a way to survive. But I agree with ESR that MS won't be quite what it is today.
I actually took his prediction to be catious. The antitrust lawsuit can take a long time before it is settled.
I happen to think that once the troubles for MS comes, it will hit hard and fast enough to surprice most of us. Why? Because MS is too dependent on beeing a monopoly for its income, and thereby also the value of its stocks. Once there is an alternative that looks good enough for major costomers to begin to switch - the monopoly power is gone.
Once your marcet share has reached 100%, it can only go one way.
The Internet creates mountains of public -- not secret -- data that needs to be analyzed -- a job for which expensive eavesdropping equipment is of no use.
Perhaps the best way to keep something secret is to make it public?
Ok, I did not make my point clear enough.
It is good to come up with arguments like the one I responded to. In fact it is that sort of arguments that can convince many not to listen to the FUD. But anyone can make a list of claims. It is the quality of the claims that really matters, like it is the quality of the reports from the Gartner Group that matters.
The list of references can tell a lot about the quality of your claims. Say we took a look at the report from Gartner Group, and found that a majority of the references were from microsoft, we could - and would - draw our conclusions. (By the way - I do not claim that their references are mainly from microsoft.) If we make a list of claims about Gartner Group, and back the claims up with references, dates etc. it will eventually be listened to.
Take a look at any slashdot discussion, and you will find a lot of loud shouting, and the occational excelent point. It is mainly a question of determining what is what.
In this case it was a posting with good points, only lacking the references to make it an excelent point.
In case you had not noticed - slashdot now have gained the eyes of journalists. Make your claims as easy to check as possible, and that will make the journalists more likely to believe you and not the FUD.
I have one problem with your list.
I'm not able to determine whether you are making it all up, or your 8 points are well researched. I can make a guess, but that is not as good. I could try to research it, but may be I don't have the time.
If you had included a reference, preferably with web address, I could easily check one or two, and that would have convinced me one way or another. What is more important - everyone who later had a discussion about this report could kill off the opposition with well researched arguments.
In the war that quite clearly is on the horizon, unsubstantiated statements (on both sides) are going to be numerous. Well researched and referenced ones will be important, and make it much more difficult for the opposition to continue with FUD.
As to which side I hope will win the war, the fact that I suggest sharing your research with the community should be hint enough.
This should be a possibility for other linux user groups too. Then perhaps the penguin could sing other places than at Villa Birdsong.
During the summer, I saw something about some hotel chain (Unfortunately I don't remember which) that planned to install PCs in every room. This should be a double opportunity for the linux community.
some points from the article: (quick and dirty translation)
The small company Bellboy did in 1993 secure a patent on internet trade in Norway and Europe. It will now demand payment from everyone who sells goods and services over internet and telephone.
Rolf Willhelmsen applied for patent on decemper 17th 1993 on a method to make realtime access and trade over network or telephone. About at the same time www and mosaic were launced.
The application process means that only now in 1999 can he start to demand licence-fee for among others the international airline ticketing system Amadeus.
[My comment: I would have thought that Amadeus was older, which surely would make this patent void.]
The rest of the article was mainly reactions.
In a sidebar:
Norwegian patent nr 17 98 88 describes a system where the user over a public net can see the true delivery sityation, then directly order, and at the end get a confirmation in realtime.
[My comment: Perhaps this is a step away from the previous situation where algorithms could not get patent in Norway.]
Hans
When this has been done, we only need to locate a suitable planet without life, seed it, and wait for a few billion years.
This is not a good idea. I just tried the meta-moderation, and one of the cases where I was unable to judge if the moderation was fair or not, was one underrated.
The fact that the score the moderator saw when moderating is not available, may also a problem in other contexts. The fifth interesting may not be fair, even if the first one was. Moderation has to be done in context, but meta-moderation need som context too.
In salon.com Andrew Leonard has an article about it.
These letters should not have been sent, and the letters should not have been posted like this either. But they have. What can "we" learn from this, like "we" learnt from their test.
The test was probably hand-picked by microsoft to show nt at its best and linux at its worst. It did, however, point out a weakness in linux, and made sure it could be corrected.
This time mindcraft makes public a weakness in the way "we" respond to less than glowing view of linux. The letters have certainly been hand-picked. Make sure that this also is corrected!
This kind of attitude also goes for the /. itself. Moderating down well written articles that are critical of some aspect of linux, flaming, and moderating up flames are all things that put "us" in a bad light.
Let us use this then as an education. Tell those who flames that it will hurt the side they support as much as the other side. Try to moderate in a way that makes a debate better, even if it means increasing the score of someone you disagrees with.
Just as these flames comes back to "us" to haunt "us", posting them like this may come back to haunt mindcraft. Let them worry about that. Let "us" use this as a way to make an improvement.
If that happens, mindcraft may happen to do linux another favour - in the long run.
The polls have no statistical value, but can still have commercial value. A poll like this will make people aware of their interest in making something for linux.
What better way to get free advertisement space on slashdot than putting up a poll on the web site about a possible port?
Hans