Fibre Channel over Ethernet has real promise, but these new requirements are a real stumbling block.
Something to note is that the Ethernet in FCoE is really not the same Ethernet we use today. The acronym really confuses things. The article offers some better names for the new Ethernet standard, "Converged Enhanced Ethernet (CEE)", "Data Center Ethernet (DCE)." It really is the convergence of Fibre Channel and Ethernet, NOT Fibre Channel glued to the back of Ether. Think of it more like a gigantic leap for Ethernet (and IP/TCP eventually, as functionality is pushed down a few layers), not so much a downgrade of Fibre. Also, this mostly applies to 10Gig Ether, which is already pretty damned different from previous forms of Ethernet.
I think it's necessary to explain all this because while most posters don't know dick about storage and think existing Ethernet is good enough for everything, a good number of them might also be SAN admins that shrug it off without knowing that the "Ethernet" in the acronym has changed. HBA's aren't going anywhere, they will just be running more IP traffic now =) Also, if iSCSI is still around (gag me with a spoon if it is) it will at least have a better foundation to stand on. Damn I really hope FCoE ends its misery though.
Applications are everything, which is where OpenSolaris is playing major catch-up.
People are not going to run Solaris on a zSeries for Dtrace or even ZFS, no matter how much people start jumping up and down and now matter how much Sun people look at you in disbelief that you might have other priorities.
Well, when discussing operating systems, the Operating System is everything. Otherwise, what is your argument, "The OS doesn't matter, but pick Linux/Solaris"?
Also, I'm confused, judging by the OpenSolaris reference, are you calling GNU software "applications"? Anyway, GNU software runs on ANY Solaris, and has generally done so for a longer time than it has run on Linux. GNU is not Linux centric and neither is much of the rest of the free software world.
disbelief that anyone would not run a real Unix like Solaris or real hardware like SPARC and the mythical notion that although Linux might have claimed this area Solaris runs better on some undefined beefed up hardware.
* Linux runs on everything from consumer level hardware like x86 (the same hardware that has ate SPARC's breakfast for about eight years incidentally) right up to the very same mainframe hardware that Solaris has only now been ported to.
Why focus so much on OS features being irrelevant in the first half, only to get ultra-defensive about it in the second half? That says a lot. Linux runs on everything... What's your point? This is not a how-many-platforms-can-you-run-on contest. Is z-series hardware more powerful than SPARC? I think that is pretty damned clear. Do we need to have our panties in a bunch because Solaris can run on it too? Man the perimeter defenses! The OS doesn't matter, applications do! Linux is the best anyway! x86 is good enough! But z-series is cool too, SPARC is a lie! Nya nya nya, I cant hear you, nya nya nya...
undefined == SPARC, was that really hard? Big SPARC systems are easy to find at www.sun.com. No really, Sun doesn't hide them or anything, you just never looked.
* Better under high loads and better throughput? Unsubstantiated and backed up with nothing,
Look, the hardware specs are wide open and fairly easy to comprehend. If you can't understand how something like a v890 can support higher loads and more throughput than any given x86 box, this discussion ends here.
I would laugh if it wasn't so sad. The truth is, Sun has everything it needs to make as much money as it wants if it would only ditch this cultural nonsense about Solaris and SPARC that pervades it.
Right, and by "ditching the cultural nonsense", you mean just pretend SPARC and Solaris don't exist? Declare Solaris and Linux, SPARC and x86 equals? Why are you so defensive about this? What can you tell me about SPARC hardware and the Solaris OS?
Did everyone ditch their intellectual honesty at the door when they "switched" from Windows to Linux?
What are you waiting for? Sun sells x86 servers WITH Linux! Solaris is NOT the same as Linux! SPARC is NOT the same as x86! Do you just figure you'll check it out if/when one of your peers does the dirty work first? Are you afraid you might actually find something better than x86/Linux? Do you need to feel challenged first or something? Uhh.. here, find me a Linux equivalent to "cfgadm -al -o show_FCP_disk" Ahah! That was a trick, I'm making you learn something about something you're predisposed to disliking. I'm such a dirty trickster. How about, prove to me how a Dell R900 has more usable IO bandwidth than a v490. Hah, another trick to make you research hardware differences.
I'll tell you what, a whole hell of a lot more people in the Linux community had better start looking closely at what else is out there, because a lot of you are just putting up defensive barriers and discouraging progress. When a company says nothing better exists, they're really working on 2.0. When a community says nothing better exists, it's collective ignorance.
Ambiguity and loose ends are for romance novels, not horror/sci-fi stories.
this kind of attitude of wanting everything spoon-fed and explained is very lazy and too typical of people who just want to sit in front of a box to be entertained for a set amount of time.
Before you get all high and mighty, we're still talking about Silent Hill - the movie, right?
WAIT, Doom had a plot? Doom CLONES had PLOTS?? What was it, "shoot monsters, go to hell, shoot more monsters?"
I don't think you're really being fair. This is sort of like saying all vampire movies have the same plot. "Vampires terrorize general area, go to vampires' domain, kill the vampires." It's true!
This game has a little more depth than that. There are some nice animated comic strips for free on the PSN if you're interested. I don't recall any zombies or going to hell being involved...
I've been thinking, are we really desensitized, or have games been getting a lot tamer since Doom and Quake's time? Personally, I'd rather see some cheap pixilated gore than a whole limp body slung 50 freaking yards by a rocket. It just doesn't look right:\
I don't understand it.. it's perfectly fine in the movies, but it's wrong in video games?
Uh WOW, you realize that all the same zfs administration commands still work right? However, browsing thousands of five-minute incremental snapshots for a file you deleted IS something that makes more sense in a GUI. Or, at least a nice interactive CLI program.
This is not quite the same as how GNOME speaks to samba shares that COULD just as easily be system mounted.
Jesus, if you want to mount up individual snapshots yourself to look for a missing file, more power to you. That's insane though.
Have you been paying attention to the direction Average Joe video cameras are going? DVD and HD(disk), not MiniDV tape. Firewire only has a real advantage with tape. Average Joe, knowing he doesn't have a firewire port (or rather not knowing they they exist) is not going to have ANY trouble picking up a good video camera with USB, which is the vast majority of Average Joe video cameras now.
Some Average Joes with Macs that have Firewire might have bought DV cameras in spite of the salesman's good advice that Average Joes usually don't need frame-by-frame editing or slow 1-1 import/film time ratio - yawn. I suspect these people will keep on using the same machine they had in mind when they bought the Firewire camera - IF they even use the camera anymore, because the salesman was right - importing DV tape is stupidly slow for casual usage and I^Hhe certainly didn't need the extra editing finesse.
I agree with you as far as where you think the Average Joe REALLY needs a DV camera as opposed to HD or DVD to "do extraordinary things, with pictures, video, music, etc." I doubt there are all that many prosumer digital content creators that require both MiniDV and a cheap laptop to do video editing.
If iMacs lose FW soon, then you might have something.
Do you really think two and a quarter pounds of aluminum per unit is just sent to a landfill?
Haven't you ever noticed how machined parts usually have non-functional holes punched through, or niches carved out of the backsides? It wasn't just to build a bigger garbage heap out back. They would never waste the effort and wear on the machinery if they weren't reclaiming every last scrap they cut out.
What if Win 95/98/ME are not being counted at all. Only the first Windows versions to carry version numbers in the name, and all NT based releases after that. It's not perfect, but who gives a damn? They can call it Windows 90210 if they cared to.
Maybe the logic was this? Windows 3.XX Window NT 4.0 Windows 2000 (5.XX kernel) Windows XP (5.XX kernel) Windows Vista (6.XX kernel) Windows 7
Or starting at Windows 3.x, and only counting their "home" versions or whatever they call them. Windows 3.XX Windows 95 Windows 98 Windows ME Windows XP Windows Vista Windows 7
Also, regardless of the stability of individual components, there are often issues that arise from the interactions between the components. That's actually where Linux distros are a huge win over other OSs: the developers test, patch, and integrate a huge swathe of free software alongside the core OS, in a way that commercial OSs don't (they may do the testing bit, but that's all.)
*Ahem* First-party integration is the BIGGEST difference between Linux, the OS, and any commercial OS. That's where other OSs win over Linux. I really don't believe calling what Linux vendors do "integration" is very accurate. It's more like "test, patch, and bundle."
Also, the kind of 3rd party software that doesn't get much/any OS vendor testing (say enterprise apps for example) is also a group of software you don't find in any Linux package repository. Most of the functionality you do find in a Linux repo IS well integrated and tested in commercial OSs. If the commercial OS vendor doesn't ship with a certain functionality, you can 99% of the time run the native port of the same software that's in a Linux repo. Port made possible because of extreme lack of integration.
Frankly, free software should NOT be tied to Linux, and should run on any platform with little integration work required, even if Linux suffers because of it.
I always thought the point of mass management tools is to minimize the chances of individual servers from becoming borked in some way. The idea is to do things consistently across the board so you don't end up with a bunch of one-off servers that eventually become a nightmare to maintain.
Also, I think if you had better tools you'd see there's a lot more you could do with them, not necessarily changing things, but querying for instance. In the name of consistency, say you want to know which servers have broken sendmail.cf files with no smart relay set or something like that. x 100+ servers, now that starts to suck. Verifying and fixing things like that are not uncommon when you're trying to maintain a large consistent environment... and you SHOULD try to maintain consistency in large environments if you know what's good for you:)
Simple SSH shell wrappers are pretty rough tools to do that kind of work with:\
Re:Ambiguous, and not that Interesting...
on
Linux 2.6.27 Out
·
· Score: 1
Wow, fanboy mods are out, thanks douche bag 'offtopic' moderator.
I asked a simple question, WHAT has changed in the Linux kernel development process that would cause the parent to say stable kernel releases have fewer _unknown_ bugs. I'm still waiting. The GP basically said lets wait and see. This is true for absolutely ANYTHING. No matter how well QA'd, how can you speak of stability until it's OUT THERE? Given what the parent said:
Well, yes and no. The old LK dev model had unstable releases where bugs were expected. Now every release is stable, and bugs are truly anomalies.
I think that raises quite a few questions.. WTF is the new LK dev model? Is he saying that the new model reduces the chances of unknown bugs making it into stable releases? Fanfuckingtastic, WHAT IS IT THEN? This is all I ask! God, how can one answer "it's not stable until it's widely tested in production" with a "no" without drawing some questions? What magical process could be at work there to answer that with a no?
Metamods, for reference, here's the GP post. Have fun.
Well, before we can say "maintaining quality" we need to let the kernel live in the real world for a little bit. Let's make sure motherboards aren't catching fire and disks aren't walking before we get too carried away.
Ambiguous, and not that Interesting...
on
Linux 2.6.27 Out
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Well, before we can say "maintaining quality" we need to let the kernel live in the real world for a little bit. Let's make sure motherboards aren't catching fire and disks aren't walking before we get too carried away.
Well, yes and no. The old LK dev model had unstable releases where bugs were expected. Now every release is stable, and bugs are truly anomalies.
You ALMOST make sense if this were in an entirely different context. The parent suggested that this version is not real world tested, so it's too soon to speak of quality. You make it sound as if this new development model eliminates all bugs from stable releases. To the best of my knowledge, they've simply stopped releasing "unstable" versions.
So... They didn't "have unstable releases", they released what was KNOWN to be unstable, development snapshots - IN BETWEEN what were considered to be stable releases. They don't therefore release more stable "stable" code simply because they stopped releasing unstable "unstable" code. Nothing you said supports that concept. The parent incredibly obviously suggested that there may be UNKNOWN stability issues. Why wouldn't this be true?
WTF were these five people smoking, and why did you write this so retardedly ambiguous in the first place?
The "Open Source Definition"? What does that have to do with open source? You mean "Open Source (TM)"? Sorry, that doesn't exist. If you meant "Open Source Initiative Approved License (TM)" then you might be onto something, but that's not what's being claimed.
It's funny it started because "free software" was too ambiguous. ROFL!
GNU's right..
Ambiguity The term "free software" has an ambiguity problem: an unintended meaning, "Software you can get for zero price," fits the term just as well as the intended meaning, "software which gives the user certain freedoms." We address this problem by publishing a more precise definition of free software, but this is not a perfect solution; it cannot completely eliminate the problem. An unambiguously correct term would be better, if it didn't have other problems. Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of their own. We've looked at many alternatives that people have suggested, but none is so clearly "right" that switching to it would be a good idea. Every proposed replacement for "free software" has a similar kind of semantic problem, or worse--and this includes "open source software." The official definition of "open source software," as published by the Open Source Initiative, is very close to our definition of free software; however, it is a little looser in some respects, and they have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the users. However, the obvious meaning for the expression "open source software" is "You can look at the source code." This is a much weaker criterion than free software; it includes free software, but also includes semi-free programs such as Xv, and even some proprietary programs, including Qt under its original license (before the QPL). That obvious meaning for "open source" is not the meaning that its advocates intend. The result is that most people misunderstand what those advocates are advocating. Here is how writer Neal Stephenson defined "open source": Linux is "open source" software meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its source code files.
Whatever meaning the OSI meant open source to have (the Linux centric ideals) is lost.
15 years from now, when people are picking up the "classics" from this generation, they won't get the full experience that people today got because the game may not be being sold new.
Playing devil's advocate here... they still own the rights to those "classics". They have the right to rerelease "classic" titles at a later date. Look at what EA/Westwood does with all the Command & Conquer games. Blizzard did it too with the Warcraft franchise, and there are probably thousands of other examples. So, those are THEIR interests, not ours necessary, although at the rate computer platforms evolve, rereleases on new platforms are almost necessary to experience any "classic" game.
I like this analogy better: It's like you buy an album, and you get a free downloadable track that's a super awesome track. You got it because you bought the album new. Somehow, the RIAA comes up with a magic uncrackable un-analog-recordable DRM that means this bonus track never finds its way to torrent sites. Now 15 years later the original album goes out of print, but it's a bit of a "cult classic." People download the CD from torrent sites or iTunes and enjoy it, but nobody at the label ever bothered to put the "super awesome track" in the iTunes version of the album. Well sure, you have all the tracks from the OFFICIAL album tracklist, but that super awesome free track that everybody raved about 15 years ago is lost in time and space, unless somebody at the label decides to confer the priviledge of hearing that track again to you.
It's fully within their rights to decide if/when to redistribute something they own isn't it? I know you, sure as shit, don't have the right to redistribute someone else's copyrighted material without permission.
- Alt-tab to a helpful wiki-based site for game help? Can it be done on consoles?
- Game forums, still computer based? I guess that's ok...
Honestly, I wouldn't shed a tear if we lost any of those features. I'm not saying I haven't used any of these, just that if they're really necessary, the game is broke. Client side mods remind me of an old Quake proxy program that never outright cheated for you, as in auto aim, or exploiting one of the MANY hacks available, wall hack, kick protection, etc. It just timed item respawns, notified you when stuff like quad damage was about to pop, and other shady things along those lines. I remember it was debatable at the time wether this was cheating or not, something rating a kick/ban. In my opinion, it's not about drawing a line between what's cheating or not. Most popular MMO mods I've seen generally aren't considered 'cheating'. The MMO developers designed the game to prohibit the most serious offenses. Some mods though, that use external programs and stuff might be pushing it:)
I think it's about playing the same game everyone else is playing. Single player games, hack and cheat away. Online, or massively online? Hell no. The onus should be on the game developer to provide a balanced experience for all players and fix what's broke. If a mandatory quest is too hard to figure out, causing people to drop out of the game for help, it's broke. If it isn't mandatory and it's hard, it was probably meant to be, and you're cheating yourself. Maybe I'm just a crusty old gamer, but if buy a game, I want the whole experience, inside the game. Strategy guides, ehhh, only as a last resort in an impassable situation:)
Also, consider that while in game web browsing may be impossible right now on a console, what exactly would your PC be doing during this time? Probably parked on a forum or wki-based site like you mentioned right?
As the other guy mentioned, consoles already have those features. Hell, the PS3 even supports bluetooth K&M, something most desktop PC's don't have built in.
-Copy protection is (almost) irrelevant, because the game needs the central server and login by design.
Errm... how is this an advantage or disadvantage to anything here?
If they were really necessary anyway Sony might subsidize the cost of a USB or BT K&M with the purchase of "Shiny New MMO, Deluxe Edition"
Hell no. You don't know what you're talking about, read the PCI-DSS before even thinking about replying to this.
They make it pretty damned clear what the intent is, and what's tested.
PCI is all about encrypting credit card numbers and expiry dates - and nothing else. Even a fully-PCI-compliant system is a rich source of unencrypted information for Identity Theft.
For one thing, identity theft doesn't really enter into the equation here. For example, other identifying features like US social security numbers are not mentioned, or even relevant here. It also has nothing to do with preventing people from fraudulently signing up for credit cards in other people's names. This is about protecting monetary assets, and consumer trust. There is also a pretty picture on page four that describes exactly what requires encryption or can be stored at all. Expiration dates generally don't need to be encrypted, and of course your PIN and mag stripe data are encrypted and stored only in a HSM if anywhere at all.
For the record, what you described does seem to violate 8.4.b of these the latest version of PCI-DSS.
There's nothing stopping employees from snooping through customer records to gather saleable information for the Identity Theft market.
Here's a secret about customer service.. they ALREADY have access to your account! It's their JOB! They probably shouldn't have your plaintext password (mentioned that above), but the tools they use to do their jobs are checked, controlled, and audited. These people are screened accordingly, as you seem to be aware.
human operators and the GUIs that they use.
Yah, trust me, the "GUIs" they use are incredibly audited. After all, most fraud is committed by insiders. You are not the first person to think "OMG the CS rep can steal my DATAs!"
I know the previous version specifically mentioned UNIX systems are not commonly affected by viruses in a footnote.. Still, it's pretty clear what they mean, I don't know why everyone was going crazy about this. They certainly didn't clarify it mean it includes UNIX (or -like) systems.
ah, from the summary of changes.. 5.1 5.1 Requirement & Testing Procedure: Clarified
requirement applies to all operating systems types
commonly affected by malicious software, if applicable
anti-virus technology exists.
Besides use of the term "anti-virus software," changed
the term "virus" to "malicious software."
Deleted note stating "Systems commonly affected by
viruses typically do not include UNIX-based operating
systems or mainframes."
Yes, it is very ambiguous, I agree with you, just making a comment about this part..
Reading the article though I didn't see anything that should have constituted news to anyone in the industry.
At first glance I thought it was all basic, common, best practice security principles too, until you get to the encryption key management parts. We're basically limited to high dollar "enterprise" level encryption products which must scare the living sh*t out of SMB's. Requirements 3.4 to 3.6 are what I'm talking about. 3.4.1.a disallows the commodity encryption features built into your OS, 3.6 is automatically very expensive because this was previously a luxury, 3.6.6 is pretty much only available in the highest end encryption products. I think that is one of the main features vendors use to distinguish their enterprise grade from lower grades in fact.
Hopefully some good will come out of this crazy document and the more robust encryption/key management features will be pushed down to a wider audience. Maybe even open source developers will pick up on it now:\
Unless your box is actually doing something useful overnight, you're wasting a lot of power leaving it switched on all the time. Never mind the tree-hugger angle, that's costing you money.
We've had various low power/sleep/hibernate modes available for _years_ now, I think we should work on getting those features working more reliably under Linux than telling users to change their ways to suit Linux's lack of progress. For that matter, just change the fucking boot process already, see every other modern OS for examples. Solaris, Mac OS X, Vista.. and I'm sure there are others who also moved on from crusty linear execution of shell scripts. This is typical Linux-speak.. "It's not broke/missing, you should change."
Go ask someone with a Mac what his boot time is. "You mean you turn yours off?" Try hibernating a Mac laptop. Don't know how? Close lid. Wait less than 5 seconds for blinky light. Unplug power and rip out battery. Yes, it hibernates that quick, and it's automatic. iMacs, desktop systems mind you, default to standby mode after 10 minutes idle. It's even smart enough to not standby a system that's streaming music or sharing files, it'll just standby when the connections are closed. OS X's suspend/resume is the most reliable out there. True, it's because of the tight integration with Apple hardware, that's what you pay for. Linux and Microsoft are at a slight disadvantage, but that's the open PC market for you, love it or hate it.
Apple has paid particular attention to this area, but you might even learn a thing or two by looking at Vista's power saving modes. Also, Solaris has a nice streamlined boot process and replaced much of their old init stuff, you might want to check that out.
The Linux community can't just tell it's users to change any more, there are many alternatives, and I wouldn't say anyone is asleep at the wheel anymore. It's not just Linux vs. big sleeping giant Microsoft anymore like many of you thought around 2000. There's much more out there than Windows, and even that improves leaps and bounds every generation. Linux has hurt many traditional UNIX systems, and I can think of a big one that isn't going to (and doesn't have to) cave in to Linux. Than there's Apple, which frankly, Linux can't hold a freaking candle to, but anyone who really wants Linux to succeed on the desktop needs to pay close attention to them.
However, people aren't logical. People tend to place more emphasis on time spent waiting for the system to boot than a lot of other bottlenecks. You can argue about the reasons for this, it's an interesting psychological debate, but the fact is that it's true. Boot speed has a big psychological effect on how fast people think a system is. So, it's a good idea to optimize it.
Logic, schmogic, are you going to let every other system outperform Linux (in the eyes of the users, or however you want to put it) because you think your users have an illogical desire for a faster booting system? Are you trying to cleverly say you're right, users are wrong, but you'll appease them anyway? Yah, that's a nice twist on "customers are always right." The customer is wrong, but I'll do it anyway because they're stupid. That's a winning attitude. This is why Linux has so much trouble.
I don't know what people's problems are, emotional attachment, idealism, hypocrisy, extremism, ignorance, a desire to be a part of something (and put a razor-wire fence between it and everything else).. I could go on. There's a lot of Linux coolaid drinking going on around here though, that's for damned sure.
Try working with a bunch of "everything must migrate to Linux" nuts in a mixed Solaris/Linux SAN environment, that's a joy. Gag me with a spoon the next time I have to troubleshoot a storage issue with "cat/proc/scsi/scsi", and guess where T.F. "sde" is coming from.
I got into Linux because it was neat technology to me, and coming from a Windows desktop background it didn't take much to impress. Compilers included.. ohhh, ahhh. I really liked the development models. It was obvious a LONG time ago that much of the Linux community was focused on just one thing, beating Windows. I used to think Linux could become a really kick ass system optimized for software development and computer hobbyists. Those dreams are long gone, it has made ZERO progress in that direction. Yes, it is great for developers and hobbyists.. but it hasn't gotten any better at it since the mid 90's. Linux has only succeeded at syphoning old features from other OS's. I even believed in all the "everything must be Linux" propaganda until I started using Solaris at work, when I realized that much of the Linux community 'TODAY' doesn't know dick about UNIX. That (and working alongside bearded mainframers) opened my mind up about computing in general, and I bought a Mac, with zero prior experience with them, mostly out of curiosity. All I will say on that is the Linux desktop crowd had better start aiming a lot higher than Windows... to the Linux in the enterprise crowd... wake up. Just wake up already.
It's scary how people (OK, geeks) can be so polarized when it comes to computing. All OS vendors out there today have some pretty awesome, unique attributes, that's including Linux. If someone was going to dedicate their life to computing, it should be to advance the state of the art, or maybe make our lives better, not "push Linux; make Linux better". You can't just take the best bits of everything all at once and mash them together continuously, it wont work. There should be nothing wrong with using Microsoft software to it's full potential, or Apple's, or Sun's, or IBM's, etc. Screw "lock-in", and monopolies, we only have real problems when a bunch of idiots rush to one side of the boat too quickly.. see Windows.. and now Linux.. If you take a good, unbiased look at what's out there right now, there's little reason for everything to be so lopsided for/against any particular platform, or architecture even.
I have seen many posts bragging 99.999999% uptime for Solaris.
But, I worked a temporary contract at Sun's Broomfield campus in Colorado, from Sept-2007 to Feb-2008. I monitored about 2000 Sun boxes. I saw those things go down all the time.
Let me guess, the closest you got to Solaris was seeing the OS name in some monitoring software?
Bravo.
"Are Porsches really *that* fast?" I have seen many posts that Porsches are fast cars. But, I lived in northern Virginia from 2006 to 2008. There are thousands of porsches there. I must have passed hundreds of them, like they were standing still, on I95 to DC with my Civic.
Note that this arrangement is often used to "insulate" portions of the software stack from possible GPL issues.
Can you provide a source for this? I've heard of these processor & DSP chips for a while now, didn't know they were common in mobile phones, but I'm extremely skeptical that any processor & DSP chips are used to mitigate software licensing issues.
It could be a side effect.. maybe GPL'd DSP software is just hard to come by, and systems end up running mostly GPL'd software on the ARM, and proprietary software on the DSP, but the way you put it sounds ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
Fibre Channel over Ethernet has real promise, but these new requirements are a real stumbling block.
Something to note is that the Ethernet in FCoE is really not the same Ethernet we use today. The acronym really confuses things. The article offers some better names for the new Ethernet standard, "Converged Enhanced Ethernet (CEE)", "Data Center Ethernet (DCE)." It really is the convergence of Fibre Channel and Ethernet, NOT Fibre Channel glued to the back of Ether. Think of it more like a gigantic leap for Ethernet (and IP/TCP eventually, as functionality is pushed down a few layers), not so much a downgrade of Fibre. Also, this mostly applies to 10Gig Ether, which is already pretty damned different from previous forms of Ethernet.
These are the new Ethernet standards.
I think it's necessary to explain all this because while most posters don't know dick about storage and think existing Ethernet is good enough for everything, a good number of them might also be SAN admins that shrug it off without knowing that the "Ethernet" in the acronym has changed. HBA's aren't going anywhere, they will just be running more IP traffic now =) Also, if iSCSI is still around (gag me with a spoon if it is) it will at least have a better foundation to stand on. Damn I really hope FCoE ends its misery though.
Applications are everything, which is where OpenSolaris is playing major catch-up.
People are not going to run Solaris on a zSeries for Dtrace or even ZFS, no matter how much people start jumping up and down and now matter how much Sun people look at you in disbelief that you might have other priorities.
Well, when discussing operating systems, the Operating System is everything. Otherwise, what is your argument, "The OS doesn't matter, but pick Linux/Solaris"?
Also, I'm confused, judging by the OpenSolaris reference, are you calling GNU software "applications"? Anyway, GNU software runs on ANY Solaris, and has generally done so for a longer time than it has run on Linux. GNU is not Linux centric and neither is much of the rest of the free software world.
disbelief that anyone would not run a real Unix like Solaris or real hardware like SPARC and the mythical notion that although Linux might have claimed this area Solaris runs better on some undefined beefed up hardware.
* Linux runs on everything from consumer level hardware like x86 (the same hardware that has ate SPARC's breakfast for about eight years incidentally) right up to the very same mainframe hardware that Solaris has only now been ported to.
Why focus so much on OS features being irrelevant in the first half, only to get ultra-defensive about it in the second half? That says a lot.
Linux runs on everything... What's your point? This is not a how-many-platforms-can-you-run-on contest.
Is z-series hardware more powerful than SPARC? I think that is pretty damned clear. Do we need to have our panties in a bunch because Solaris can run on it too? Man the perimeter defenses! The OS doesn't matter, applications do! Linux is the best anyway! x86 is good enough! But z-series is cool too, SPARC is a lie! Nya nya nya, I cant hear you, nya nya nya...
undefined == SPARC, was that really hard? Big SPARC systems are easy to find at www.sun.com. No really, Sun doesn't hide them or anything, you just never looked.
* Better under high loads and better throughput? Unsubstantiated and backed up with nothing,
Look, the hardware specs are wide open and fairly easy to comprehend. If you can't understand how something like a v890 can support higher loads and more throughput than any given x86 box, this discussion ends here.
I would laugh if it wasn't so sad. The truth is, Sun has everything it needs to make as much money as it wants if it would only ditch this cultural nonsense about Solaris and SPARC that pervades it.
Right, and by "ditching the cultural nonsense", you mean just pretend SPARC and Solaris don't exist? Declare Solaris and Linux, SPARC and x86 equals? Why are you so defensive about this? What can you tell me about SPARC hardware and the Solaris OS?
Did everyone ditch their intellectual honesty at the door when they "switched" from Windows to Linux?
What are you waiting for? Sun sells x86 servers WITH Linux! Solaris is NOT the same as Linux! SPARC is NOT the same as x86! Do you just figure you'll check it out if/when one of your peers does the dirty work first? Are you afraid you might actually find something better than x86/Linux? Do you need to feel challenged first or something? Uhh.. here, find me a Linux equivalent to "cfgadm -al -o show_FCP_disk"
Ahah! That was a trick, I'm making you learn something about something you're predisposed to disliking. I'm such a dirty trickster.
How about, prove to me how a Dell R900 has more usable IO bandwidth than a v490. Hah, another trick to make you research hardware differences.
I'll tell you what, a whole hell of a lot more people in the Linux community had better start looking closely at what else is out there, because a lot of you are just putting up defensive barriers and discouraging progress. When a company says nothing better exists, they're really working on 2.0. When a community says nothing better exists, it's collective ignorance.
Ambiguity and loose ends are for romance novels, not horror/sci-fi stories.
this kind of attitude of wanting everything spoon-fed and explained is very lazy and too typical of people who just want to sit in front of a box to be entertained for a set amount of time.
Before you get all high and mighty, we're still talking about Silent Hill - the movie, right?
WAIT, Doom had a plot? Doom CLONES had PLOTS?? What was it, "shoot monsters, go to hell, shoot more monsters?"
I don't think you're really being fair. This is sort of like saying all vampire movies have the same plot. "Vampires terrorize general area, go to vampires' domain, kill the vampires." It's true!
This game has a little more depth than that. There are some nice animated comic strips for free on the PSN if you're interested. I don't recall any zombies or going to hell being involved...
I've been thinking, are we really desensitized, or have games been getting a lot tamer since Doom and Quake's time? :\
Personally, I'd rather see some cheap pixilated gore than a whole limp body slung 50 freaking yards by a rocket. It just doesn't look right
I don't understand it.. it's perfectly fine in the movies, but it's wrong in video games?
Uh WOW, you realize that all the same zfs administration commands still work right?
However, browsing thousands of five-minute incremental snapshots for a file you deleted IS something that makes more sense in a GUI. Or, at least a nice interactive CLI program.
This is not quite the same as how GNOME speaks to samba shares that COULD just as easily be system mounted.
Jesus, if you want to mount up individual snapshots yourself to look for a missing file, more power to you. That's insane though.
Have you been paying attention to the direction Average Joe video cameras are going? DVD and HD(disk), not MiniDV tape. Firewire only has a real advantage with tape. Average Joe, knowing he doesn't have a firewire port (or rather not knowing they they exist) is not going to have ANY trouble picking up a good video camera with USB, which is the vast majority of Average Joe video cameras now.
Some Average Joes with Macs that have Firewire might have bought DV cameras in spite of the salesman's good advice that Average Joes usually don't need frame-by-frame editing or slow 1-1 import/film time ratio - yawn. I suspect these people will keep on using the same machine they had in mind when they bought the Firewire camera - IF they even use the camera anymore, because the salesman was right - importing DV tape is stupidly slow for casual usage and I^Hhe certainly didn't need the extra editing finesse.
I agree with you as far as where you think the Average Joe REALLY needs a DV camera as opposed to HD or DVD to "do extraordinary things, with pictures, video, music, etc." I doubt there are all that many prosumer digital content creators that require both MiniDV and a cheap laptop to do video editing.
If iMacs lose FW soon, then you might have something.
Do you really think two and a quarter pounds of aluminum per unit is just sent to a landfill?
Haven't you ever noticed how machined parts usually have non-functional holes punched through, or niches carved out of the backsides? It wasn't just to build a bigger garbage heap out back. They would never waste the effort and wear on the machinery if they weren't reclaiming every last scrap they cut out.
What if Win 95/98/ME are not being counted at all. Only the first Windows versions to carry version numbers in the name, and all NT based releases after that. It's not perfect, but who gives a damn? They can call it Windows 90210 if they cared to.
Maybe the logic was this?
Windows 3.XX
Window NT 4.0
Windows 2000 (5.XX kernel)
Windows XP (5.XX kernel)
Windows Vista (6.XX kernel)
Windows 7
Or starting at Windows 3.x, and only counting their "home" versions or whatever they call them.
Windows 3.XX
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows ME
Windows XP
Windows Vista
Windows 7
Also, regardless of the stability of individual components, there are often issues that arise from the interactions between the components. That's actually where Linux distros are a huge win over other OSs: the developers test, patch, and integrate a huge swathe of free software alongside the core OS, in a way that commercial OSs don't (they may do the testing bit, but that's all.)
*Ahem* First-party integration is the BIGGEST difference between Linux, the OS, and any commercial OS. That's where other OSs win over Linux. I really don't believe calling what Linux vendors do "integration" is very accurate. It's more like "test, patch, and bundle."
Also, the kind of 3rd party software that doesn't get much/any OS vendor testing (say enterprise apps for example) is also a group of software you don't find in any Linux package repository. Most of the functionality you do find in a Linux repo IS well integrated and tested in commercial OSs. If the commercial OS vendor doesn't ship with a certain functionality, you can 99% of the time run the native port of the same software that's in a Linux repo. Port made possible because of extreme lack of integration.
Frankly, free software should NOT be tied to Linux, and should run on any platform with little integration work required, even if Linux suffers because of it.
I always thought the point of mass management tools is to minimize the chances of individual servers from becoming borked in some way. The idea is to do things consistently across the board so you don't end up with a bunch of one-off servers that eventually become a nightmare to maintain.
Also, I think if you had better tools you'd see there's a lot more you could do with them, not necessarily changing things, but querying for instance. .. and you SHOULD try to maintain consistency in large environments if you know what's good for you :)
In the name of consistency, say you want to know which servers have broken sendmail.cf files with no smart relay set or something like that. x 100+ servers, now that starts to suck. Verifying and fixing things like that are not uncommon when you're trying to maintain a large consistent environment.
Simple SSH shell wrappers are pretty rough tools to do that kind of work with :\
Wow, fanboy mods are out, thanks douche bag 'offtopic' moderator.
I asked a simple question, WHAT has changed in the Linux kernel development process that would cause the parent to say stable kernel releases have fewer _unknown_ bugs. I'm still waiting. The GP basically said lets wait and see. This is true for absolutely ANYTHING. No matter how well QA'd, how can you speak of stability until it's OUT THERE? Given what the parent said:
Well, yes and no. The old LK dev model had unstable releases where bugs were expected. Now every release is stable, and bugs are truly anomalies.
I think that raises quite a few questions.. WTF is the new LK dev model? Is he saying that the new model reduces the chances of unknown bugs making it into stable releases? Fanfuckingtastic, WHAT IS IT THEN? This is all I ask!
God, how can one answer "it's not stable until it's widely tested in production" with a "no" without drawing some questions? What magical process could be at work there to answer that with a no?
Metamods, for reference, here's the GP post. Have fun.
Well, before we can say "maintaining quality" we need to let the kernel live in the real world for a little bit. Let's make sure motherboards aren't catching fire and disks aren't walking before we get too carried away.
Well, before we can say "maintaining quality" we need to let the kernel live in the real world for a little bit. Let's make sure motherboards aren't catching fire and disks aren't walking before we get too carried away.
Well, yes and no. The old LK dev model had unstable releases where bugs were expected. Now every release is stable, and bugs are truly anomalies.
You ALMOST make sense if this were in an entirely different context. The parent suggested that this version is not real world tested, so it's too soon to speak of quality. You make it sound as if this new development model eliminates all bugs from stable releases. To the best of my knowledge, they've simply stopped releasing "unstable" versions.
So...
They didn't "have unstable releases", they released what was KNOWN to be unstable, development snapshots - IN BETWEEN what were considered to be stable releases. They don't therefore release more stable "stable" code simply because they stopped releasing unstable "unstable" code. Nothing you said supports that concept. The parent incredibly obviously suggested that there may be UNKNOWN stability issues. Why wouldn't this be true?
WTF were these five people smoking, and why did you write this so retardedly ambiguous in the first place?
The "Open Source Definition"?
What does that have to do with open source? You mean "Open Source (TM)"? Sorry, that doesn't exist.
If you meant "Open Source Initiative Approved License (TM)" then you might be onto something, but that's not what's being claimed.
Open source has a Linux centric background, but nobody can dictate what exactly it means. It is commonly accepted today to mean you can see the source.
GNU's take on "open source"
The original open source announcement
http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html#guidelines>What it was based on
It's funny it started because "free software" was too ambiguous. ROFL!
GNU's right..
Ambiguity
The term "free software" has an ambiguity problem: an unintended meaning, "Software you can get for zero price," fits the term just as well as the intended meaning, "software which gives the user certain freedoms." We address this problem by publishing a more precise definition of free software, but this is not a perfect solution; it cannot completely eliminate the problem. An unambiguously correct term would be better, if it didn't have other problems.
Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of their own. We've looked at many alternatives that people have suggested, but none is so clearly "right" that switching to it would be a good idea. Every proposed replacement for "free software" has a similar kind of semantic problem, or worse--and this includes "open source software."
The official definition of "open source software," as published by the Open Source Initiative, is very close to our definition of free software; however, it is a little looser in some respects, and they have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the users. However, the obvious meaning for the expression "open source software" is "You can look at the source code." This is a much weaker criterion than free software; it includes free software, but also includes semi-free programs such as Xv, and even some proprietary programs, including Qt under its original license (before the QPL).
That obvious meaning for "open source" is not the meaning that its advocates intend. The result is that most people misunderstand what those advocates are advocating. Here is how writer Neal Stephenson defined "open source":
Linux is "open source" software meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its source code files.
Whatever meaning the OSI meant open source to have (the Linux centric ideals) is lost.
15 years from now, when people are picking up the "classics" from this generation, they won't get the full experience that people today got because the game may not be being sold new.
Playing devil's advocate here... they still own the rights to those "classics". They have the right to rerelease "classic" titles at a later date. Look at what EA/Westwood does with all the Command & Conquer games. Blizzard did it too with the Warcraft franchise, and there are probably thousands of other examples. So, those are THEIR interests, not ours necessary, although at the rate computer platforms evolve, rereleases on new platforms are almost necessary to experience any "classic" game.
I like this analogy better: It's like you buy an album, and you get a free downloadable track that's a super awesome track. You got it because you bought the album new. Somehow, the RIAA comes up with a magic uncrackable un-analog-recordable DRM that means this bonus track never finds its way to torrent sites. Now 15 years later the original album goes out of print, but it's a bit of a "cult classic." People download the CD from torrent sites or iTunes and enjoy it, but nobody at the label ever bothered to put the "super awesome track" in the iTunes version of the album. Well sure, you have all the tracks from the OFFICIAL album tracklist, but that super awesome free track that everybody raved about 15 years ago is lost in time and space, unless somebody at the label decides to confer the priviledge of hearing that track again to you.
It's fully within their rights to decide if/when to redistribute something they own isn't it? I know you, sure as shit, don't have the right to redistribute someone else's copyrighted material without permission.
- Modding community ... can they exist w/consoles?
- Alt-tab to a helpful wiki-based site for game
help? Can it be done on consoles?
- Game forums, still computer based? I guess that's ok...
Honestly, I wouldn't shed a tear if we lost any of those features. I'm not saying I haven't used any of these, just that if they're really necessary, the game is broke. Client side mods remind me of an old Quake proxy program that never outright cheated for you, as in auto aim, or exploiting one of the MANY hacks available, wall hack, kick protection, etc. It just timed item respawns, notified you when stuff like quad damage was about to pop, and other shady things along those lines. I remember it was debatable at the time wether this was cheating or not, something rating a kick/ban. In my opinion, it's not about drawing a line between what's cheating or not. Most popular MMO mods I've seen generally aren't considered 'cheating'. The MMO developers designed the game to prohibit the most serious offenses. Some mods though, that use external programs and stuff might be pushing it :)
I think it's about playing the same game everyone else is playing. Single player games, hack and cheat away. Online, or massively online? Hell no. The onus should be on the game developer to provide a balanced experience for all players and fix what's broke. If a mandatory quest is too hard to figure out, causing people to drop out of the game for help, it's broke. If it isn't mandatory and it's hard, it was probably meant to be, and you're cheating yourself. Maybe I'm just a crusty old gamer, but if buy a game, I want the whole experience, inside the game. Strategy guides, ehhh, only as a last resort in an impassable situation :)
Also, consider that while in game web browsing may be impossible right now on a console, what exactly would your PC be doing during this time? Probably parked on a forum or wki-based site like you mentioned right?
As the other guy mentioned, consoles already have those features. Hell, the PS3 even supports bluetooth K&M, something most desktop PC's don't have built in.
-Copy protection is (almost) irrelevant, because the game needs the central server and login by design.
Errm... how is this an advantage or disadvantage to anything here?
If they were really necessary anyway Sony might subsidize the cost of a USB or BT K&M with the purchase of "Shiny New MMO, Deluxe Edition"
Hell no. You don't know what you're talking about, read the PCI-DSS before even thinking about replying to this.
They make it pretty damned clear what the intent is, and what's tested.
PCI is all about encrypting credit card numbers and expiry dates - and nothing else. Even a fully-PCI-compliant system is a rich source of unencrypted information for Identity Theft.
For one thing, identity theft doesn't really enter into the equation here. For example, other identifying features like US social security numbers are not mentioned, or even relevant here. It also has nothing to do with preventing people from fraudulently signing up for credit cards in other people's names. This is about protecting monetary assets, and consumer trust. There is also a pretty picture on page four that describes exactly what requires encryption or can be stored at all. Expiration dates generally don't need to be encrypted, and of course your PIN and mag stripe data are encrypted and stored only in a HSM if anywhere at all.
For the record, what you described does seem to violate 8.4.b of these the latest version of PCI-DSS.
There's nothing stopping employees from snooping through customer records to gather saleable information for the Identity Theft market.
Here's a secret about customer service.. they ALREADY have access to your account! It's their JOB! They probably shouldn't have your plaintext password (mentioned that above), but the tools they use to do their jobs are checked, controlled, and audited. These people are screened accordingly, as you seem to be aware.
human operators and the GUIs that they use.
Yah, trust me, the "GUIs" they use are incredibly audited. After all, most fraud is committed by insiders. You are not the first person to think "OMG the CS rep can steal my DATAs!"
I know the previous version specifically mentioned UNIX systems are not commonly affected by viruses in a footnote..
Still, it's pretty clear what they mean, I don't know why everyone was going crazy about this. They certainly didn't clarify it mean it includes UNIX (or -like) systems.
ah, from the summary of changes..
5.1 5.1 Requirement & Testing Procedure: Clarified
requirement applies to all operating systems types
commonly affected by malicious software, if applicable
anti-virus technology exists.
Besides use of the term "anti-virus software," changed
the term "virus" to "malicious software."
Deleted note stating "Systems commonly affected by
viruses typically do not include UNIX-based operating
systems or mainframes."
Yes, it is very ambiguous, I agree with you, just making a comment about this part..
Reading the article though I didn't see anything that should have constituted news to anyone in the industry.
At first glance I thought it was all basic, common, best practice security principles too, until you get to the encryption key management parts. We're basically limited to high dollar "enterprise" level encryption products which must scare the living sh*t out of SMB's. Requirements 3.4 to 3.6 are what I'm talking about. 3.4.1.a disallows the commodity encryption features built into your OS, 3.6 is automatically very expensive because this was previously a luxury, 3.6.6 is pretty much only available in the highest end encryption products. I think that is one of the main features vendors use to distinguish their enterprise grade from lower grades in fact.
Hopefully some good will come out of this crazy document and the more robust encryption/key management features will be pushed down to a wider audience. Maybe even open source developers will pick up on it now :\
While we're on that subject, what the fuck kind of "load" is a company going to toss out to a bunch of VM's on the Internet?
Are we talking about puny web/app servers with no database connectivity?
News for ner^H^H^H IT interns.
Unless your box is actually doing something useful overnight, you're wasting a lot of power leaving it switched on all the time. Never mind the tree-hugger angle, that's costing you money.
We've had various low power/sleep/hibernate modes available for _years_ now, I think we should work on getting those features working more reliably under Linux than telling users to change their ways to suit Linux's lack of progress. For that matter, just change the fucking boot process already, see every other modern OS for examples. Solaris, Mac OS X, Vista.. and I'm sure there are others who also moved on from crusty linear execution of shell scripts.
This is typical Linux-speak.. "It's not broke/missing, you should change."
Go ask someone with a Mac what his boot time is. "You mean you turn yours off?"
Try hibernating a Mac laptop. Don't know how? Close lid. Wait less than 5 seconds for blinky light. Unplug power and rip out battery. Yes, it hibernates that quick, and it's automatic.
iMacs, desktop systems mind you, default to standby mode after 10 minutes idle. It's even smart enough to not standby a system that's streaming music or sharing files, it'll just standby when the connections are closed. OS X's suspend/resume is the most reliable out there. True, it's because of the tight integration with Apple hardware, that's what you pay for. Linux and Microsoft are at a slight disadvantage, but that's the open PC market for you, love it or hate it.
Apple has paid particular attention to this area, but you might even learn a thing or two by looking at Vista's power saving modes. Also, Solaris has a nice streamlined boot process and replaced much of their old init stuff, you might want to check that out.
The Linux community can't just tell it's users to change any more, there are many alternatives, and I wouldn't say anyone is asleep at the wheel anymore. It's not just Linux vs. big sleeping giant Microsoft anymore like many of you thought around 2000. There's much more out there than Windows, and even that improves leaps and bounds every generation. Linux has hurt many traditional UNIX systems, and I can think of a big one that isn't going to (and doesn't have to) cave in to Linux. Than there's Apple, which frankly, Linux can't hold a freaking candle to, but anyone who really wants Linux to succeed on the desktop needs to pay close attention to them.
However, people aren't logical. People tend to place more emphasis on time spent waiting for the system to boot than a lot of other bottlenecks. You can argue about the reasons for this, it's an interesting psychological debate, but the fact is that it's true. Boot speed has a big psychological effect on how fast people think a system is. So, it's a good idea to optimize it.
Logic, schmogic, are you going to let every other system outperform Linux (in the eyes of the users, or however you want to put it) because you think your users have an illogical desire for a faster booting system? Are you trying to cleverly say you're right, users are wrong, but you'll appease them anyway? Yah, that's a nice twist on "customers are always right." The customer is wrong, but I'll do it anyway because they're stupid. That's a winning attitude. This is why Linux has so much trouble.
You're not alone.
I don't know what people's problems are, emotional attachment, idealism, hypocrisy, extremism, ignorance, a desire to be a part of something (and put a razor-wire fence between it and everything else).. I could go on. There's a lot of Linux coolaid drinking going on around here though, that's for damned sure.
Try working with a bunch of "everything must migrate to Linux" nuts in a mixed Solaris/Linux SAN environment, that's a joy. /proc/scsi/scsi", and guess where T.F. "sde" is coming from.
Gag me with a spoon the next time I have to troubleshoot a storage issue with "cat
I got into Linux because it was neat technology to me, and coming from a Windows desktop background it didn't take much to impress. Compilers included.. ohhh, ahhh. I really liked the development models. It was obvious a LONG time ago that much of the Linux community was focused on just one thing, beating Windows. I used to think Linux could become a really kick ass system optimized for software development and computer hobbyists. Those dreams are long gone, it has made ZERO progress in that direction. Yes, it is great for developers and hobbyists.. but it hasn't gotten any better at it since the mid 90's. Linux has only succeeded at syphoning old features from other OS's. I even believed in all the "everything must be Linux" propaganda until I started using Solaris at work, when I realized that much of the Linux community 'TODAY' doesn't know dick about UNIX. That (and working alongside bearded mainframers) opened my mind up about computing in general, and I bought a Mac, with zero prior experience with them, mostly out of curiosity. All I will say on that is the Linux desktop crowd had better start aiming a lot higher than Windows...
to the Linux in the enterprise crowd... wake up. Just wake up already.
It's scary how people (OK, geeks) can be so polarized when it comes to computing. All OS vendors out there today have some pretty awesome, unique attributes, that's including Linux. If someone was going to dedicate their life to computing, it should be to advance the state of the art, or maybe make our lives better, not "push Linux; make Linux better". You can't just take the best bits of everything all at once and mash them together continuously, it wont work. There should be nothing wrong with using Microsoft software to it's full potential, or Apple's, or Sun's, or IBM's, etc. Screw "lock-in", and monopolies, we only have real problems when a bunch of idiots rush to one side of the boat too quickly.. see Windows.. and now Linux.. If you take a good, unbiased look at what's out there right now, there's little reason for everything to be so lopsided for/against any particular platform, or architecture even.
I have seen many posts bragging 99.999999% uptime for Solaris.
But, I worked a temporary contract at Sun's Broomfield campus in Colorado, from Sept-2007 to Feb-2008. I monitored about 2000 Sun boxes. I saw those things go down all the time.
Let me guess, the closest you got to Solaris was seeing the OS name in some monitoring software?
Bravo.
"Are Porsches really *that* fast?"
I have seen many posts that Porsches are fast cars. But, I lived in northern Virginia from 2006 to 2008. There are thousands of porsches there. I must have passed hundreds of them, like they were standing still, on I95 to DC with my Civic.
Take the hint.
I followed you right up until
Note that this arrangement is often used to "insulate" portions of the software stack from possible GPL issues.
Can you provide a source for this? I've heard of these processor & DSP chips for a while now, didn't know they were common in mobile phones, but I'm extremely skeptical that any processor & DSP chips are used to mitigate software licensing issues.
It could be a side effect.. maybe GPL'd DSP software is just hard to come by, and systems end up running mostly GPL'd software on the ARM, and proprietary software on the DSP, but the way you put it sounds ridiculous.