I am talking about 5 dollar or less a month VPS. I think they average about 20 VMs a box that are more than capable as web/file servers with infrequent access, you can split CPU and Network usage between everyone but you can't split RAM.
A hypervisor that can't oversubscribe RAM is a hypervisor that's only doing half the job.
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
Rather than having a tax system based on how much money a person makes, why not have a tax system based on how much money people spend?
Meanwhile, the women are holding out for (and fighting over) Prince Charming (i.e. the good-looking, rich, charismatic guy) and all-too-often ignoring the nice but not-so-princely peasants.
Not saying the same thing doesn't happen the other way around sometimes too (guys will often focus way too much attention on physical attributes, to their detriment). But it still usually results in more desperate men than women.
If you want to include those rumored ports, why forget Intergraph's Clipper?
Because I was commenting from memory, and two decades of enjoying scotch and red wine have taken their toll.
The Alpha version of NT was never 64-bit, so it's hard to see how the Alpha version of NT could have been any help in porting NT to Itanium.
The Alpha [development] version of Windows *2000* was 64-bit.
At any rate, MS dropped Windows Server 2003 - the only NT version to exist on Itanium, so it's very unlikely that they had any non Wintel OSs all this while.
The current version of Windows Server - 2008 R2 - is available today and supported on Itanium (though is supposed to be the last version to support it). That means Microsoft are going to be supporting Windows on Itanium until ca. 2018.
Besides, Windows 7 has increasingly been a 64-bit OS, while ARM, still now, is 32-bit only, and given its target platforms, doesn't have a compelling need to go 64-bit.
Windows 7 had a 32-bit release. Windows 8 is everything but guaranteed to have an ARM port. Windows 8 supposedly won't have a 32-bit x86 release, but that's not really relevant to an ARM port.
i've already said how they are related, but you keep telling yourself that.
It doesn't really matter what *you* say, they're unrelated pieces of functionality.
At the end of the day though, my obvious preference for linux over Windows will never change as a result of anything you can tell me (I don't believe anything you've told me so far), and my arguments here are more for my amusement from your reaction.
It's unfortunate you choose to broadcasat your own deliberate ignorance. Everything I've told you is factual, trivially verifiable from multiple sources, and widely known by anything with even a passing technical understanding of the relevant systems.
that's why you need a virus scanner for windows, but not for linux.
File permissions and virus scanning are completely unrelated pieces of functionality.
File permissions are the doormen making sure the undesirables don't get into your club. Virus scanners are the bouncers inside who throw out the two guys that started a fight.
I think you're claim of windows permissions being superior is also frogshit, but it doesn't matter anyway (you use what you like, and I'll use what I like, and we'll agree to disagree).
You can believe all you want, but it won't change the facts. Traditional UNIX file permissions, for example, have no facility to cater for different per-user permissions (you can sort of kludge around it by abusing groups). Nor can they make a distinction between deleting a file and changing it.
difference is that i don't need a virus scanner for my linux boxes because the OS has set up file and directory permissions in a way that viruses can't infect the system...
So has Windows.
I've run Windows for 15+ years without a virus scanner. No problems yet.
viruses can't infect linux system files because they don't have permssions to do so, but viruses can infect windows system files because there is no real protection for them (unless you feed Norton or McAfee shareholders).
Viruses most certainly can infect system files if they are running as root, or some other user with appropriate permissions. Windows system files actually have more protection (via both the superior permissions infrastructure plus other watchdog processes) than Linux ones do.
if if (for argument sake) windows had superior filesystem permissions, they are like a guard dog with no teeth if they aren't set up to protect the system
They are setup to protect the system. The problem isn't that the guard dog has no teeth, it's that his owner keeps telling him those strange folks walking in off the street are friendly.
windows might have some kind of frogshit feature that Microsoft called "permissions" (read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_permissions#Differences_between_operating_systems [wikipedia.org]), but there is no prevention of viruses infecting system files. if its easy enough for viruses to get around windows' filesystem "permissions" there isn't much point having them in the first place. real (and utilized) filesystem permissions is what makes linux less vulnerable to malware than windows.
NTFS ACLs in Windows are considerably superior to traditional UNIX permissions. Viruses can only infect things they have permissions to write to, just like in Linux.
Windows NT was actually developed originally on MIPS [...]
The initial Windows NT development was done on Intel i860 emulators, then internally-designed workstations, before being ported to its other platforms (MIPS, x86, etc).
Problem was that while NT was a hybrid architecture to start with, more and more things were moved from user to kernel when NT went from 3.1 to 3.5 to 4.0. As a result, unlike NEXTSTEP, NT became less portable.
This is a non-sequitur. Whether components are running in user or kernel mode has little bearing on portability. Exhibits A and B being NetBSD and Linux. Added to which, NeXTSTEP (and subsequent derivatives like OS X) is a "Hybrid architecture" just like NT.
NT was available publicly for 3.1 through NT 4.0 on four quite different platforms, and an Alpha port remained until the last betas of Windows 2000 (and lived on internally past then to aid 64-bit porting to Itanium, before actual Itanium hardware was available).
This isn't counting the rumored internal port to SPARC (and IIRC another to PA-RISC).
The idea NT has become less portable doesn't pass any sort of actual analysis. It's highly likely an ARM port of NT has been hanging around in R&D labs since the beginning of Windows 7 development, if not late in in the Vista development cycle.
On top of that, the cost of pretty much everything in Australia is 2x to 3x as high as the US (incomes are higher as well, but not that much). So if you're an American (or, indeed, from just about anywhere) tourist, Australia is one of the most expensive places in the world to visit.
Australia's cost of living has been out of control for years and now the insane overvaluation of our dollar in the last year or two, combined with the complete lack of any attempts from either the Government or the RBA to act on it, has all but closed the coffin on our tourism and (non-mining) export industries.
Or, in short, when China stops buying our dirt, we're fucked (yes, Tommy, proper fucked), because we've thrown every other part of our economy to the wolves. Personally, I'm hoping to be ready to move to another country when that happens, and am taking advantage of the high AUD to stash as much money in overseas banks, foreign currencies and gold as I can in preparation.
But what, exactly, is the superior alternative for Hollywood? Give everything away for free? The financial physics of that don't work. Maybe they should pay for movies entirely out of popcorn sales.
I'd hazard a guess most movies at least break even at the box office (especially absent Hollywood Accounting), and many of those that don't would if not for ludicrously high payments to a handful of individuals.
Work it out as a matter of averages (ie: so the wildly successful films pay for the failures), and I've no doubt whatsoever Hollywood is rolling in profit before piracy even becomes a factor. While still paying some people tens of millions of dollars per film.
a permissions-based filesystem is Linux's saving grace... if Microsoft implemented the same in Win8, their woes would be over (well, at least as far as viruses etc goes)
What ? Windows NT has had filesystem permissions since 1993. Consumer Windows has had it since XP in 2001.
After evaluating our options in the 50-200TB range with room for further growth we ended up moving away from linux and to an object based storage platform with a pooled, snapshotted, and checksummed design. One of the major reasons for this was the URE problem, we would virtually be guaranteeing silent data corruption at that size with a filesystem that did not have internal checksums. The closest thing in the OS world would be ZFS whose openness is in serious doubt. It is scary how much trust the community places on spinning rust.
Why on earth would anyone do this, other than if they actually like what they do?
Because it lets you charge big rates working for large companies swimming in money.
Finishing an MBA sounds easier than this AND gets you a larger salary and better promotion aspects. For someone with a college degree in IT and several years of technical experience in industry, the MBA is a better option. It offers more bang for buck, and having a business-level manager with technical experience in an organisation probably makes for a star-performer employee.
Which is fine if you want to move into a managerial position. Kinda useless if you want to stay in a technical role, however (or lack the people skills to be a manager).
Some work generates revenue for decades. Sorry, but it does. That money's going to flow somewhere, so who is better entitled to it?
You're begging the question. You have not demonstrated why any work should generate revenues for decades, which is the question that must be satisfied before any consideration of "where should it go" is undertaken.
There isn't actually a reason to blacklist (for example) gambling or porn sites - this is a productivity problem for my boss, not for IT to police. There is no reason to block mp3's at the firewall - this is a problem for my boss, not for IT to police.
_Your_ boss *is* policing these things. He's doing it by telling IT to do all those things that are enraging you.
Problem is that increased productivity only benefits the fat cat owner of the fancy new robotic factories. It does not benefit lowly workers. They become irrelevant and get tossed aside.
It actually worked out pretty well until the late '70s or so. Up until then, everyone's incomes were rising in line with productivity increases.
Since then, however, only the "fat cat owners" have had their incomes rising in line with productivity. Everyone else is basically flat because the wealth they're generating is being skimmed off the top.
The right there is your right to liberty etc., so before a government can take away your right and put you to jail, it requires that the people act on this situation, it's not the government that is taking your right to liberty, government is not allowed to do so - it's the people who can take your right away, but then the people must do so in court.
Funny how when you're being imprisoned it's the people who are doing it, but when you're being taxed it's the evil Government that's doing it.
I find Germany (and indeed much of Europe) to be far more "bang for your buck" than the US. Since I value the items on the above list much more than I value having an overly large house or going on road trips, I'd dispute the claim that the quality of life is higher with a "relatively low income" ($100k USD was your figure - not actually all that low given that US median income is just below half that) in the US.
It's not just houses and road trips (we didn't have a particularly large apartment, and flew nearly everywhere for our holidays), it's everything. Travel in general (including accommodation, activities, etc) is cheap, and the range of destinations within the US is huge (everything from desert camping to heliskiing). Eating out, concerts, movies, playing sports, books, furniture, etc - all are cheaper. High quality food isn't in places like Frys and Safeway, but at Whole Foods, et al, you can get stuff that's at least as good as, if not better than, any supermarket in Europe and it'll cost you less. There's no shortage of farmers markets, delis, speciality shops, or anything else if that's what you want. Public transport (where it exists) is cheap, and so are taxis.
I will agree the ridiculous tipping culture (and its consequences) is a negative factor in the bar, restaurant - well, anything customer-service-related in general - experience, but that's just one of those cultural differences you just have to shake your head about and deal with.
Also, I wasn't trying to say the figure of $100k US was a low income in absolute terms (it's not), I was saying that for what you can get for it in terms of lifestyle, it's a relatively low income, because the cost of living in the US is about half what it is in other western countries like the UK, France, Germany, Switzerland, Australia, NZ and Canada. Our household income now in Australia is around $250k - a bit under twice what it was in the US - and we only just feel we can live the life we had in the US in terms of material wealth, travel, socialising, etc. Heck, when we moved back to Oz we bought nearly an entire household worth of furniture, clothes, electricals and other sundries back with us because even account for the ~$10k worth of transportation, it still cost about half of what it would have here for the same quantity and quality. I just wish it was easier to import cars and motorbikes into Oz, or I would have brought a few of those home as well.
I've lived in Australia, Switzerland, the UK and the US. I've spent a fair amount of time travelling in Western Europe and New Zealand. I've got a pretty good idea of the different lifestyles and the costs involved in those places, and I'll stand by my assertion that there's nowhere else I've been other than the US where you can live as good a lifestyle on as *relatively* little income once you're into that ~$100k (or 2x median income, if you prefer) region. Yes, it's a downright toxic place to be if you're poor, and a fairly crap place to be if you're working or lower-end middle class - but once you're into the upper middle-class income bracket, it's hard to beat, all else being equal.
(With all that said, the place I'd most like to go back to and live in (or near) is Zurich (it's our 10-year plan) - or Zermatt if we're talking won-the-lottery fantasies.)
For instance, average household wealth in OZ is FOUR TIMES average US household wealth, not to mention unemployment is less than half US rates, incomes are approximately double US rates and the currency is at parity or worth more than the greenback.
1. Australia is still in the midst of an astronomical housing bubble. If we're lucky it might just be a slow melt, but dutch disease is taking hold, unemployment (outside of the tiny mining sector) is rising and other economic stormclouds are gathering. Australia is the US ca. 2006-2007. In other words, most of that wealth isn't real.
2. The cost of living in Australia is easily twice as high as the USA (probably closer to 3x if you're comparing somewhere cheap in the US to, say, Sydney).
Slashdot Mirror
A hypervisor that can't oversubscribe RAM is a hypervisor that's only doing half the job.
Because it's a grossly regressive way to tax.
Hmmm.
Because I was commenting from memory, and two decades of enjoying scotch and red wine have taken their toll.
The Alpha [development] version of Windows *2000* was 64-bit.
The current version of Windows Server - 2008 R2 - is available today and supported on Itanium (though is supposed to be the last version to support it). That means Microsoft are going to be supporting Windows on Itanium until ca. 2018.
Windows 7 had a 32-bit release. Windows 8 is everything but guaranteed to have an ARM port. Windows 8 supposedly won't have a 32-bit x86 release, but that's not really relevant to an ARM port.
It doesn't really matter what *you* say, they're unrelated pieces of functionality.
It's unfortunate you choose to broadcasat your own deliberate ignorance. Everything I've told you is factual, trivially verifiable from multiple sources, and widely known by anything with even a passing technical understanding of the relevant systems.
File permissions and virus scanning are completely unrelated pieces of functionality.
File permissions are the doormen making sure the undesirables don't get into your club. Virus scanners are the bouncers inside who throw out the two guys that started a fight.
You can believe all you want, but it won't change the facts. Traditional UNIX file permissions, for example, have no facility to cater for different per-user permissions (you can sort of kludge around it by abusing groups). Nor can they make a distinction between deleting a file and changing it.
So has Windows.
I've run Windows for 15+ years without a virus scanner. No problems yet.
Viruses most certainly can infect system files if they are running as root, or some other user with appropriate permissions. Windows system files actually have more protection (via both the superior permissions infrastructure plus other watchdog processes) than Linux ones do.
They are setup to protect the system. The problem isn't that the guard dog has no teeth, it's that his owner keeps telling him those strange folks walking in off the street are friendly.
NTFS ACLs in Windows are considerably superior to traditional UNIX permissions. Viruses can only infect things they have permissions to write to, just like in Linux.
The initial Windows NT development was done on Intel i860 emulators, then internally-designed workstations, before being ported to its other platforms (MIPS, x86, etc).
This is a non-sequitur. Whether components are running in user or kernel mode has little bearing on portability. Exhibits A and B being NetBSD and Linux. Added to which, NeXTSTEP (and subsequent derivatives like OS X) is a "Hybrid architecture" just like NT.
NT was available publicly for 3.1 through NT 4.0 on four quite different platforms, and an Alpha port remained until the last betas of Windows 2000 (and lived on internally past then to aid 64-bit porting to Itanium, before actual Itanium hardware was available).
This isn't counting the rumored internal port to SPARC (and IIRC another to PA-RISC).
The idea NT has become less portable doesn't pass any sort of actual analysis. It's highly likely an ARM port of NT has been hanging around in R&D labs since the beginning of Windows 7 development, if not late in in the Vista development cycle.
Though "strangely" those same people rarely have a complaint about IVF treatment.
It should be around $0.80.
On top of that, the cost of pretty much everything in Australia is 2x to 3x as high as the US (incomes are higher as well, but not that much). So if you're an American (or, indeed, from just about anywhere) tourist, Australia is one of the most expensive places in the world to visit.
Australia's cost of living has been out of control for years and now the insane overvaluation of our dollar in the last year or two, combined with the complete lack of any attempts from either the Government or the RBA to act on it, has all but closed the coffin on our tourism and (non-mining) export industries.
Or, in short, when China stops buying our dirt, we're fucked (yes, Tommy, proper fucked), because we've thrown every other part of our economy to the wolves. Personally, I'm hoping to be ready to move to another country when that happens, and am taking advantage of the high AUD to stash as much money in overseas banks, foreign currencies and gold as I can in preparation.
I'd hazard a guess most movies at least break even at the box office (especially absent Hollywood Accounting), and many of those that don't would if not for ludicrously high payments to a handful of individuals.
Work it out as a matter of averages (ie: so the wildly successful films pay for the failures), and I've no doubt whatsoever Hollywood is rolling in profit before piracy even becomes a factor. While still paying some people tens of millions of dollars per film.
So what are the design problems ?
What ? Windows NT has had filesystem permissions since 1993. Consumer Windows has had it since XP in 2001.
What open object-based storage did you use ?
Because it lets you charge big rates working for large companies swimming in money.
Which is fine if you want to move into a managerial position. Kinda useless if you want to stay in a technical role, however (or lack the people skills to be a manager).
Because not all violence is equivalent.
You're begging the question. You have not demonstrated why any work should generate revenues for decades, which is the question that must be satisfied before any consideration of "where should it go" is undertaken.
I choose to change the bytes that define /etc as a directory.
Untrue. You can boot to last known good, which restores the most recent back of the registry (taken after every successful boot).
OSX is a UNIX the same way Windows NT4 with Interix installed was a UNIX.
_Your_ boss *is* policing these things. He's doing it by telling IT to do all those things that are enraging you.
Nothing prevents you from using alternative DEs on Windows. Other than the lack of interest in creating them.
It actually worked out pretty well until the late '70s or so. Up until then, everyone's incomes were rising in line with productivity increases.
Since then, however, only the "fat cat owners" have had their incomes rising in line with productivity. Everyone else is basically flat because the wealth they're generating is being skimmed off the top.
Funny how when you're being imprisoned it's the people who are doing it, but when you're being taxed it's the evil Government that's doing it.
It's not just houses and road trips (we didn't have a particularly large apartment, and flew nearly everywhere for our holidays), it's everything. Travel in general (including accommodation, activities, etc) is cheap, and the range of destinations within the US is huge (everything from desert camping to heliskiing). Eating out, concerts, movies, playing sports, books, furniture, etc - all are cheaper. High quality food isn't in places like Frys and Safeway, but at Whole Foods, et al, you can get stuff that's at least as good as, if not better than, any supermarket in Europe and it'll cost you less. There's no shortage of farmers markets, delis, speciality shops, or anything else if that's what you want. Public transport (where it exists) is cheap, and so are taxis.
I will agree the ridiculous tipping culture (and its consequences) is a negative factor in the bar, restaurant - well, anything customer-service-related in general - experience, but that's just one of those cultural differences you just have to shake your head about and deal with.
Also, I wasn't trying to say the figure of $100k US was a low income in absolute terms (it's not), I was saying that for what you can get for it in terms of lifestyle, it's a relatively low income, because the cost of living in the US is about half what it is in other western countries like the UK, France, Germany, Switzerland, Australia, NZ and Canada. Our household income now in Australia is around $250k - a bit under twice what it was in the US - and we only just feel we can live the life we had in the US in terms of material wealth, travel, socialising, etc. Heck, when we moved back to Oz we bought nearly an entire household worth of furniture, clothes, electricals and other sundries back with us because even account for the ~$10k worth of transportation, it still cost about half of what it would have here for the same quantity and quality. I just wish it was easier to import cars and motorbikes into Oz, or I would have brought a few of those home as well.
I've lived in Australia, Switzerland, the UK and the US. I've spent a fair amount of time travelling in Western Europe and New Zealand. I've got a pretty good idea of the different lifestyles and the costs involved in those places, and I'll stand by my assertion that there's nowhere else I've been other than the US where you can live as good a lifestyle on as *relatively* little income once you're into that ~$100k (or 2x median income, if you prefer) region. Yes, it's a downright toxic place to be if you're poor, and a fairly crap place to be if you're working or lower-end middle class - but once you're into the upper middle-class income bracket, it's hard to beat, all else being equal.
(With all that said, the place I'd most like to go back to and live in (or near) is Zurich (it's our 10-year plan) - or Zermatt if we're talking won-the-lottery fantasies.)
1. Australia is still in the midst of an astronomical housing bubble. If we're lucky it might just be a slow melt, but dutch disease is taking hold, unemployment (outside of the tiny mining sector) is rising and other economic stormclouds are gathering. Australia is the US ca. 2006-2007. In other words, most of that wealth isn't real.
2. The cost of living in Australia is easily twice as high as the USA (probably closer to 3x if you're comparing somewhere cheap in the US to, say, Sydney).