While I really don't care for gut feelings of some bigwig, it's pretty obvious that it would be stupid for Intel to try to make CPU for iPhone -- Intel is a lot of things but it's not a manufacturer of CPUs that are optimized for power efficiency to the extent of having low performance, something that Apple wanted for the original iPhone. Intel may decide to build a non-x86 line of CPUs for some future mobile applications, but they have no such product now, and they had no chance to complete the development cyclle for it then. So well, duh.
The global BGP table has about half a million routes.
And 256M of dynamic RAM costs how much exactly? Can you even buy a smaller device and actually save any money on it? And how many SoCs now come WITHOUT built-in Ethernet that can update that whole RAM in seconds?
It's pointless. The resources this scheme is saving, are now the cheapest ones.
Yep. And there comes a point when you're scaling up that quantitative differences become qualitative differences that demand completely different solutions to the old problems.
There is one little problem -- Google still has no evidence that this crap works or provides any benefit.
No, firmware is static, and the code it contains must fit in limited capacity storage devices and run on low-end CPUs, unless you want to pay big money for your switches.
No. Everyone but the old router companies with massive amount of legacy code, now runs Linux on their switches, with huge RAM and NAND flash available. Both performance and storage are far greater than the amount of performance of your controller server per amount of network traffic (or total size of tables) that it is supposed to maintain. The train of large CPUs on remote controllers and small CPUs on network devices left the station a very long time ago, and it's absolutely ridiculous that people now started to optimize their network architecture for this, now obsolete, assumption.
If all you care about is Cisco contracts, you could have replaced all your routers with a mesh of WRT54Gs (or a modern equivalent) for at least a decade. It will also provide better redundancy than anything Cisco can sell you. Now, if you have requirements for performance... That's why Cisco can force idiotically expensive contracts.
The problem is not the management protocol. The problem is DEFINITELY not where the management functionality or protocol is implemented, considering that CPUs are now literally dirt cheap, so there is no excuse to move controller to some server, even if it would make sense 15 years ago. You will save $1-$5 on a $5000-$10000 device by moving from CPU capable of running full switch control (or both Openflow switch and Openflow controller, and leave enough CPU time to mine bitcoins or something if you really, really want to) to a CPU that will only be able to run OpenFlow switch.
Speaking of which, there are a lot of FPGAs in modern network switches... I have an idea! Let's all use those FPGAs to mine bitcoins! That will reduce the network maintenance costs!!! Someone, gimme a couple hundreds of millions, I will sell this idea to Cisco and VMWare, they seem to be buying all stupid ideas now. Oh, and Citrix! How could I forget Citrix! All their technology is obsolete again, so I will convince them to become a giant of router-based bitcoin mining software! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
OpenFlow solves problems current systems cannot. If you can't see the difference between OpenFlow and current systems, then that's because you don't understand the problem domains.
Translation: Let's reinvent SNMP and try to administer network with it, like people tried in 90's! a modern equivalent of This time it's different!
Google has already shown that using their system, you can increase bandwidth and resiliency, while reducing latency. Once you understand that Google is working with hundreds of non-blocking 10Gb ports with sometimes asyemtric properties, like route latency and load, you will find routing hundreds of Gigabits over these links start to have problems with current routing and link teaming setups.
Translation: Google Big.
There is also the whole problems of device support where bugs have been found on equipment, but the parts are no longer supported. Having a way to reprogram and implement your own logic alleviates the dependency on manufacture support.
Actually its very useful, especially when combined with a virtual machine infrastructure.
The "network" between VMs running on the same host, is by definition flat. You can use this flat network (your RAM) to run a protocol over it that is designed for high-latency, low-reliability wires, but that's because your OS has no IPC because it's Windows. And you can set up firewall and routing rules for that network because this is the only way to implement any kind of access restrictions, because your OS security model is designed for anything but isolating processes' access to each other, because it's Windows and it's written by Windows programmers.
A freaking dbus is a better "network" than this. dbus, the swiss army sledgehammer of interprocess communication.
Also you can mangle the packets, for example modify the MAC or IP address before forwarding the packet.
And it's all stateless, and therefore worthless for anything but cheap tricks and trivial operations that are easier to implement with what already exists. It's the same mistake that caused NFS to go through four generations.
Logically centralized topology planning and monitoring are OK.
Fixed centralized control path, one instance of configuration database, single controlling entity, crappy authentication, requirement for separate secure channel to do anything and everything, and nonexistent resistance to DoS, however, are not.
If there was no Microsoft, software development would have been practiced in the same responsible way as any other form of engineering.
There is nothing Gates can do -- or any number of people can do for the rest of Gates' life, to compensate the harm Microsoft caused and will cause to mankind. It's worse than Catholicism with its Inquisition, it left a huge gaping hole where progress should have been, and infected people with their brand of stupidity for generations.
If we just yell at them and impose sanctions it won't actually do anything and we'll be painted as the bad guys (probably by you).
No!!!
It's YOU, the disgusting profiteering hawks and their minions, who complain when US military does not attack people half across the globe. It's only you. No one else.
No, nothing about overlords. Usually I consider current Canonical to be a great source of hare-brained ideas, but this is actually sane as far as end-user applications with no infrastructure components (servers, libraries) are concerned.
They will have to add apparmor rules to prevent this from becoming a security nightmare, but having application installed under user's home is actually an old Unix tradition, that became uncommon because package managers are not designed to handle it. Just make it more convenient than Apple's applications installation, and keep all truly common libraries in Debian packages.
Saddam Hussein thought he had chemical weapons, and definitely wanted them.
No one wants chemical weapons. They are extremely inefficient, and anything involving them produces less effect than similar effort with conventional weapons. It's not WWI anymore.
So you have your own atrocities then to account for. During the time of Stalin we saw as much as10 million dead in various purges and famines, and that's just one example.
Nice tricks, combining natural disasters with actual victims of Stalin's rule. At least you have tried to disguise the real number of Stalin's victims -- about 2 millions, over 30 years, in the country of almost 200 millions at the time -- less than most shitty leaders that Americans touted as heroes.
However my point is, I owe you, or your ancestors NOTHING as far as their disgusting behavior in WWII, and specifically their bombing of civilians was concerned. It was pointless massacre, performed because it was easy, and it looked like fighting a war, however it was not nearly as risky as actually taking some territory, or disabling some infrastructure, leave alone, killing people who are actually fighting for Nazi.
Writing a paper about weapons and claiming that it was poor precision that caused Americans to bomb civilians in their homes, tens and hundreds miles away from anything military-related, is pure idiocy that reveals militant denial of monstrous idiocy committed in the past.
Russians didn't bomb nearly to the ground such important military targets as Dresden, Munich, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki (and that's just the above mentioned WWII).
I'm sure all the idiots here will only be happy when they are a white minority in THEIR OWN COUNTRY and have nowhere left to run to, and the hate-filled third world invaders have taken their jobs, and are now attacking them in the streets with impunity.
But I am a foreigner living in US, I am white, and I still hate you. Maybe the problem is not with someone's skin color but with you being a racist asshole with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
To shut down an industry in World War II, we were forced to target entire complexes because of the inaccuracy of our weapons; today we would need to hit only a couple of key buildings.
Oh. So THIS is why during WWII you have spent so much effort bombing cities in Germany and Japan that were full of civilians and had absolutely no military value. My bad, I thought, it was because you were stupid, hate-filled cowards who loved killing people and would not notice military strategy if it punched you in the face.
To be fair, the quoted statement is perfrctly valid in itself, and universities, indeed, require an English test for students whose native language is not English, for this very purpose.
I remember that when I arrived in US in September 1993, for a few weeks I could not talk to locals because I did not understand spoken English. I avoided talking to them because I expected it to be too much of a trouble for them to have a conversation with me. Once I adjusted to the spoken US dialect of English, I reached the point when communication with me was worth the trouble, so I could talk to people without expecting them to run away in frustration. That was common courtesy on my part.
On the other hand, if now some ignorant racist fuck will pretend that he doesn't understand me because he can kinda recohnize some Russian accent in my speech, I would tell him to go fuck himself with the Washington Monument.
1. Fermi was a Physicist, not Swift. 2. No mentioning of a supernova. 3. No explanation of a time travel. 4. Everyone is out of character, not a single sentence sounds even remotely like anything Fermi or Swift would say. Absolutely nothing about nuking people or eating babies. 5. The whole thing looks like a result of text substitution performed on some fanfiction.
Remove all gay sex, and Fox will commit to make at least 10 seasons of a show out of that story.
One can "affect change" when some change is in progress, and someone changes its rate or direction.
It's useless though. I propose to declare the use of "effect" as a verb to be obsolete and limited to Internet trolls (it means exactly the same as "cause"), and avoid the use of "affect" in any but the most clear situations ("affect direction of the change" would be clear, "affect change" would not).
Slashdot Mirror
While I really don't care for gut feelings of some bigwig, it's pretty obvious that it would be stupid for Intel to try to make CPU for iPhone -- Intel is a lot of things but it's not a manufacturer of CPUs that are optimized for power efficiency to the extent of having low performance, something that Apple wanted for the original iPhone. Intel may decide to build a non-x86 line of CPUs for some future mobile applications, but they have no such product now, and they had no chance to complete the development cyclle for it then. So well, duh.
The global BGP table has about half a million routes.
And 256M of dynamic RAM costs how much exactly? Can you even buy a smaller device and actually save any money on it?
And how many SoCs now come WITHOUT built-in Ethernet that can update that whole RAM in seconds?
It's pointless. The resources this scheme is saving, are now the cheapest ones.
Yep. And there comes a point when you're scaling up that quantitative differences become qualitative differences that demand completely different solutions to the old problems.
There is one little problem -- Google still has no evidence that this crap works or provides any benefit.
No, firmware is static, and the code it contains must fit in limited capacity storage devices and run on low-end CPUs, unless you want to pay big money for your switches.
No. Everyone but the old router companies with massive amount of legacy code, now runs Linux on their switches, with huge RAM and NAND flash available. Both performance and storage are far greater than the amount of performance of your controller server per amount of network traffic (or total size of tables) that it is supposed to maintain. The train of large CPUs on remote controllers and small CPUs on network devices left the station a very long time ago, and it's absolutely ridiculous that people now started to optimize their network architecture for this, now obsolete, assumption.
If all you care about is Cisco contracts, you could have replaced all your routers with a mesh of WRT54Gs (or a modern equivalent) for at least a decade. It will also provide better redundancy than anything Cisco can sell you. Now, if you have requirements for performance... That's why Cisco can force idiotically expensive contracts.
The problem is not the management protocol. The problem is DEFINITELY not where the management functionality or protocol is implemented, considering that CPUs are now literally dirt cheap, so there is no excuse to move controller to some server, even if it would make sense 15 years ago. You will save $1-$5 on a $5000-$10000 device by moving from CPU capable of running full switch control (or both Openflow switch and Openflow controller, and leave enough CPU time to mine bitcoins or something if you really, really want to) to a CPU that will only be able to run OpenFlow switch.
Speaking of which, there are a lot of FPGAs in modern network switches... I have an idea! Let's all use those FPGAs to mine bitcoins! That will reduce the network maintenance costs!!! Someone, gimme a couple hundreds of millions, I will sell this idea to Cisco and VMWare, they seem to be buying all stupid ideas now. Oh, and Citrix! How could I forget Citrix! All their technology is obsolete again, so I will convince them to become a giant of router-based bitcoin mining software! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
You know, you are an idiot, right?
OpenFlow solves problems current systems cannot. If you can't see the difference between OpenFlow and current systems, then that's because you don't understand the problem domains.
Translation: Let's reinvent SNMP and try to administer network with it, like people tried in 90's! a modern equivalent of This time it's different!
Google has already shown that using their system, you can increase bandwidth and resiliency, while reducing latency. Once you understand that Google is working with hundreds of non-blocking 10Gb ports with sometimes asyemtric properties, like route latency and load, you will find routing hundreds of Gigabits over these links start to have problems with current routing and link teaming setups.
Translation: Google Big.
There is also the whole problems of device support where bugs have been found on equipment, but the parts are no longer supported. Having a way to reprogram and implement your own logic alleviates the dependency on manufacture support.
Translation: Firmware Is Magic.
Actually its very useful, especially when combined with a virtual machine infrastructure.
The "network" between VMs running on the same host, is by definition flat. You can use this flat network (your RAM) to run a protocol over it that is designed for high-latency, low-reliability wires, but that's because your OS has no IPC because it's Windows. And you can set up firewall and routing rules for that network because this is the only way to implement any kind of access restrictions, because your OS security model is designed for anything but isolating processes' access to each other, because it's Windows and it's written by Windows programmers.
A freaking dbus is a better "network" than this. dbus, the swiss army sledgehammer of interprocess communication.
Also you can mangle the packets, for example modify the MAC or IP address before forwarding the packet.
And it's all stateless, and therefore worthless for anything but cheap tricks and trivial operations that are easier to implement with what already exists. It's the same mistake that caused NFS to go through four generations.
Logically centralized topology planning and monitoring are OK.
Fixed centralized control path, one instance of configuration database, single controlling entity, crappy authentication, requirement for separate secure channel to do anything and everything, and nonexistent resistance to DoS, however, are not.
gb2school
If labor laws are too onerous, you shut up and obey them if you want to benefit from others' work.
Thinking about your mortality is possibly the MOST constructive thing you can do, at least as far as not being an a-hole is concerned.
No, dying is the most constructive thing those people can do.
If there was no Microsoft, software development would have been practiced in the same responsible way as any other form of engineering.
There is nothing Gates can do -- or any number of people can do for the rest of Gates' life, to compensate the harm Microsoft caused and will cause to mankind. It's worse than Catholicism with its Inquisition, it left a huge gaping hole where progress should have been, and infected people with their brand of stupidity for generations.
If we just yell at them and impose sanctions it won't actually do anything and we'll be painted as the bad guys (probably by you).
No!!!
It's YOU, the disgusting profiteering hawks and their minions, who complain when US military does not attack people half across the globe. It's only you. No one else.
No, nothing about overlords. Usually I consider current Canonical to be a great source of hare-brained ideas, but this is actually sane as far as end-user applications with no infrastructure components (servers, libraries) are concerned.
They will have to add apparmor rules to prevent this from becoming a security nightmare, but having application installed under user's home is actually an old Unix tradition, that became uncommon because package managers are not designed to handle it. Just make it more convenient than Apple's applications installation, and keep all truly common libraries in Debian packages.
Saddam Hussein thought he had chemical weapons, and definitely wanted them.
No one wants chemical weapons. They are extremely inefficient, and anything involving them produces less effect than similar effort with conventional weapons. It's not WWI anymore.
So you have your own atrocities then to account for. During the time of Stalin we saw as much as10 million dead in various purges and famines, and that's just one example.
Nice tricks, combining natural disasters with actual victims of Stalin's rule. At least you have tried to disguise the real number of Stalin's victims -- about 2 millions, over 30 years, in the country of almost 200 millions at the time -- less than most shitty leaders that Americans touted as heroes.
However my point is, I owe you, or your ancestors NOTHING as far as their disgusting behavior in WWII, and specifically their bombing of civilians was concerned. It was pointless massacre, performed because it was easy, and it looked like fighting a war, however it was not nearly as risky as actually taking some territory, or disabling some infrastructure, leave alone, killing people who are actually fighting for Nazi.
Writing a paper about weapons and claiming that it was poor precision that caused Americans to bomb civilians in their homes, tens and hundreds miles away from anything military-related, is pure idiocy that reveals militant denial of monstrous idiocy committed in the past.
Russians didn't bomb nearly to the ground such important military targets as Dresden, Munich, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki (and that's just the above mentioned WWII).
I'm sure all the idiots here will only be happy when they are a white minority in THEIR OWN COUNTRY and have nowhere left to run to, and the hate-filled third world invaders have taken their jobs, and are now attacking them in the streets with impunity.
But I am a foreigner living in US, I am white, and I still hate you. Maybe the problem is not with someone's skin color but with you being a racist asshole with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
I am Russian. Don't even try this shit on me.
To shut down an industry in World War II, we were forced to target entire complexes because of the inaccuracy of our weapons; today we would need to hit only a couple of key buildings.
Oh.
So THIS is why during WWII you have spent so much effort bombing cities in Germany and Japan that were full of civilians and had absolutely no military value. My bad, I thought, it was because you were stupid, hate-filled cowards who loved killing people and would not notice military strategy if it punched you in the face.
To be fair, the quoted statement is perfrctly valid in itself, and universities, indeed, require an English test for students whose native language is not English, for this very purpose.
I remember that when I arrived in US in September 1993, for a few weeks I could not talk to locals because I did not understand spoken English. I avoided talking to them because I expected it to be too much of a trouble for them to have a conversation with me. Once I adjusted to the spoken US dialect of English, I reached the point when communication with me was worth the trouble, so I could talk to people without expecting them to run away in frustration. That was common courtesy on my part.
On the other hand, if now some ignorant racist fuck will pretend that he doesn't understand me because he can kinda recohnize some Russian accent in my speech, I would tell him to go fuck himself with the Washington Monument.
1. Fermi was a Physicist, not Swift.
2. No mentioning of a supernova.
3. No explanation of a time travel.
4. Everyone is out of character, not a single sentence sounds even remotely like anything Fermi or Swift would say. Absolutely nothing about nuking people or eating babies.
5. The whole thing looks like a result of text substitution performed on some fanfiction.
Remove all gay sex, and Fox will commit to make at least 10 seasons of a show out of that story.
I have just imagined http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrico_Fermi and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Swift looking at a supernova. Maybe someone can guess what they would say to each other about it, but I have no idea.
One can "affect change" when some change is in progress, and someone changes its rate or direction.
It's useless though. I propose to declare the use of "effect" as a verb to be obsolete and limited to Internet trolls (it means exactly the same as "cause"), and avoid the use of "affect" in any but the most clear situations ("affect direction of the change" would be clear, "affect change" would not).
It's impossible to flamebait libertarians, they flame constantly with no provocation whatsoever.