Only when Windows 386 and WIndows 3.0 came out was Windows usable. Even then most people didn't use it. It just slowed down their dos programs.
Only when Windows 3.11 came out did WIndows become popular. Mostly to run DOS apps. Windows won because Microsoft just gave it away for the longest time. Almost nobody would have paid for it. That is why all the others failed. Most people wouldn't pay for a program to run programs!
Actually, Windows 3.0 was the (surprising to everyone, including Microsoft) turning point, and largely the reason that today we have Windows NT and not OS/2 NT.
Also, people were more than happy to pay for a "program to run programs" when it gave them things like multitasking, WYSIWYG and consistent printer support (then later, TT fonts and networking).
I stand by my assertion, Microsoft was way behind the curve in real multi-tasking. Arguably, it wasn't until at least Windows '98 where Windows had any meaningful multi-tasking -- almost 20 years after they licensed the technology from someone else.
Windows 98 had the same pre-emptive (for 32-bit processes) multitasking capabilities as Windows 95, NT had fully pre-emptive multitasking two years before that.
DOS, Windows 3.x and OS/2 1.x did not, due to a combination of hardware constraints and legacy support.
If someone incorporated themselves, they would still have to pay themselves a wage and it would be taxed on their personal income in which they would need to pay income taxes on.
Of course, the "company" could provide pretty much everything a person needs to live - transport, housing, food, etc - as "expenses".
The best way to produce the situation you want - the majority of profits fed back into the business and employees - is punishingly high income taxes for the super-rich and (particularly) corporations, with appropriate deductions (most of which already exist anyway) when that money is ploughed back into the business and employees.
Perhaps I'm atypical, but I absolutely loved my "150 in one" electronic kit. Here is a pic [flickr.com] of the exact same kit I had when I was 8. I built every project, and came up to plenty of my own little circuits. I don't know what the modern equivalent is nowadays - perhaps heavier on the digital / logic side?
These days that's either a terrorist training tool or something that might expose a poor snowflake to possible risk. Ergo, children are not allowed to have them.
But would you really need to even have any VMs if you can 10-20x as many servers in the same amount of space? Instead of running server on a VM you could just dedicate it to its own ARM computer.
Yes. VMs are massively easier to manage than physical machines.
If someone *really* wanted to smuggle "illegal" data of some kind into the country, they wouldn't be daft enough to travel with it on their laptop. They'd encrypt it and email it to themselves; or upload it to a cloud storage service, or have a file server of their own to FTP it into; or dump it into some random usenet group; or any of probably a dozen other ways to move data without physically carrying anything incriminating with them. The fact that this is lost on these thugs kind of blows "competent" out of the water.
I think you dramatically overestimate the intelligence of the average "criminal".
I'm still trying to understand how border security is enhanced by searching a hard drive when if I want to get "illegal" information somewhere I could just email myself.
Because a) most criminals aren't very smart and b) email (or anything similar) is not always a viable option if your filesizes are large and your connectivity slow.
No, they're not. They're either financial support for an issue, or bribes, depending on your perspective.
At no point is "speech" involved, unless the currency of the land changed dramatically when I wasn't looking.
I'm against all forms of political campaign reform laws, as a pure violation of 1st Amendment Rights.
No-one is saying people shouldn't be able to get up on their soapboxes and say whatever they want. They're saying that how much you're allowed to say shouldn't be dictated by your wallet, which is the inherent result of classifying political donations as speech.
I need high density because rack units in shared hosting are awfully expensive and power is even worse.
Most (indeed, all) colos I've ever looked at won't let you put higher density into a rack than can be delivered by 1U servers anyway. They don't have the power and cooling required. So you can use blades, but you won't be allowed to put more than ~40 of them in a single rack.
If I can move the applications which need (somewhat) large amounts of local storage away from 1U-servers and onto blade servers, I have gained significant density, saved power, and avoided the usual 1U cable chaos.
What application needs large amounts of high-performance local storage and wouldn't be better serviced by a centralised storage model ?
It's ridiculous what kind of information people will willingly give up for the sake of social networking novelty.
Personally I find the narcissism of social networking *far* more ridiculous than the "giving up information part".
Though I imagine the two are linked - "I know I'm not important enough for anyone to give a shit about me, but maybe if I tell the whole world everything I do, I can pretend they all want to know, and the conclude that I'm actually giving something up by broadcasting everything from what's on TV to the consistency of my stool".
Blade servers. They usually have 2 HDD slots at best. The challenge is that they tend to be low on SAS sockets, so you'd need a very small SAS multiplexer as well.
If you're trying to put a lot of local storage into a blade server, You're Doing It Wrong.
NT was a rewrite of the kernel but the userland code was ported from Windows 9x. It was called Wow for Windows-on-Windows: Old windows code running on newfangled Windows NT.
You have it back to front. The code was ported FROM NT (released more than two years beforehand) TO Windows 95.
Windows 95 was an updated GUI running on DOS. You must be thinking of something else.
DOS was a 32-bit, pre-emptively multitasked, memory-protected OS ? Who would've guessed !?
Vista started as a "ground up" rewrite (Longhorn) but was plagued by project delays and restarts. I'm not certain, but I wouldn't be surprised at all that what actually made it to GA had a substantial amount of XP code.
Vista was never a rewrite. It was a fairly substantial update, though based off the Windows 2003 branch of NT, not the XP branch.
I'm by no means an expert, but I don't think that Windows has ever had a complete bare-metal ground-up rewrite.
It's never had a rewrite, though the closest candidates would be (roughly in descending order of scale) Windows 95, Vista, NT 4.0, 2000, Windows 3.0.
NT was designed and built from scratch. Any shared code with DOS-based Windows originated in NT.
A lot of the APIs are the same. Win32 was present in both Windows 95 and Windows NT as well. Sure, the kernel is different, but there are lays and layers of DLLs and other software that were identical on both.
So that would mean that WINE is full of Windows code ?
Whatever the metaphor, the comparison is fair so long as you understand what you are comparing.
And if you do, you'll realise that the single biggest factor in system security is the user, and a professional systems administrator bears no resemblance whatsoever to a random end user.
Ergo, the reason why comparing "Server Linux" to "Desktop Linux" is like comparing apples to steak.
Okay, so what if the human beings who compose the corporation petition the government individually? How is that any different?
Er, because then they only have their own resources to petition with, rather than using the collective resources of a group (the individuals of which may or may not agree with said petitioning) ?
The real problem is that monetary donations have been classed as "speech". Until that fundamental brokenness is fixed, the corporation vs individual thing is a secondary issue.
For example, we can stand up a box in a manner of minutes using RHEL kickstart, but if we wanted to add high availability this often meant configuring heartbeat IPs, swing SAN disks,/etc/hosts files for private IP ranges, etc.. HA on a cloud is almost too trivial to detail.
A cloud doesn't magically give you HA. Unless you're using a very different definition of "HA" than I'm used to.
Slashdot Mirror
Only when Windows 386 and WIndows 3.0 came out was Windows usable. Even then most people didn't use it. It just slowed down their dos programs.
Only when Windows 3.11 came out did WIndows become popular. Mostly to run DOS apps. Windows won because Microsoft just gave it away for the longest time. Almost nobody would have paid for it. That is why all the others failed. Most people wouldn't pay for a program to run programs!
Actually, Windows 3.0 was the (surprising to everyone, including Microsoft) turning point, and largely the reason that today we have Windows NT and not OS/2 NT.
Also, people were more than happy to pay for a "program to run programs" when it gave them things like multitasking, WYSIWYG and consistent printer support (then later, TT fonts and networking).
I stand by my assertion, Microsoft was way behind the curve in real multi-tasking. Arguably, it wasn't until at least Windows '98 where Windows had any meaningful multi-tasking -- almost 20 years after they licensed the technology from someone else.
Windows 98 had the same pre-emptive (for 32-bit processes) multitasking capabilities as Windows 95, NT had fully pre-emptive multitasking two years before that.
DOS, Windows 3.x and OS/2 1.x did not, due to a combination of hardware constraints and legacy support.
So, in a somewhat obtuse way, if you want to map out the code legacy, OS/2 lives on.
No it doesn't. NT was not developed from OS/2.
If someone incorporated themselves, they would still have to pay themselves a wage and it would be taxed on their personal income in which they would need to pay income taxes on.
Of course, the "company" could provide pretty much everything a person needs to live - transport, housing, food, etc - as "expenses".
The best way to produce the situation you want - the majority of profits fed back into the business and employees - is punishingly high income taxes for the super-rich and (particularly) corporations, with appropriate deductions (most of which already exist anyway) when that money is ploughed back into the business and employees.
Perhaps I'm atypical, but I absolutely loved my "150 in one" electronic kit. Here is a pic [flickr.com] of the exact same kit I had when I was 8. I built every project, and came up to plenty of my own little circuits. I don't know what the modern equivalent is nowadays - perhaps heavier on the digital / logic side?
These days that's either a terrorist training tool or something that might expose a poor snowflake to possible risk. Ergo, children are not allowed to have them.
But would you really need to even have any VMs if you can 10-20x as many servers in the same amount of space? Instead of running server on a VM you could just dedicate it to its own ARM computer.
Yes. VMs are massively easier to manage than physical machines.
If someone *really* wanted to smuggle "illegal" data of some kind into the country, they wouldn't be daft enough to travel with it on their laptop. They'd encrypt it and email it to themselves; or upload it to a cloud storage service, or have a file server of their own to FTP it into; or dump it into some random usenet group; or any of probably a dozen other ways to move data without physically carrying anything incriminating with them. The fact that this is lost on these thugs kind of blows "competent" out of the water.
I think you dramatically overestimate the intelligence of the average "criminal".
I'm still trying to understand how border security is enhanced by searching a hard drive when if I want to get "illegal" information somewhere I could just email myself.
Because a) most criminals aren't very smart and b) email (or anything similar) is not always a viable option if your filesizes are large and your connectivity slow.
Monetary donations are free speech.
No, they're not. They're either financial support for an issue, or bribes, depending on your perspective.
At no point is "speech" involved, unless the currency of the land changed dramatically when I wasn't looking.
I'm against all forms of political campaign reform laws, as a pure violation of 1st Amendment Rights.
No-one is saying people shouldn't be able to get up on their soapboxes and say whatever they want. They're saying that how much you're allowed to say shouldn't be dictated by your wallet, which is the inherent result of classifying political donations as speech.
I need high density because rack units in shared hosting are awfully expensive and power is even worse.
Most (indeed, all) colos I've ever looked at won't let you put higher density into a rack than can be delivered by 1U servers anyway. They don't have the power and cooling required. So you can use blades, but you won't be allowed to put more than ~40 of them in a single rack.
If I can move the applications which need (somewhat) large amounts of local storage away from 1U-servers and onto blade servers, I have gained significant density, saved power, and avoided the usual 1U cable chaos.
What application needs large amounts of high-performance local storage and wouldn't be better serviced by a centralised storage model ?
It's ridiculous what kind of information people will willingly give up for the sake of social networking novelty.
Personally I find the narcissism of social networking *far* more ridiculous than the "giving up information part".
Though I imagine the two are linked - "I know I'm not important enough for anyone to give a shit about me, but maybe if I tell the whole world everything I do, I can pretend they all want to know, and the conclude that I'm actually giving something up by broadcasting everything from what's on TV to the consistency of my stool".
Why? What is the advantage of using a larger and usually more power consuming form factor?
Because when you spread it across the 16 (or whatever) blades in your chassis, it's not "larger and usually more power consuming".
For some applications there are no advantages to non-local storage, and the disadvantages can be significant.
What scenarios are you envisaging where you need high-density computing power and large amounts of local storage ?
This isn't aimed at desktops dumbass, this is aimed at servers where iop/m^3 is important
In those environments your storage isn't in the local machine anyway, it's in the SAN.
While the write speed would be painful compared to real DRAM, the read speed would be comparable.
No it wouldn't. RAM speeds are measured in 10s of GB/sec. SSD speeds are measured in hundreds of MB/sec.
This is before even getting into the access times, which are similarly disparate.
Blade servers. They usually have 2 HDD slots at best. The challenge is that they tend to be low on SAS sockets, so you'd need a very small SAS multiplexer as well.
If you're trying to put a lot of local storage into a blade server, You're Doing It Wrong.
Since 4.0 Microsoft has been making NT less and less reliable by adding more and more to the kernel space.
Actually, since Vista they've been pulling more and more back out, now that the hardware is fast enough for the overheads to be less noticable.
Windows 95 still ran on top of DOS. Maybe you and I don't mean the same thing by "ground up".
And by "ran on top of" you mean "replaced in nearly every way", right ?
There was precious little DOS left once Windows 95 had finished booting (assuming you had 32 bit drivers, apps, etc).
NT was a rewrite of the kernel but the userland code was ported from Windows 9x. It was called Wow for Windows-on-Windows: Old windows code running on newfangled Windows NT.
You have it back to front. The code was ported FROM NT (released more than two years beforehand) TO Windows 95.
Windows 95 was an updated GUI running on DOS. You must be thinking of something else.
DOS was a 32-bit, pre-emptively multitasked, memory-protected OS ? Who would've guessed !?
Vista started as a "ground up" rewrite (Longhorn) but was plagued by project delays and restarts. I'm not certain, but I wouldn't be surprised at all that what actually made it to GA had a substantial amount of XP code.
Vista was never a rewrite. It was a fairly substantial update, though based off the Windows 2003 branch of NT, not the XP branch.
I'm by no means an expert, but I don't think that Windows has ever had a complete bare-metal ground-up rewrite.
It's never had a rewrite, though the closest candidates would be (roughly in descending order of scale) Windows 95, Vista, NT 4.0, 2000, Windows 3.0.
NT was designed and built from scratch. Any shared code with DOS-based Windows originated in NT.
A lot of the APIs are the same. Win32 was present in both Windows 95 and Windows NT as well. Sure, the kernel is different, but there are lays and layers of DLLs and other software that were identical on both.
So that would mean that WINE is full of Windows code ?
Whatever the metaphor, the comparison is fair so long as you understand what you are comparing.
And if you do, you'll realise that the single biggest factor in system security is the user, and a professional systems administrator bears no resemblance whatsoever to a random end user.
Ergo, the reason why comparing "Server Linux" to "Desktop Linux" is like comparing apples to steak.
Okay, so what if the human beings who compose the corporation petition the government individually? How is that any different?
Er, because then they only have their own resources to petition with, rather than using the collective resources of a group (the individuals of which may or may not agree with said petitioning) ?
The real problem is that monetary donations have been classed as "speech". Until that fundamental brokenness is fixed, the corporation vs individual thing is a secondary issue.
You do if it's a dual-core machine.
Why ?
For example, we can stand up a box in a manner of minutes using RHEL kickstart, but if we wanted to add high availability this often meant configuring heartbeat IPs, swing SAN disks, /etc/hosts files for private IP ranges, etc.. HA on a cloud is almost too trivial to detail.
A cloud doesn't magically give you HA. Unless you're using a very different definition of "HA" than I'm used to.
The existing system doesn't.
What doesn't it do ?