That's kinda along the lines of what I intend to do on my 'next' vehicle (not this one, because the vehicle is too much of a piece of shit and not roadworthy for longer trips). I've already got the 'basics' figured out, and have built all the components independently. I figure one of the Intel Atom dualcore or AMD Neo (dualcore) processors, 2GB of RAM, and a small SSD (60GB) will handle the job nicely.
The target vehicle will (likely, hopefully) be a 1-ton conversion van from the 1980s (Ford or Chevy) with a slight lift, 4wd, and either a powerstroke or a cummins 4BT engine. The system will include:
* Reverse cameras (for the wife, who hates 'long vehicles') as well as infrared proximity alarms at 6 independent points (eg. the areas where someone who's unfamiliar with the vehicle may consider running into something). I'm playing with the idea of additional cameras for accident pictures, but it's turning out to be too complicated (speed/etc. estimation), CPU intensive, and expensive. * An under-carriage camera, facing forward from the rear bumper, possibly with an infrared distance sensor (still playing with this later part) to detect insufficient clearance. * Long-range (100-200 yard) infrared imaging, so I can see deer (and other animals and vehicles) at longer distances. This is tricky, because it needs magnification to help provide item identification on a smaller screen, and doing so from a moving vehicle needs stabilization. It's mainly for long trips (out here, the roads stretch on for miles and miles without a turn), at night/dawn/dusk. I'm suspecting that object detection via 3-point infrared might be a better option, even if I can't do active object identification. * Infosystems, pulled over 3G modem: weather reports for the area, road conditions, and possibly GPS/road directions (unfortunately, there are no good "driving maps with directions" programs available for Linux, unless we're talking about a proprietary system. I've yet to look into whether a pairing a Garmin or similar might be possible.) * Remote start, on a timer, if it's parked in front of my house (able to access my home network). The tank and engine heaters would come on half an hour beforehand. I've got this on my current truck right now.:) It's nice on cold mornings. I'm thinking of figuring out how to make an alarm clock which this system could piggyback off of: if I hit the snooze 2-3 times, it doesn't start the car for another 20 minutes. If i turn the alarm off, it doesn't start the vehicle at all. * Fuel prices when fuel runs low. You know the Ford Escape commercials? I've been able to do that for years. * Field programmable gear/RPM shift points for optimal mileage economy on long trips, or simply a lot of awesome high-acceleration torque when some kid wants to 'race' in his riced out Neon. * Wifi hotspot, so my wife can use her laptop to look at facebook. (Also used to communicate with home network and push media files.)
* In-vehicle edutainment for the children. I've got 3 of them, so it's somewhat dicey on a long road trip. (Of course, i'll have a passenger-compartment separation in the vehicle so their noises don't disturb the driver and his mate - and vice versa.) This system will likely be independent from the vehicle control/detection computer, simply to ease the need for prioritization. This will all be on its own independent power system, and I'm playing with the idea of tying it into a 'custom' ECU (I've seen a couple but I'm not sure what I like). Both the main vehicle A/C power and the axillary power will be continually trickle charged via a couple smaller solar panels on the roof.
But really, in my experience Ipads are for Doctors and Dentists with little to no computer savvy that just want to mount their Ipad in their Prius and show off to their employees.
This could not be said better. The most pretentious "I'm good with computers" person I know (who really isn't) is both a doctor and an Apple fanatic.
"Delayed gratification" has a much better payoff than immediate gratification, though. "I did this myself" is much more satisfying than "look, I threw $700 at Apple".
The cartft.com example looks like it'll fit in a 'standard' double-depth car stereo dashboard hole.
In-vehicle panel parts are cheap and easy to replace. Take the original out (and set it in your garage) and put one in that you purchased online, if that's so goddamn almighty important to you.
And iPad? You'll get more functionality, hands down. Or, at the very least, you've got the option of functionality, should you decide to geek out. (iPad owners and the common person buying new vehicles typically do not care about these things: they're buying an official 'package', and if they want added features they'll get them from the official source.)
And then there are those of us who do not like buying new vehicles. They depreciate too quickly, they cost too much to begin with, and frankly, I don't want a vehicle that has pressure sensors in the spare tire. I'd much rather have a known-reliable vehicle from 15-20 years ago, that runs reliably, and has been updated with known-to-work-well efficiency technologies.
On a used vehicle, screwing something into the dash is not such a big deal.
But, please: if you're buying new vehicles, keep doing so. It means there's more variety for me to pick from.
Here, here! Ford seems to have the best reliability of most manufacturers, and has for a long time. I've rarely heard a "new vehicle catastrophic failure" with a Ford, vs. (say) Dodge. Yeah, there've been 'lemons', as there are with all brands - but, unlike the other brands, they make prominence in the news/society due to how many people own them, not the scope of the problems (eg: 2000/2001 Ford Focus).
I'm personally privy to Ford vehicles made during the 80s (well, and the first year or two of the 1990s), and the 1971-1994 C-series based vans and trucks (Chevy/GMC). They lagged behind Ford designs for a couple years but they caught up and (when dealing with an older vehicle) there's a lot to be said for having a vehicle that has parts made, new, for 14-odd years for multiple vehicles (cost, availability, quality).
Sorry, I lied. I had a '91 Taurus wagon that had the A/C compressor go out around 125k and the water pump around 115k (both on days of negative F temperatures. NOT FUN.)
Good thing it wasn't Dodge he stole stuff from. Chinese vehicles wouldn't have the turn radius capability to navigate their streets, they'd get horrible gas mileage and require heat blankets to start during the winter. And they'd have random things break, like drive shafts.
^ all things I've seen be common on Dodges
Let's not even go there with Toyota.
(I'm a current owner of multiple Fords which have had the most serious problems be break pad, shock, and strut replacement over 360k lifetime miles for an aggregate total of 3 different vehicles.)
Since Ford is not deprived of access to their own design (because they still have copies of it), this does not represent $50-$100M losses to Ford.
Yes; yes it does.
If I design something - spending a year of my life doing so, say - and it is stolen from me directly, with the resulting stolen design being used for production, I have lost the economic potential thereof.
It's just as if I have my chief war strategists design me a new weapon, and it's design is stolen by the enemy. The strategic value of said weapon is now not only marginal at best, but the enemy is able to use it against me.
Arguably, the loss in money would be twice (or more) the actual production costs, minimum: not only have I lost the strategic edge (the end goal of what those man hours represent, and what was really being paid for) but my competitor now has been fortified by an equal amount of R&D. That R&D may have (and probably would have, because original ideas are rare and specifics are hard) cost the competitor significantly more to produce - never mind reproduce (reverse engineer).
Realistically (IMO), the actual damages for physical things like this should be based on the production costs, loss of market capitalization (which wouldn't be able to be determined for some time, requiring a window for additional damages to be added), and what it would realistically cost to reverse engineer said documents. That is a hell of a lot more than $100 million.
As someone else said, "8 years and a bunch of torture, not to mention the difference in Chinese prisons vs American ones" - not to mention the fact that the geologist divulged information which is not possible for the US (or anyone but China) to directly exploit due to it being in China.
The leaked Ford documents, on the other hand, are human R&D and (likely) almost immediately applicable to production. They could turn around a month later with the ability to make a Ford duplicate.
Meh. On the plus side, I suppose it's possible we'll see inexpensive late-model replacement parts on the market soon for Fords.
No, it actually is a filesystem feature (of sorts). The ability to export iSCSI 'from the filesystem' that works well, with the filesystem, is a nice added bonus.
OS friendliness is one thing; endian (hardware) friendliness is another.
That said, "run on multiple architectures" is a bit of a misnomer, considering the difference between ZFS on FreeBSD and Solaris. It's night/day. There are very few, if any, filesystems which are truly portable in that fashion, that I'm aware of. (NTFS on Linux, maybe?)
What features does ZFS have that ext4 doesnt? Its a simple question, but you had to act like an ass. Good job.
Jeez, where to start? They're night and day. EXT4 has more in common with FAT32 or UFS than it does ZFS.
It's got a handful of core features, all of which are significant on their own:
* copy-on-write, so you know your data gets committed * integral RAID-like functionality, integrated with the filesystem. This reduces overhead and eliminates the need for archaic RAID controllers (almost) entirely (complete with their shitty firmware and quirks, etc.) - just the controller, please. * Due to the above two, eliminates the RAID5 write hole * instant (like, a second or two) snapshotting of very large amounts of data. * You can transparently 'piggyback' any filesystem on top of ZFS to provide said filesystem with ZFSs' protection * Integral iSCSI provider. Nice to have with the above feature!
Shortcomings might include: * No fdisk. IMO it's a bit of a serious limitation, but "it's not needed". Still, it can't help you recover from something like... * The potential loss of your zpool definition file. Unlike (say) mdraid on Linux, there are no block backups within the filesystem (as far as I know) so the pool definition can tenably be lost (if you have a backup file somewhere, it's easy enough to recover, but still..)
As for the original post "not terribly fast" diss? Sorry, not buying it. They really needed to compare the performance against (say) other ZFS-based systems to show it's utility - there are a lot of people 'forced' to use solaris and or FreeBSD because it's got ZFS. Another significant thing to consider will be its maturity/stability and feature-completeness (eg. FreeBSD is a good way behind Solaris/OS/Illumos in these departments).
Finally, this is still pretty beta code. The only 'significant' not-as-good performance failure is the Postmark benchmark, which may or may not be conclusive (I don't know what it does). If you compare it to this postmark benchmark for PCBSD, it doesn't look that bad (particularly when you consider the above linked article figures are 500 points or so higher across the board than the 'new' benchmarks) - and the new implementation appears better than XFS, which is still quite a decent filesystem.
Oh, yeah - consider it's still 'beta'. Noteably, considerably more 'beta' than Butter. Consider me excited. I'm not going to jump until I get fairly certain news that it's at least as stable as the FreeBSD implementation (while requiring less 'tuning' - bah!); I can do without features if it's stable. CoW and the basic RAID-like implementation on their own is enough to jump ship for.
Granted, it came out in 2000, but it was a great game. IIRC, it was based on the Quake engine (or the original Unreal engine, not sure). It had runes similar to those in Quake and had a Nordic theme. Everything was hand/hand combat (in a sense): you had swords, axes, and could use things like heads and body parts as weapons as well. You could throw said weapons. The mechanics took a bit to get used to, but it was a lot of fun.
With the advances in this kind of combat (eg. Jedi games), a remake would be incredible.
It's a real shame that there aren't effective profiling and 'threat identification' techniques that we could use to make these techniques only unnecessary but redundant and (relatively speaking) ineffective.
You know, like what a hypothetical country like Israel might do, if they had effective transit security.
Oh, wait.
As part of its focus on this so-called "human factor," Israeli security officers interrogate travelers using racial profiling, singling out those who appear to be Arab based on name or physical appearance.[24] Additionally, all passengers, even those who do not appear to be of Arab descent, are questioned as to why they are traveling to Israel, followed by several general questions about the trip in order to search for inconsistencies.[20] Although numerous civil rights groups have demanded an end to the profiling, Israel maintains that it is both effective and unavoidable. As stated by Ariel Merari, an Israeli terrorism expert, "it would be foolish not to use profiling when everyone knows that most terrorists come from certain ethnic groups. They are likely to be Muslim and young, and the potential threat justifies inconveniencing a certain ethnic group."[25]
We really can't afford (financially, in terms of dollars) to acknowledge the fact of where this threat is coming from any longer.
The techniques used by the Brits for threat identification are, supposedly, pretty good, too. This backscatter crap and the carny-style molesting is completely unnecessary.
They keep it up, and I guarantee you one of the following will happen:
* a TSA agent will get severely beaten by parents, either on or off work * someone will come to the airport with a gun, but not to do bodily harm to 'people' or to commit terrorism - just to exact justice against the molesters working for the TSA who abused their child. * anyone with children will stop flying. anyone with sexual trauma in their life will stop flying. anyone remotely insecure will stop flying.
As someone else said, "who controls the TSA?" From the appearances of things, nobody. Either that, or the Executive branch has a lot to answer for.
I don't care if this makes it 'less' objectionable. In my mind, it doesn't. It's largely the principle of the matter to which I protest, but the implications are thus:
* The backscatter radiation is of highly questionable health implications. There are many places in the world where microwaves have not been adopted (for good reason): they change the molecular structure of fats and destroy vitamins. Aside from the direct radiation impact said 'scanners' have on our bodies, what are they doing to our fat and vitamin content? * Inconvenience * I'm paying how much for all of this?
From now on, I'm driving or taking the train. It will mean several things to me and my family:
* I'm investing (yes, investing) in a larger vehicle with a diesel engine. Something old but reliable (think: Chevy/Ford vans). My family will be able to drive in comfort at nominal per-mile cost. * When not driving, we will be taking the train. Somehow (where it is available) long-distance train fares remain relatively low (eg. $150/person for a Denver-San Francisco round trip) - though there are implications such as vehicle storage to contend with here, as well. * As a result of the time requirements (our families live on the coasts; we're in the Black Hills), we will not be traveling as often.
Their security theater was somewhat tolerable before. It was just barely quicker to fly 500 miles than it was to drive (eg. Rapid City to Omaha), but cost a bit more. Now, it appears to take significantly longer, it's more inconvenient in a dozen different ways in addition to time, and cost is through the roof.
I suspect that if we got the FAA and the TSA out of things, air transit would once again be cheap and reliable. But that will never happen.
I think it's time to see this country instead of just flying over it.
As for someone with a BS, I'd never hire someone with a BA in IT related fields unless it were (maybe) a project manager, their knowledge was commensurate with a BS, and they had work experience.
And "2-4+" years of experience is inferior in your mind to some schmuck with a 4-year IT-centric arts degree? I will take someone with 3 years of solid IT experience over someone with a BA, any day of the week. Experience, with demonstrated competence, trumps formal schooling unless additional demonstrated competence is provided by said degree holder.
Conceptual stuff is important, but if they can't get the job done, they're useless (and cost more).
1) S3 performance is poor. You've got to pay a LOT for performance. 2) Non-hardware (administration) costs are still going to be the same. 3) Cloud services are dependent upon connectivity. Which do you trust more: no link failure in thousands of miles of cables, fiber, and networking equipment, -or- the volatility of your local network and attached storage systems? You will need at least 2Mbit of low-latency throughput for something like this. 4) You will need redundant outside-network links. This may not even be possible in his locale, and if it is, there's no guarantee something upstream won't die (and in many places, the certainty of something failing upstream is fairly high due to shared carrier). 5) Are connections of sufficient throughput and latency even locally available? There's no mention of things like: mail use, type of work performed, etc. What if they do CAD work? What if they do a lot of email with attached documents? Graphic or sound work? These are use cases which are horrible for cloud computing.
That's just a starter list. It's suitable for some purposes, but for most day-in and day-out stuff, it is not good as a primary source of IT infrastructure.
For general purpose daily cloud computing, S3 isn't even a good/best option.
As for the OP... this guy should obviously not be in IT. The most notable thing missing from his list is: competent and experienced IT personnel. Obviously this was not considered as a requirement by those paying the bills, but it is important.
Hint: use requirements are the first thing to consider. Everything is based off of that. The vendors picked depend on experience and available purchase agreements. What I do for 90% of my customers will likely be a poor fit for many of your customers. And so on.
That would be great around here, no more salt eating the car each winter.
No, that would still happen. You know how after the winter, you have to wash the white salt brine deposits off your vehicle body and there's rust around it? It'd be like that, except one of things would happen:
1) There'd still be 'white crap' - corroded Al. 2) It'd corrode silently, and you'd never notice the lack of metal until the vehicle collapses.
The nice thing about aluminum (as opposed to steels) is that it stress fractures more easily and doesn't bend all that well. Sure, that can happen with steel, but that tends to require a pre-existing crack. Aluminum is more than happy to fracture violently (especially when cold) in situations where steel would simply bend or buckle.
Sure, out of the box it's not perfect. But it's easily customizable (as in, built-in settings) to make it better: larger icons, fonts, etc. (as a proportion of the screen) and the like. At the resolution this netbook runs, it should be quite usable.
In all actuality, Win7 can be customized to work almost identically to how the Maemo 4 UI works. That's a win for me, personally - the Maemo 4 UI is (IMO) one of the quickest usable UIs I've used for a mobile.
Surely, WIndows has a lot of legacy code. Linux has been rewritten a couple (several?) times from (mostly) scratch. However...
When you consider the whole picture - Xorg (in particular), gcc, libraries, etc. - I suspect you'll find a fairly heavy burden of 'legacy' code that is similar in volume to Windows-as-a-whole, at this point. Probably still less as a percentage (not such a burden of 'backwards compatibility', but still lots of 'the same shell scripts and C programs still work'), but it's there none the less.
I meant century; there's plenty of 50+ year old cement in good/serviceable condition, even in places with high moisture/water/etc.
Things like sidewalks and cement subject to frequent salt, on the other hand, are another story (particularly if there's salt). Just the same, I've got several pads of cement in my back yard put in over a period of 10 years or so by previous owners. They've got the names and handprints of the owners' children, and were done 50-odd years ago. It's all still quite legible.
Slashdot Mirror
That's kinda along the lines of what I intend to do on my 'next' vehicle (not this one, because the vehicle is too much of a piece of shit and not roadworthy for longer trips). I've already got the 'basics' figured out, and have built all the components independently. I figure one of the Intel Atom dualcore or AMD Neo (dualcore) processors, 2GB of RAM, and a small SSD (60GB) will handle the job nicely.
The target vehicle will (likely, hopefully) be a 1-ton conversion van from the 1980s (Ford or Chevy) with a slight lift, 4wd, and either a powerstroke or a cummins 4BT engine. The system will include:
* Reverse cameras (for the wife, who hates 'long vehicles') as well as infrared proximity alarms at 6 independent points (eg. the areas where someone who's unfamiliar with the vehicle may consider running into something). I'm playing with the idea of additional cameras for accident pictures, but it's turning out to be too complicated (speed/etc. estimation), CPU intensive, and expensive. :) It's nice on cold mornings. I'm thinking of figuring out how to make an alarm clock which this system could piggyback off of: if I hit the snooze 2-3 times, it doesn't start the car for another 20 minutes. If i turn the alarm off, it doesn't start the vehicle at all.
* An under-carriage camera, facing forward from the rear bumper, possibly with an infrared distance sensor (still playing with this later part) to detect insufficient clearance.
* Long-range (100-200 yard) infrared imaging, so I can see deer (and other animals and vehicles) at longer distances. This is tricky, because it needs magnification to help provide item identification on a smaller screen, and doing so from a moving vehicle needs stabilization. It's mainly for long trips (out here, the roads stretch on for miles and miles without a turn), at night/dawn/dusk. I'm suspecting that object detection via 3-point infrared might be a better option, even if I can't do active object identification.
* Infosystems, pulled over 3G modem: weather reports for the area, road conditions, and possibly GPS/road directions (unfortunately, there are no good "driving maps with directions" programs available for Linux, unless we're talking about a proprietary system. I've yet to look into whether a pairing a Garmin or similar might be possible.)
* Remote start, on a timer, if it's parked in front of my house (able to access my home network). The tank and engine heaters would come on half an hour beforehand. I've got this on my current truck right now.
* Fuel prices when fuel runs low. You know the Ford Escape commercials? I've been able to do that for years.
* Field programmable gear/RPM shift points for optimal mileage economy on long trips, or simply a lot of awesome high-acceleration torque when some kid wants to 'race' in his riced out Neon.
* Wifi hotspot, so my wife can use her laptop to look at facebook. (Also used to communicate with home network and push media files.)
* In-vehicle edutainment for the children. I've got 3 of them, so it's somewhat dicey on a long road trip. (Of course, i'll have a passenger-compartment separation in the vehicle so their noises don't disturb the driver and his mate - and vice versa.) This system will likely be independent from the vehicle control/detection computer, simply to ease the need for prioritization.
This will all be on its own independent power system, and I'm playing with the idea of tying it into a 'custom' ECU (I've seen a couple but I'm not sure what I like). Both the main vehicle A/C power and the axillary power will be continually trickle charged via a couple smaller solar panels on the roof.
But really, in my experience Ipads are for Doctors and Dentists with little to no computer savvy that just want to mount their Ipad in their Prius and show off to their employees.
This could not be said better. The most pretentious "I'm good with computers" person I know (who really isn't) is both a doctor and an Apple fanatic.
"Delayed gratification" has a much better payoff than immediate gratification, though. "I did this myself" is much more satisfying than "look, I threw $700 at Apple".
The cartft.com example looks like it'll fit in a 'standard' double-depth car stereo dashboard hole.
In-vehicle panel parts are cheap and easy to replace. Take the original out (and set it in your garage) and put one in that you purchased online, if that's so goddamn almighty important to you.
And iPad? You'll get more functionality, hands down. Or, at the very least, you've got the option of functionality, should you decide to geek out. (iPad owners and the common person buying new vehicles typically do not care about these things: they're buying an official 'package', and if they want added features they'll get them from the official source.)
And then there are those of us who do not like buying new vehicles. They depreciate too quickly, they cost too much to begin with, and frankly, I don't want a vehicle that has pressure sensors in the spare tire. I'd much rather have a known-reliable vehicle from 15-20 years ago, that runs reliably, and has been updated with known-to-work-well efficiency technologies.
On a used vehicle, screwing something into the dash is not such a big deal.
But, please: if you're buying new vehicles, keep doing so. It means there's more variety for me to pick from.
Here, here! Ford seems to have the best reliability of most manufacturers, and has for a long time. I've rarely heard a "new vehicle catastrophic failure" with a Ford, vs. (say) Dodge. Yeah, there've been 'lemons', as there are with all brands - but, unlike the other brands, they make prominence in the news/society due to how many people own them, not the scope of the problems (eg: 2000/2001 Ford Focus).
I'm personally privy to Ford vehicles made during the 80s (well, and the first year or two of the 1990s), and the 1971-1994 C-series based vans and trucks (Chevy/GMC). They lagged behind Ford designs for a couple years but they caught up and (when dealing with an older vehicle) there's a lot to be said for having a vehicle that has parts made, new, for 14-odd years for multiple vehicles (cost, availability, quality).
Sorry, I lied. I had a '91 Taurus wagon that had the A/C compressor go out around 125k and the water pump around 115k (both on days of negative F temperatures. NOT FUN.)
Good thing it wasn't Dodge he stole stuff from. Chinese vehicles wouldn't have the turn radius capability to navigate their streets, they'd get horrible gas mileage and require heat blankets to start during the winter. And they'd have random things break, like drive shafts.
^ all things I've seen be common on Dodges
Let's not even go there with Toyota.
(I'm a current owner of multiple Fords which have had the most serious problems be break pad, shock, and strut replacement over 360k lifetime miles for an aggregate total of 3 different vehicles.)
Anecdotal evidence is pretty useless.
Since Ford is not deprived of access to their own design (because they still have copies of it), this does not represent $50-$100M losses to Ford.
Yes; yes it does.
If I design something - spending a year of my life doing so, say - and it is stolen from me directly, with the resulting stolen design being used for production, I have lost the economic potential thereof.
It's just as if I have my chief war strategists design me a new weapon, and it's design is stolen by the enemy. The strategic value of said weapon is now not only marginal at best, but the enemy is able to use it against me.
Arguably, the loss in money would be twice (or more) the actual production costs, minimum: not only have I lost the strategic edge (the end goal of what those man hours represent, and what was really being paid for) but my competitor now has been fortified by an equal amount of R&D. That R&D may have (and probably would have, because original ideas are rare and specifics are hard) cost the competitor significantly more to produce - never mind reproduce (reverse engineer).
Realistically (IMO), the actual damages for physical things like this should be based on the production costs, loss of market capitalization (which wouldn't be able to be determined for some time, requiring a window for additional damages to be added), and what it would realistically cost to reverse engineer said documents. That is a hell of a lot more than $100 million.
As someone else said, "8 years and a bunch of torture, not to mention the difference in Chinese prisons vs American ones" - not to mention the fact that the geologist divulged information which is not possible for the US (or anyone but China) to directly exploit due to it being in China.
The leaked Ford documents, on the other hand, are human R&D and (likely) almost immediately applicable to production. They could turn around a month later with the ability to make a Ford duplicate.
Meh. On the plus side, I suppose it's possible we'll see inexpensive late-model replacement parts on the market soon for Fords.
Yeah, maybe. I'm sure some people will attempt it. But you're forgetting something crucial: warranties.
If you drive your car off a cliff, you've voided the warranty. The same basic principle applies here.
No, it actually is a filesystem feature (of sorts). The ability to export iSCSI 'from the filesystem' that works well, with the filesystem, is a nice added bonus.
OS friendliness is one thing; endian (hardware) friendliness is another.
That said, "run on multiple architectures" is a bit of a misnomer, considering the difference between ZFS on FreeBSD and Solaris. It's night/day. There are very few, if any, filesystems which are truly portable in that fashion, that I'm aware of. (NTFS on Linux, maybe?)
What features does ZFS have that ext4 doesnt? Its a simple question, but you had to act like an ass. Good job.
Jeez, where to start? They're night and day. EXT4 has more in common with FAT32 or UFS than it does ZFS.
It's got a handful of core features, all of which are significant on their own:
* copy-on-write, so you know your data gets committed
* integral RAID-like functionality, integrated with the filesystem. This reduces overhead and eliminates the need for archaic RAID controllers (almost) entirely (complete with their shitty firmware and quirks, etc.) - just the controller, please.
* Due to the above two, eliminates the RAID5 write hole
* instant (like, a second or two) snapshotting of very large amounts of data.
* You can transparently 'piggyback' any filesystem on top of ZFS to provide said filesystem with ZFSs' protection
* Integral iSCSI provider. Nice to have with the above feature!
Shortcomings might include:
* No fdisk. IMO it's a bit of a serious limitation, but "it's not needed". Still, it can't help you recover from something like...
* The potential loss of your zpool definition file. Unlike (say) mdraid on Linux, there are no block backups within the filesystem (as far as I know) so the pool definition can tenably be lost (if you have a backup file somewhere, it's easy enough to recover, but still..)
As for the original post "not terribly fast" diss? Sorry, not buying it. They really needed to compare the performance against (say) other ZFS-based systems to show it's utility - there are a lot of people 'forced' to use solaris and or FreeBSD because it's got ZFS. Another significant thing to consider will be its maturity/stability and feature-completeness (eg. FreeBSD is a good way behind Solaris/OS/Illumos in these departments).
Finally, this is still pretty beta code. The only 'significant' not-as-good performance failure is the Postmark benchmark, which may or may not be conclusive (I don't know what it does). If you compare it to this postmark benchmark for PCBSD, it doesn't look that bad (particularly when you consider the above linked article figures are 500 points or so higher across the board than the 'new' benchmarks) - and the new implementation appears better than XFS, which is still quite a decent filesystem.
Oh, yeah - consider it's still 'beta'. Noteably, considerably more 'beta' than Butter. Consider me excited. I'm not going to jump until I get fairly certain news that it's at least as stable as the FreeBSD implementation (while requiring less 'tuning' - bah!); I can do without features if it's stable. CoW and the basic RAID-like implementation on their own is enough to jump ship for.
Granted, it came out in 2000, but it was a great game. IIRC, it was based on the Quake engine (or the original Unreal engine, not sure). It had runes similar to those in Quake and had a Nordic theme. Everything was hand/hand combat (in a sense): you had swords, axes, and could use things like heads and body parts as weapons as well. You could throw said weapons. The mechanics took a bit to get used to, but it was a lot of fun.
With the advances in this kind of combat (eg. Jedi games), a remake would be incredible.
It's a real shame that there aren't effective profiling and 'threat identification' techniques that we could use to make these techniques only unnecessary but redundant and (relatively speaking) ineffective.
You know, like what a hypothetical country like Israel might do, if they had effective transit security.
Oh, wait.
As part of its focus on this so-called "human factor," Israeli security officers interrogate travelers using racial profiling, singling out those who appear to be Arab based on name or physical appearance.[24] Additionally, all passengers, even those who do not appear to be of Arab descent, are questioned as to why they are traveling to Israel, followed by several general questions about the trip in order to search for inconsistencies.[20] Although numerous civil rights groups have demanded an end to the profiling, Israel maintains that it is both effective and unavoidable. As stated by Ariel Merari, an Israeli terrorism expert, "it would be foolish not to use profiling when everyone knows that most terrorists come from certain ethnic groups. They are likely to be Muslim and young, and the potential threat justifies inconveniencing a certain ethnic group."[25]
We really can't afford (financially, in terms of dollars) to acknowledge the fact of where this threat is coming from any longer.
The techniques used by the Brits for threat identification are, supposedly, pretty good, too. This backscatter crap and the carny-style molesting is completely unnecessary.
They keep it up, and I guarantee you one of the following will happen:
* a TSA agent will get severely beaten by parents, either on or off work
* someone will come to the airport with a gun, but not to do bodily harm to 'people' or to commit terrorism - just to exact justice against the molesters working for the TSA who abused their child.
* anyone with children will stop flying. anyone with sexual trauma in their life will stop flying. anyone remotely insecure will stop flying.
As someone else said, "who controls the TSA?" From the appearances of things, nobody. Either that, or the Executive branch has a lot to answer for.
I don't care if this makes it 'less' objectionable. In my mind, it doesn't. It's largely the principle of the matter to which I protest, but the implications are thus:
* The backscatter radiation is of highly questionable health implications. There are many places in the world where microwaves have not been adopted (for good reason): they change the molecular structure of fats and destroy vitamins. Aside from the direct radiation impact said 'scanners' have on our bodies, what are they doing to our fat and vitamin content?
* Inconvenience
* I'm paying how much for all of this?
From now on, I'm driving or taking the train. It will mean several things to me and my family:
* I'm investing (yes, investing) in a larger vehicle with a diesel engine. Something old but reliable (think: Chevy/Ford vans). My family will be able to drive in comfort at nominal per-mile cost.
* When not driving, we will be taking the train. Somehow (where it is available) long-distance train fares remain relatively low (eg. $150/person for a Denver-San Francisco round trip) - though there are implications such as vehicle storage to contend with here, as well.
* As a result of the time requirements (our families live on the coasts; we're in the Black Hills), we will not be traveling as often.
Their security theater was somewhat tolerable before. It was just barely quicker to fly 500 miles than it was to drive (eg. Rapid City to Omaha), but cost a bit more. Now, it appears to take significantly longer, it's more inconvenient in a dozen different ways in addition to time, and cost is through the roof.
I suspect that if we got the FAA and the TSA out of things, air transit would once again be cheap and reliable. But that will never happen.
I think it's time to see this country instead of just flying over it.
As for someone with a BS, I'd never hire someone with a BA in IT related fields unless it were (maybe) a project manager, their knowledge was commensurate with a BS, and they had work experience.
And "2-4+" years of experience is inferior in your mind to some schmuck with a 4-year IT-centric arts degree? I will take someone with 3 years of solid IT experience over someone with a BA, any day of the week. Experience, with demonstrated competence, trumps formal schooling unless additional demonstrated competence is provided by said degree holder.
Conceptual stuff is important, but if they can't get the job done, they're useless (and cost more).
Great idea, except:
1) S3 performance is poor. You've got to pay a LOT for performance.
2) Non-hardware (administration) costs are still going to be the same.
3) Cloud services are dependent upon connectivity. Which do you trust more: no link failure in thousands of miles of cables, fiber, and networking equipment, -or- the volatility of your local network and attached storage systems? You will need at least 2Mbit of low-latency throughput for something like this.
4) You will need redundant outside-network links. This may not even be possible in his locale, and if it is, there's no guarantee something upstream won't die (and in many places, the certainty of something failing upstream is fairly high due to shared carrier).
5) Are connections of sufficient throughput and latency even locally available? There's no mention of things like: mail use, type of work performed, etc. What if they do CAD work? What if they do a lot of email with attached documents? Graphic or sound work? These are use cases which are horrible for cloud computing.
That's just a starter list. It's suitable for some purposes, but for most day-in and day-out stuff, it is not good as a primary source of IT infrastructure.
For general purpose daily cloud computing, S3 isn't even a good/best option.
As for the OP... this guy should obviously not be in IT. The most notable thing missing from his list is: competent and experienced IT personnel. Obviously this was not considered as a requirement by those paying the bills, but it is important.
Hint: use requirements are the first thing to consider. Everything is based off of that. The vendors picked depend on experience and available purchase agreements. What I do for 90% of my customers will likely be a poor fit for many of your customers. And so on.
Fucking amateurs. They make us MSPs look bad.
I need a new way to get to work. Should I get a car, an EV, a bike, a motorcycle? What kind of which?
Nicely done 'hack'. Those results are surprising, but not entirely unexpected: 200 lines
Torvalds should consider himself severely 'owned' on this. 200 lines in the kernel for something nobody will likely find any benefit in is crazy.
That would be great around here, no more salt eating the car each winter.
No, that would still happen. You know how after the winter, you have to wash the white salt brine deposits off your vehicle body and there's rust around it? It'd be like that, except one of things would happen:
1) There'd still be 'white crap' - corroded Al.
2) It'd corrode silently, and you'd never notice the lack of metal until the vehicle collapses.
Observe: http://www.citizenarcane.com/files/2005/April/05/corroding_aluminum_i_beam.jpg
The nice thing about aluminum (as opposed to steels) is that it stress fractures more easily and doesn't bend all that well. Sure, that can happen with steel, but that tends to require a pre-existing crack. Aluminum is more than happy to fracture violently (especially when cold) in situations where steel would simply bend or buckle.
What's so crappy about it as a mobile OS?
Sure, out of the box it's not perfect. But it's easily customizable (as in, built-in settings) to make it better: larger icons, fonts, etc. (as a proportion of the screen) and the like. At the resolution this netbook runs, it should be quite usable.
In all actuality, Win7 can be customized to work almost identically to how the Maemo 4 UI works. That's a win for me, personally - the Maemo 4 UI is (IMO) one of the quickest usable UIs I've used for a mobile.
Apples to oranges.
Surely, WIndows has a lot of legacy code. Linux has been rewritten a couple (several?) times from (mostly) scratch. However...
When you consider the whole picture - Xorg (in particular), gcc, libraries, etc. - I suspect you'll find a fairly heavy burden of 'legacy' code that is similar in volume to Windows-as-a-whole, at this point. Probably still less as a percentage (not such a burden of 'backwards compatibility', but still lots of 'the same shell scripts and C programs still work'), but it's there none the less.
I meant century; there's plenty of 50+ year old cement in good/serviceable condition, even in places with high moisture/water/etc.
Things like sidewalks and cement subject to frequent salt, on the other hand, are another story (particularly if there's salt). Just the same, I've got several pads of cement in my back yard put in over a period of 10 years or so by previous owners. They've got the names and handprints of the owners' children, and were done 50-odd years ago. It's all still quite legible.
Cool! I've wondered a number of times why they don't already do this. SMS is suited for it from an architectual standpoint.
Now we can get SMSs saying "the trees are on fire!" just like we do for SNMP traps on our servers.