Sounds like "fake news" from shorts if they're asking about Model 3 production numbers before Model 3 production started. According to Wikipedia, first Model 3 came off line in July 2017. While that is 2017 and it isn't late 2017, it's definitely not early 2017. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This is pretty sensationalist and, overall, poor summarizing. The actual story is nothing like the summary. Yes, the Alexa recorded the conversation and sent it. That is true, but the women's reaction of unplugging them all was immediate and NOT after Amazon's response. This summary portrays the order wrong to sensationalize. Also, the Google Mini issue was limited to very few devices and discovered before general release. The feature (bug) causing the issue was disabled before going on sale to the general public. Then permanently disabled when a fix was not possible. Seriously, the actual story is barely longer than the summary and much better. Do better.
If you google it you'll find that hyper-v makes up around 18 - 28% based on who doing the counting
Both your articles are from 2009 or earlier. The gartner article put VMWare's market share at 85%. That leaves 15% for the rest. Best case, in 2009, MS had < 15%. Is there updated data from Gartner?
The dabcc article (who are they first of all) explain their counting at the end. They count shipments for virtualization software, not usage. So, every copy of Windows Server 2008 counted as a Hyper-V purchase. Also, that article is from 2008. It gave VMWare a 78% market share. The IDC article, a year later gave VMWare an 85% market share.
From the provided articles I see a declining trend in Hyper-V usage.
Any company which presumes something about its employees, because they have written in some language, or presumes that the language isn't good.
for(Employee employee:employees) {
employee.setHireDate("1 year ago");
employee.setLanguages("C#;
Now, I know the code example is in Java, but I thought that a code example might explain what was wrong with your sentence. If it doesn't, then these are the points I'm trying to make: 1. Employees already work for said company. 2. Sentences that end before they are finished. Oops, I did it, too.
You simply can extend.NET to produce your 1.7 oz burger
I think your argument didn't help. You seem to be saying, like the original article, that you can't make a 1.7oz burger in ".NET", you have to extend.NET to do it.
I'm going to admit, right now, that I have know idea what.NET is, marketing has provided too many definitions. So, your argument might be spot on. I don't think so, though.
I think C# is part of.NET, but I'm not sure. Let's assume so, for now, that C# is part of.NET. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I think one can make a 1.7oz burger in C#. I think I might be able to do it. However, I might have to use Mono and MonoDevelop.
...ReplayTV which was founded 2 years before TiVo.
Wikipedia says ReplayTV was founded in 1997, the device was announced in January 1999 at CES and began selling in April. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReplayTV Tivo was founded in 1997, began early trials to actual users in 1998, was also at CES in 1999 and began selling in March. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TiVo
Luckily your opinion of the interface does not require facts.
TFA only speculates that this is intended for OEM installs.
I think that's what you want the article to be doing. I read this:
The good news for those concerned about privacy is that it appears for now Canonical is just interested in tracking the users of OEM installations -- those PCs that ship with Ubuntu by default such as from ZaReason, System76, and Dell.
To mean that, for now, they're only installing it on OEM computers. Also, it is a GPL'd bash script with nothing hidden. The comments at the top of the script say, "This is used for surveying how many original OEM installs are still existing on real machines." Somebody previously posted the source, search for "#!/bin/bash".
I think it's important to note that the Wired article didn't conclude their was a brigade, probably many individuals with individual agendas. Also, they didn't mention a side to which these buriers leaned.
Also, the Lyndon LaRouche "Plants" weren't plants at all, they wanted to be Tea Party members. Read the articles.
Sorry for your troubles, I can't figure out why your sound/wireless/graphics worked so perfectly on the LiveCD (unavailable on Mac or Windows), but then didn't when you installed. Did you point out in your bug report how the LiveCD worked so well? That might have helped the bug folks track it down.
And I'm really sorry it happened to you again on the next release. Wow, intermittent freezes that didn't occur on the LiveCD either. I heard there was freezing caused by upgrading Ext3 partitions to Ext4, that you wouldn't have seen on the LiveCD. However, since Ext3 was the default and stable filesystem for LTS+2 (Jaunty), I doubt you would have done something that risky.
Again, I'm sorry for your troubles. I truly wish your experiences were as good as mine. For me, the LiveCD experience exactly predicted the final installation experience, except that the LiveCD was a bit slower.
Windows and OS X both would have autodetected the monitor and just made it work. Strike 1.
Maybe OS X, but definitely not Windows. Hell, I can't even scroll or click with my touchpad on Windows 7 out of the box. Linux detected my touchpad and set it up for me. Nice.
But sure, let's just open up the System->Preference->Display. Oops. Second monitor isn't there. Hm. Strike 2.
Except there's a little notification in the top bar saying something about drivers. Wonder what that does. Oh, it installs the Nvidia driver for me. I don't have to go to the site and download it. Cool. Restart and what do you know, System->Preferences->Display, Boom, 2 monitors.
Sounds like somebody thought they knew what they were doing, but didn't. They decided to do it the backwards Windows way, and it didn't work. Shocking.
This is an excellent description of the issue. However, if the application writers, in this instance KDE, had synched after messing with extremely important files then the issue wouldn't occur.
The real issue is this, should the filesystem itself have to figure out whether it's dealing with important files or not. Or, should the application tell the filesystem the files are important by forcing the updates to be written. Since the former is impossible, the filesystem would have to treat ALL files as important and thus never be able to do the cool things the Ext4 can do that decrease wear on SSDs, save battery power, save disk space and speed things up.
1) Modern filesystems are expected behave better than POSIX demands.
2) POSIX does not cover what should happen in a system crash at all.
3) The issue is not about saving data, but the atomicity of updates so that either the new data or the old data would be saved at all times.
4) fsync is not a solution, because ir forces the operation to complete *now*, which is counterproductive to write performance, cache coherence, laptop battery life, excessive SSD wear and a bunch of other reasons.
We don't need reliable data-on-disk-now, we need reliable old-or-new data without using a sledgehammer of fsync.
1. POSIX is an API. It tries not to force the filesystem into being anything at all. So, for instance, you can write a filesystem that waits to do writes more efficiently to cut down on the wear of SSDs. 2. Ext3 has a max 5 second delay. That means this bug exists in Ext3 as well. 3. If you have important data that if not written to the hard drive will cause catastrophic failure, then you use the part of the API that forces that write. 4. Atomicity does not guarantee the filesystem be synchronized with cache. It means that during the update no other process can alter the affected file and that after the update the change will be seen by all other processes.
We don't need a filesystem that sledgehammers each and every byte of data to the hard drive just in case there is a crash. What we DO need is a filesystem that can flexibly handle important data when told it is important, and less important data very efficiently.
What you are asking is that the filesystem be some kind of sentient all knowing being that can tell when data is important or not and then can write important data immediately and non-important data efficiently. I think that it is a little better to have the application be the one that knows when it's dealing with important data or not.
Grammar nazis asside, this is not real serious benchmarking. It doesn't even take into account WHAT Windows 7 installs and WHAT Ubuntu installs. Is there more default software in Windows 7? Windows 7 is a DVD, isn't Ubuntu still on a CD?
From the article:
While some people might complain that we used the Ultimate editions of both Vista and Windows 7, they probably forget that the standard Ubuntu includes software such as an office suite as standard.
"Ubuntu Workaround for Laptop-Killing BIOS Bug Released"
That title's not quite right. The bug points to a workaround that has existed since the bug was initially reported. Maybe this title: "With new update, Ubuntu make Laptop-Killing BIOS bug workaround automatic".
Why the F/OSS requirement? You clearly don't care about the "Free, as in speech" ideas. Your requirements are:
1. Run on Vista. Vista? 2. Doesn't cost me anything. 3. Can't use an open source runtime called Java.
Just go out and pirate a copy of Office from the same place you pirated Vista and Grand Theft Auto. Then you can use Excel. I think it will meet all of your requirements ($0).
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like "fake news" from shorts if they're asking about Model 3 production numbers before Model 3 production started. According to Wikipedia, first Model 3 came off line in July 2017. While that is 2017 and it isn't late 2017, it's definitely not early 2017.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This is pretty sensationalist and, overall, poor summarizing. The actual story is nothing like the summary. Yes, the Alexa recorded the conversation and sent it. That is true, but the women's reaction of unplugging them all was immediate and NOT after Amazon's response. This summary portrays the order wrong to sensationalize. Also, the Google Mini issue was limited to very few devices and discovered before general release. The feature (bug) causing the issue was disabled before going on sale to the general public. Then permanently disabled when a fix was not possible. Seriously, the actual story is barely longer than the summary and much better. Do better.
1. Turn on computer.
2. Choose OS.
3. Boot.
Because NOBODY uses the grub password feature.
I'm not sure about this, but I thought the interviewee just chose the questions they wanted to answer. Maybe not, though.
If you google it you'll find that hyper-v makes up around 18 - 28% based on who doing the counting
Both your articles are from 2009 or earlier. The gartner article put VMWare's market share at 85%. That leaves 15% for the rest. Best case, in 2009, MS had < 15%.
Is there updated data from Gartner?
The dabcc article (who are they first of all) explain their counting at the end. They count shipments for virtualization software, not usage. So, every copy of Windows Server 2008 counted as a Hyper-V purchase. Also, that article is from 2008. It gave VMWare a 78% market share. The IDC article, a year later gave VMWare an 85% market share.
From the provided articles I see a declining trend in Hyper-V usage.
Well, except for this obscure little thing called Java, but that doesn't really count.
Noooooo! C# is completely different from Java, it's not related at all. It's completely new, innovative, AND dandy!
Any company which presumes something about its employees, because they have written in some language, or presumes that the language isn't good.
for(Employee employee:employees) {
employee.setHireDate("1 year ago");
employee.setLanguages("C#;
Now, I know the code example is in Java, but I thought that a code example might explain what was wrong with your sentence. If it doesn't, then these are the points I'm trying to make:
1. Employees already work for said company.
2. Sentences that end before they are finished.
Oops, I did it, too.
You simply can extend .NET to produce your 1.7 oz burger
I think your argument didn't help. You seem to be saying, like the original article, that you can't make a 1.7oz burger in ".NET", you have to extend .NET to do it.
I'm going to admit, right now, that I have know idea what .NET is, marketing has provided too many definitions. So, your argument might be spot on. I don't think so, though.
I think C# is part of .NET, but I'm not sure. Let's assume so, for now, that C# is part of .NET. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I think one can make a 1.7oz burger in C#. I think I might be able to do it. However, I might have to use Mono and MonoDevelop.
...ReplayTV which was founded 2 years before TiVo.
Wikipedia says ReplayTV was founded in 1997, the device was announced in January 1999 at CES and began selling in April.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReplayTV
Tivo was founded in 1997, began early trials to actual users in 1998, was also at CES in 1999 and began selling in March.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TiVo
Luckily your opinion of the interface does not require facts.
The PowerPC owners disagree.
Leopard was slower across the board. PowerPC users are just stuck with it.
Search for "#!/bin/bash".
TFA only speculates that this is intended for OEM installs.
I think that's what you want the article to be doing. I read this:
The good news for those concerned about privacy is that it appears for now Canonical is just interested in tracking the users of OEM installations -- those PCs that ship with Ubuntu by default such as from ZaReason, System76, and Dell.
To mean that, for now, they're only installing it on OEM computers. Also, it is a GPL'd bash script with nothing hidden. The comments at the top of the script say, "This is used for surveying how many original OEM installs are still existing on real machines." Somebody previously posted the source, search for "#!/bin/bash".
couldn't it be possible that the provided binary deb is compiled from different source code than the source deb provides?
No. It's a bash script posted in a comment above. Search for "#!/bin/sh"
I think it's important to note that the Wired article didn't conclude their was a brigade, probably many individuals with individual agendas. Also, they didn't mention a side to which these buriers leaned.
Also, the Lyndon LaRouche "Plants" weren't plants at all, they wanted to be Tea Party members. Read the articles.
It crashes...
Wow! For me, Firefox never crashes. Even on Windows.
How many of those 1,000 employees need help from the priest and social worker because they aren't paid enough to buy food, clothing, and/or shelter?
Sorry for your troubles, I can't figure out why your sound/wireless/graphics worked so perfectly on the LiveCD (unavailable on Mac or Windows), but then didn't when you installed. Did you point out in your bug report how the LiveCD worked so well? That might have helped the bug folks track it down.
And I'm really sorry it happened to you again on the next release. Wow, intermittent freezes that didn't occur on the LiveCD either. I heard there was freezing caused by upgrading Ext3 partitions to Ext4, that you wouldn't have seen on the LiveCD. However, since Ext3 was the default and stable filesystem for LTS+2 (Jaunty), I doubt you would have done something that risky.
Again, I'm sorry for your troubles. I truly wish your experiences were as good as mine. For me, the LiveCD experience exactly predicted the final installation experience, except that the LiveCD was a bit slower.
Windows and OS X both would have autodetected the monitor and just made it work. Strike 1.
Maybe OS X, but definitely not Windows. Hell, I can't even scroll or click with my touchpad on Windows 7 out of the box. Linux detected my touchpad and set it up for me. Nice.
But sure, let's just open up the System->Preference->Display. Oops. Second monitor isn't there. Hm. Strike 2.
Except there's a little notification in the top bar saying something about drivers. Wonder what that does. Oh, it installs the Nvidia driver for me. I don't have to go to the site and download it. Cool. Restart and what do you know, System->Preferences->Display, Boom, 2 monitors.
Sounds like somebody thought they knew what they were doing, but didn't. They decided to do it the backwards Windows way, and it didn't work. Shocking.
I think you posted to the wrong story. This story is about the next Ubuntu release in late October, Karmic Koala.
Its not the same kernel when the ABI changes even between security patch revisions.
It doesn't.
This is an excellent description of the issue. However, if the application writers, in this instance KDE, had synched after messing with extremely important files then the issue wouldn't occur.
The real issue is this, should the filesystem itself have to figure out whether it's dealing with important files or not. Or, should the application tell the filesystem the files are important by forcing the updates to be written. Since the former is impossible, the filesystem would have to treat ALL files as important and thus never be able to do the cool things the Ext4 can do that decrease wear on SSDs, save battery power, save disk space and speed things up.
1) Modern filesystems are expected behave better than POSIX demands.
2) POSIX does not cover what should happen in a system crash at all.
3) The issue is not about saving data, but the atomicity of updates so that either the new data or the old data would be saved at all times.
4) fsync is not a solution, because ir forces the operation to complete *now*, which is counterproductive to write performance, cache coherence, laptop battery life, excessive SSD wear and a bunch of other reasons.
We don't need reliable data-on-disk-now, we need reliable old-or-new data without using a sledgehammer of fsync.
1. POSIX is an API. It tries not to force the filesystem into being anything at all. So, for instance, you can write a filesystem that waits to do writes more efficiently to cut down on the wear of SSDs.
2. Ext3 has a max 5 second delay. That means this bug exists in Ext3 as well.
3. If you have important data that if not written to the hard drive will cause catastrophic failure, then you use the part of the API that forces that write.
4. Atomicity does not guarantee the filesystem be synchronized with cache. It means that during the update no other process can alter the affected file and that after the update the change will be seen by all other processes.
We don't need a filesystem that sledgehammers each and every byte of data to the hard drive just in case there is a crash. What we DO need is a filesystem that can flexibly handle important data when told it is important, and less important data very efficiently.
What you are asking is that the filesystem be some kind of sentient all knowing being that can tell when data is important or not and then can write important data immediately and non-important data efficiently. I think that it is a little better to have the application be the one that knows when it's dealing with important data or not.
Grammar nazis asside, this is not real serious benchmarking. It doesn't even take into account WHAT Windows 7 installs and WHAT Ubuntu installs. Is there more default software in Windows 7? Windows 7 is a DVD, isn't Ubuntu still on a CD?
From the article:
While some people might complain that we used the Ultimate editions of both Vista and Windows 7, they probably forget that the standard Ubuntu includes software such as an office suite as standard.
"Ubuntu Workaround for Laptop-Killing BIOS Bug Released"
That title's not quite right. The bug points to a workaround that has existed since the bug was initially reported. Maybe this title: "With new update, Ubuntu make Laptop-Killing BIOS bug workaround automatic".
Why the F/OSS requirement? You clearly don't care about the "Free, as in speech" ideas. Your requirements are:
1. Run on Vista. Vista?
2. Doesn't cost me anything.
3. Can't use an open source runtime called Java.
Just go out and pirate a copy of Office from the same place you pirated Vista and Grand Theft Auto. Then you can use Excel. I think it will meet all of your requirements ($0).