The add that the server can't dynamically create more utilization capacity (extra hardware) dynamically. If anyone out there were selling a box that could do that, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. First we'd need some good nanobots, or maybe a replicator.....
Actually, he was comparing two alternatives 1) a single IBM mainframe running multiple Linux images. 2) a Linux server farm.
In the second alternative, a load balancer distributes traffic evenly across all of the servers. To increase the capacity of your server farm, you can add a new server and reconfigure your load balancer. This can be done while the rest of the farm is still up and running.
However, dynamically increasing the capacity of a single mainframe would be more difficult. (Maybe impossible, but I admit I don't know much about mainframes) How would you do that? Add more processors? More memory? Add a faster disk? All of these options would require some disruption. (Again, I am not a mainframe expert, but adding cpu/memory while the thing is running seems difficult to me. Disks can be hot-swapable of course...)
Anyway, it seems to me that Linux server farms work pretty good. Why move everything onto one really expensive mainframe? There don't seem to be many benefits to justify the added expense.
My point wasn't that the "documentation" is accurate. It just annoys me when someone claims to know the truth of the origin of the universe.
I don't believe in creationism, because there are more observable explanations for how the universe came to be. However, my belief system is no more proven then the creationists.
Anyone who believes that there is not an assload of planets that could possibly support sentient life is incredibly arrogant.
Anyone who assumes that because the Universe is big, there MUST be many habitable planets assumes too much.
I would like to believe that there are zillions of habitable planets and many of them host intelligent life. Unfotunately, life is pretty damned complicated and we don't have a clue how it began. We absolutely cannot predict how many habitable planets there are and how many of those support life.
Anyone who believes that a "god-like being" would only create life on a singular planet is even more arrogant.
Anyone who thinks that IF there is a "god-like being", he can KNOW that god's motivations is equally arrogant.
I don't even believe a "god-like being" exists. If such a being does exist, who can say if it made one or two or ten billion inhabited planets? At least "people of faith" have some documentation. Your assertions are pulled, presumably, from your arse.
Using a patent to defend IP that you created through your own R&D is fine. I think what most people find objectionable, is the practice of obtaining broad patents with the intent of suing the guy who actually tries invent something. this practice penalizes the innovators who actually create technology and awards unscrupulous lawyers.
What Qualcomm does is fine. They do research and create innovative technologies which they license to other companies. Companies like TechSearch do not do research - they don't build anything. They exploit loopholes in Patent law.
AMD competes well in the desktop market, but they aren't a serious contender in the high-end server market. Do they even have a 64-bit architecture on their roadmap?
There is a lot of stuff on the internet.
It's hard to sift through all if
Lots of information gets overlooked
People will pay us to NOT overlook their info.
We need some sort of service that can gather information... like news articles. Yeah and information that interests us... like technology news. Where could we find such a service?
It is interesting that Parisi argues free speech, yet CENSORS his own site so heavily. I visited sucks.com for the first time today and was surprised at how many words get hacked out of member comments.
Teach the fundamentals. Don't teach how to write a Java program (or C++, or Smalltalk or whatever). Instead teach how to construct an Algorithm or how to build a data structure or how to create a good interface. Once you are firmly grounded in the fundamentals, learning commercially popular languages is just a manual-reading excercise.
Slashdot Mirror
The add that the server can't dynamically create more utilization capacity (extra hardware) dynamically. If anyone out there were selling a box that could do that, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. First we'd need some good nanobots, or maybe a replicator.....
Actually, he was comparing two alternatives
1) a single IBM mainframe running multiple Linux images.
2) a Linux server farm.
In the second alternative, a load balancer distributes traffic evenly across all of the servers. To increase the capacity of your server farm, you can add a new server and reconfigure your load balancer. This can be done while the rest of the farm is still up and running.
However, dynamically increasing the capacity of a single mainframe would be more difficult. (Maybe impossible, but I admit I don't know much about mainframes) How would you do that? Add more processors? More memory? Add a faster disk? All of these options would require some disruption. (Again, I am not a mainframe expert, but adding cpu/memory while the thing is running seems difficult to me. Disks can be hot-swapable of course...)
Anyway, it seems to me that Linux server farms work pretty good. Why move everything onto one really expensive mainframe? There don't seem to be many benefits to justify the added expense.
My point wasn't that the "documentation" is accurate. It just annoys me when someone claims to know the truth of the origin of the universe.
I don't believe in creationism, because there are more observable explanations for how the universe came to be. However, my belief system is no more proven then the creationists.
Anyone who believes that there is not an assload of planets that could possibly support sentient life is incredibly arrogant.
Anyone who assumes that because the Universe is big, there MUST be many habitable planets assumes too much.
I would like to believe that there are zillions of habitable planets and many of them host intelligent life. Unfotunately, life is pretty damned complicated and we don't have a clue how it began. We absolutely cannot predict how many habitable planets there are and how many of those support life.
Anyone who believes that a "god-like being" would only create life on a singular planet is even more arrogant.
Anyone who thinks that IF there is a "god-like being", he can KNOW that god's motivations is equally arrogant.
I don't even believe a "god-like being" exists. If such a being does exist, who can say if it made one or two or ten billion inhabited planets? At least "people of faith" have some documentation. Your assertions are pulled, presumably, from your arse.
turn your sarcasm detector on.
Using a patent to defend IP that you created through your own R&D is fine. I think what most people find objectionable, is the practice of obtaining broad patents with the intent of suing the guy who actually tries invent something. this practice penalizes the innovators who actually create technology and awards unscrupulous lawyers. What Qualcomm does is fine. They do research and create innovative technologies which they license to other companies. Companies like TechSearch do not do research - they don't build anything. They exploit loopholes in Patent law.
AMD competes well in the desktop market, but they aren't a serious contender in the high-end server market. Do they even have a 64-bit architecture on their roadmap?
There is a lot of stuff on the internet. It's hard to sift through all if Lots of information gets overlooked People will pay us to NOT overlook their info.
We need some sort of service that can gather information... like news articles. Yeah and information that interests us... like technology news. Where could we find such a service?
It is interesting that Parisi argues free speech, yet CENSORS his own site so heavily. I visited sucks.com for the first time today and was surprised at how many words get hacked out of member comments.
Teach the fundamentals. Don't teach how to write a Java program (or C++, or Smalltalk or whatever). Instead teach how to construct an Algorithm or how to build a data structure or how to create a good interface. Once you are firmly grounded in the fundamentals, learning commercially popular languages is just a manual-reading excercise.