Asynchronous I/O means non-blocking I/O. If a process attempts to read or write using the normal, synchronous read() or write() system calls, then it must wait until the hardware has completed the physical I/O, so that it can be informed of the success or failure of the operation (and to receive the results in the case of a successful read). The execution of the process is blocked while it waits for the results of the system call. This is synchronous or blocking I/O.
However, if the process instead uses the asynchronous aio_read() or aio_write() system calls (called aioread() and aiowrite() on some operating systems), then the system call will return immediately once the I/O request has been passed down to the hardware or queued in the operating system, typically before the physical I/O operation has even begun. The execution of the process is not blocked, because it does not need to wait for the results of the system call. Instead, it can continue executing and then receive the results of the I/O operation later, once they are available. This is asynchronous or non-blocking I/O.
Another thing, pre-emptive mutitasking has nothing to do with the hardware. It is the ability of a kernel to interrupt a process during a system call, go do something else, and then come back to the original task, picking up where it left off. Linux currently cannot interrupt a system call, Darwin (OS X core) can.
Like I said, Linux has pre-emptive multitasking, but only in Kernel 2.5
SCSI was only faster because IDE puts a slight load on the main processor(s) to do its read/writes. This has become a non-issue lately with today's high processor speeds.
This 1u Xserve is laking expansion, but if you need expansion, Apple is making a 3U version that should serve your needs.
Everything isn't always about price! I wish people would start realizing this. Dell's $1,500 server uses Intel 32bit processors, Apple's uses PPC 64bit processors. Think operating system here too. Apple gives you OS X, which is seriously a kick-ass OS. Dell pushes Windows on you, and if your smart you go with Linux, BUT both OSes are lacking some of either the stability (former) or features (latter) of OS X. I don't care what anyone says, Windows is the absolute WORST server operating system out there. Desktop home PC fine, workstation, okay, if that's what you like, server, no way. I doesn't belong in the server room. Linux on the other hand is a nice OS, but lacks some of the features of Darwin, the most important that comes to mind is pre-emptive muti-tasking and asychronous I/O. If you are deploying java apps, you should seriously consider OS X too. Apple's java implementation is far superior to either IBM or Sun's JVMs for Linux.
My point here is not really to bash Intel boxes - I use Linux heavily myself - but just to point out that you just might be getting a little more for your money out of that Apple Xserve than you are from the cheap Dell.
Or copy it into your MOZILLA_HOME/plugins (mine's/usr/local/mozilla/plugins) directory so all users can benefit.:)
Also, if you want to use java from Mozilla (aka applets), just link your JAVA_HOME/jre/plugin/i386/ns610/libjavaplugin_oji1 40.so into the Mozilla plugins dir too.
Even though I don't like the idea of a National ID card, I'd rather Oracle power it rather than the other big, pushy IT company out there.
If it's not Oracle, you can bet it would be Mircosoft and we all know what hell that would be. I mean, it would be hackable and slow since SQL Server is a pathetic DBMS.
Seriously, all the hardware in Dell laptops and desktops is designed to support Linux.
This may be a bit off topic since it's not hardware components but I still think it's relevant.
When I ordered my Dell I wanted linux on it but the sales rep said i needed to get one w/Windows (M$ Tax) but would put me in touch with a tech person about Linux support. That person informed me that Dell insures that all hardware used in their Laptops is 100% linux compatible with linux and I would have no trouble setting it up.
So i got the laptop and he was right! Installed SuSE linux on it and everything works great. Sound, suspend to disk, suspend to ram, ethernet, etc.
Two gripes though: 1. the M$ tax 2. removing the OEM installed OS from the hard disk voids the warranty. 2 is not really a problem though for 2 reasons. First, you can shrink down the Win partition to 2 GB and put linux on the rest and not void the warranty. Second, the company I work for has had to have repair work done on Dell laptops in the past, and they always tell you to remove the battery and hard drive before returning it for service. So really, they'd never know what the hell you were running on it anyway.:-) THis not removing the OEM installed OS bullshit is probably just so they don't get in trouble from their best buddy MS for people installing pirated windoze versions and so dell doesn't have to support morons who try to upgrade their os from windoze ME to XP and call telling Dell that things stopped working.
LinkSys actively supports Linux by releasing Linux drivers all of their network cards. Their support page also gives plenty of attetion to Linux as well as *BSD.
Another nice thing about LinkSys is that they make sure their routers/firewalls/vpn products are OS agnostic. All of their products work with Linux and can be configured through any web browser, not just IE -- even their low-end, in-home use intended products. I consider that noteworthy and I support them by using their products.
Also, Linksys just came out with a nice home router/VPN that works as a VPN client. That means that with any OS you can establish an outbound VPN client connection. I think that's great, especially since it's a consumer level appliance (like $150 or something). I'm thinking about buying one.:)
Oh, and SanDisk is another. Their web-site explicity points out which card readers are Linux-supported and which are not.
So yes, I think we are starting to see some good commercial support for Linux in the hardware division, with these and all the other posts.
I have been running SuSE since 7.0 and have purchased 7.1-7.3 and each release has brought more features and better integration to an already great distro. I don't have 8.0 yet, but when it arrives, I can almost guarantee that I'll be happy with it. =)
Like Red Hat, SuSE releases their own patched version of the Linux kernel which have always been extremely fast and reliable (in my experience) and their installation is easy. The other nice thing is the setup tool, Yast2, it's the best integrated setup/control center tool I've seen yet.
The nice thing about SuSE is that everything just works. SuSE offers upgrades to KDE and GNOME that can be downloaded and installed automatically with Yast Online Update on the same day that KDE and GNOME annouce their new releases. They are definitely on top of things. Also, Yast can be used to configure just about every aspect of the system, no need whatsoever to edit config files.
Another nice thing about SuSE is that it's Oracle certified. SuSE offers a nice rpm that sets the system up for installing and running Oracle, making installation as simple as on Windows (at least for 9i).
I've tried Red Hat, Mandrake, SuSE and debian and I am happiest by far with SuSE. It has easier config tools than Mandrake, the speed and reliability of Red Hat, and the advantage that it is commercially supported by many companies, meaning that if a product claims it will run on linux, it WILL run on SuSE Linux.:-)
What you refer to is the consumer's definition of an operating system, not it's functional definition. An operating system is merely a software layer that interfaces with system hardware and exposes a set of API's for programs to use to exploit that hardware and manages program scheduling and interaction. You are buying into what Microsoft wants you to believe is the operating system.
Internet explorer and Office are not part of the Windows operating system. They user components that allow you to perform specific tasks with your computer.
I understand that you are saying that no one wants to go buy a new computer that comes with no user applications, but the OEMs know this, and they'll make sure to throw in a web browser and office suite, etc.
The point here is that Windows should be made available to OEMs in a modular fashion, not necessarily sold to consumers that way. Let the OEMs install the web browser of their choice (be that Mozilla, Netscape, IE). Either way, the end user still gets a complete "operating system", just not all the parts come from Microsoft.
Also, let me just point out that I see your car/NASCAR analogy as completely flawed. The operating sytem is to the computer what the engine control computer is to the car. The engine control computer manages the hardware (engine, transmission); it decides how much fuel to stuff into the engine when you hit the gas pedal and when to shift the transmission (for all of you who are too lazy to row it yourself). It does NOT provide the radio (your MP3/CD player), the doors and windows (your ugly beige case), the airconditioning (the fans that cool your box), etc, etc.
A modularized Windows is not a crippled Windows, it's simple a operating system with removable user-level applications.
This is an interesting point, but you could probably take it one step further... like a black box implementation. For example, if I was going to implement this standard, you could sit in one room and read the manual, while I sit in another room and implement it. You can't tell me anything about the manual directly, but I can ask you questions - "Does it have X", "Does it do Y" - and you say yes or no. Eventually we'd have a compatible implementation without breaking the license agreement.:-) I haven't agreed to the license, and I haven't looked at the documentation, and really, you haven't told me anything directly about the manual!
Want to see weather.com's forcast without the annoying popup adds? Go to weather.yahoo.com - it's "powered by" weather.com, so it's the same forcast, but no popups. =)
People DO know because news sites such as Yahoo! and CNet were running this story yesterday (don't have the links, sorry).
And people SHOULD care what OS and Web server is running that site. The entire purpose of that site is to persuade people to think that Windows is as capable as UNIX and then some. So for the site to be running FreeBSD is an embarrasment to Microsoft (or should be).
Would you buy a Hyundai from a salesman who drives a Toyota? I wouldn't.
And the "looking" a whole lot like Apple's Aqua.
Apple was pissed about ppl creating a Aqua look and feel for KDE before, they may be pissed again after they see this.
Don't be so sure of IBM's benevolent intensions here. I am just as happy as everyone else that IBM is embracing open source, and no, I don't think they are going to turn around and try to control their contributions. However, you can bet that they are contributing to open source for their own benefit.
Think about it, as the parent post implies, right now it's everyone vs. Microsoft, and to beat Microsoft you need allies (like open source). Sun wants to control java because it created it and it wants financial return on its investments. Letting go of control opens the door for other companies to snatch it up.
I agree that IBM's contributions are a good thing, and that Sun needs so wake up and ally itselft more with the open source community. But don't forget, we live in a capitalist nation where money talks. IBM make look like the "nice guy" right now, but don't think they won't ditch open source the very second that it stops being a profitable investment.
I have a Dell Inspiron 2100 (yes I had to pay the M$ tax to get it tho).
The day I got it, i ripped off 'doze and installed SuSE 7.3 on it. Now I have a 3.5 lb laptop running Linux with:
sound working (no manual setup required).
hot swappable external CD/Floppy (no reboot req'd to switch).
Suspend to disk AND/OR suspend to RAM. This was easy, just make sure you leave the 256mb FAT partition at the beginning of the drive and mount it on boot!
Granted I have no DVD support (yet) but the computer works perfectly and is no longer infected with Winblows.
The only bad part is that I did pay the M$ tax, but it's still $400 cheaper than a "business class" system, and now it runs a powerful OS with very little work on my part.
Trust me, if you can download and install Mozilla or Gnutella or pracitcally anything else you can install Linux your computer! SuSE, Mandrake, and Red Hat make it practically fool proof.
It should be obvious to everyone that trully removing IE from windows would break it!
The problem with referring to Microsoft's operating system as simply "Windows" means that we mesh together the kernel and the user interface into one generic term. Would removing IE break the kernel? Of course not. UI code such as browsers does not live in the kernel. But would it break the Windows user interface? Yes.
IE is tightly integrated into the UI. Click "My Computer", "My Documens", or open the File "Explorer" and what pops up? Why it's IE! Not, chance that url at the top that say "My Computer" to http://slashdot.org and now you're browsing Slashdot with Internet Explorer.
It would be impossible to remove IE without breaking the user interface. And why should they remove it? It's their user interface. The same thing holds true in the KDE world. You browse your home directory guess what you're using? Konqueror! The same web browser that comes packaged with the desktop. Similar? I think so.
The point is, I hate MS probably more than most people, but should we care that IE is tightly integrated? I think it's to the user's benefit that it is. Now whether or not Microsoft should allow the user to entirely disable IE's internet exploring abilities is another question. If I make Mozilla my default browser and I click on a link in my email, Windows will open up Mozilla. However, if I type a link into "My Computer" explorer, it just opens the link in that window (ala IE). Maybe the behavior should be to pop open Mozilla?
Anyway, like them or not, Microsoft destructive monopoly. But should packaging a tightly integrated web browser with the user interface illegal? I think not.
That's a good question.
Probably because they have already somewhat embraced Linux and they are looking to extend their support, not fragment it further by using FreeBSD as well.
There's also much more user-land software available/being developed for Linux than FreeBSD. While FreeBSD may be a more scalable OS than Linux, it's Linux getting all the (user-land) development attention right now. Want to run Java products on Linux? Yep, Sun supports it. FreeBSD? Nope, not natively, not yet. And while Sun will certify FreeBSD's soon to be released JVM, they don't offically support it the way they do with 'doze, Linux, and Solaris. BTW, Oracle runs on Linux, not on *BSD.
Basically, the hype is around Linux right now, and like it not, you can bet it's going to be the open source OS embraced by corporations (at least for now).
-- Scott
Road Runner doesn't support using Linux officially either, but here I sit, writing this on my Linux box on guess what..... a road runner cable modem.
Yes XP is controversial but it's basically a dressed up version of windows 2000 and the networking setup is basically unchanged.
Road Runner uses DHCP only, so if you have a network card that's recognized by XP, install it, hook up the cable modem, setup TCP/IP for DHCP and you're up and running.
This is not newsworthy. All it means is that cable modem installers need time to be "trained" to setup networking on XP boxes. XP is unsupported for now, just like Linux. It doesn't mean it won't work.
Slashdot Mirror
And in case you were wondering, all disk intensive applications, especially databases, benefit dramatically from Asychronous I/O.
Yes, thanks, I DO know what I am talking about.
Like I said, Linux has pre-emptive multitasking, but only in Kernel 2.5
No, Linux 2.4 does not do pre-emptive mutitasking. It is in 2.5, but no one is going to run 2.5 in production.
SCSI was only faster because IDE puts a slight load on the main processor(s) to do its read/writes. This has become a non-issue lately with today's high processor speeds.
This 1u Xserve is laking expansion, but if you need expansion, Apple is making a 3U version that should serve your needs.
Everything isn't always about price! I wish people would start realizing this. Dell's $1,500 server uses Intel 32bit processors, Apple's uses PPC 64bit processors. Think operating system here too. Apple gives you OS X, which is seriously a kick-ass OS. Dell pushes Windows on you, and if your smart you go with Linux, BUT both OSes are lacking some of either the stability (former) or features (latter) of OS X. I don't care what anyone says, Windows is the absolute WORST server operating system out there. Desktop home PC fine, workstation, okay, if that's what you like, server, no way. I doesn't belong in the server room. Linux on the other hand is a nice OS, but lacks some of the features of Darwin, the most important that comes to mind is pre-emptive muti-tasking and asychronous I/O. If you are deploying java apps, you should seriously consider OS X too. Apple's java implementation is far superior to either IBM or Sun's JVMs for Linux.
My point here is not really to bash Intel boxes - I use Linux heavily myself - but just to point out that you just might be getting a little more for your money out of that Apple Xserve than you are from the cheap Dell.
Also, if you want to use java from Mozilla (aka applets), just link your JAVA_HOME/jre/plugin/i386/ns610/libjavaplugin_oji1 40.so into the Mozilla plugins dir too.
If it's not Oracle, you can bet it would be Mircosoft and we all know what hell that would be. I mean, it would be hackable and slow since SQL Server is a pathetic DBMS.
If you run linux ps2pdf works nicely as well.
This may be a bit off topic since it's not hardware components but I still think it's relevant.
When I ordered my Dell I wanted linux on it but the sales rep said i needed to get one w/Windows (M$ Tax) but would put me in touch with a tech person about Linux support. That person informed me that Dell insures that all hardware used in their Laptops is 100% linux compatible with linux and I would have no trouble setting it up.
So i got the laptop and he was right! Installed SuSE linux on it and everything works great. Sound, suspend to disk, suspend to ram, ethernet, etc.
Two gripes though: 1. the M$ tax 2. removing the OEM installed OS from the hard disk voids the warranty. 2 is not really a problem though for 2 reasons. First, you can shrink down the Win partition to 2 GB and put linux on the rest and not void the warranty. Second, the company I work for has had to have repair work done on Dell laptops in the past, and they always tell you to remove the battery and hard drive before returning it for service. So really, they'd never know what the hell you were running on it anyway. :-) THis not removing the OEM installed OS bullshit is probably just so they don't get in trouble from their best buddy MS for people installing pirated windoze versions and so dell doesn't have to support morons who try to upgrade their os from windoze ME to XP and call telling Dell that things stopped working.
Another nice thing about LinkSys is that they make sure their routers/firewalls/vpn products are OS agnostic. All of their products work with Linux and can be configured through any web browser, not just IE -- even their low-end, in-home use intended products. I consider that noteworthy and I support them by using their products.
Also, Linksys just came out with a nice home router/VPN that works as a VPN client. That means that with any OS you can establish an outbound VPN client connection. I think that's great, especially since it's a consumer level appliance (like $150 or something). I'm thinking about buying one. :)
Oh, and SanDisk is another. Their web-site explicity points out which card readers are Linux-supported and which are not.
So yes, I think we are starting to see some good commercial support for Linux in the hardware division, with these and all the other posts.
Like Red Hat, SuSE releases their own patched version of the Linux kernel which have always been extremely fast and reliable (in my experience) and their installation is easy. The other nice thing is the setup tool, Yast2, it's the best integrated setup/control center tool I've seen yet.
The nice thing about SuSE is that everything just works. SuSE offers upgrades to KDE and GNOME that can be downloaded and installed automatically with Yast Online Update on the same day that KDE and GNOME annouce their new releases. They are definitely on top of things. Also, Yast can be used to configure just about every aspect of the system, no need whatsoever to edit config files.
Another nice thing about SuSE is that it's Oracle certified. SuSE offers a nice rpm that sets the system up for installing and running Oracle, making installation as simple as on Windows (at least for 9i).
I've tried Red Hat, Mandrake, SuSE and debian and I am happiest by far with SuSE. It has easier config tools than Mandrake, the speed and reliability of Red Hat, and the advantage that it is commercially supported by many companies, meaning that if a product claims it will run on linux, it WILL run on SuSE Linux. :-)
Internet explorer and Office are not part of the Windows operating system. They user components that allow you to perform specific tasks with your computer.
I understand that you are saying that no one wants to go buy a new computer that comes with no user applications, but the OEMs know this, and they'll make sure to throw in a web browser and office suite, etc.
The point here is that Windows should be made available to OEMs in a modular fashion, not necessarily sold to consumers that way. Let the OEMs install the web browser of their choice (be that Mozilla, Netscape, IE). Either way, the end user still gets a complete "operating system", just not all the parts come from Microsoft.
Also, let me just point out that I see your car/NASCAR analogy as completely flawed. The operating sytem is to the computer what the engine control computer is to the car. The engine control computer manages the hardware (engine, transmission); it decides how much fuel to stuff into the engine when you hit the gas pedal and when to shift the transmission (for all of you who are too lazy to row it yourself). It does NOT provide the radio (your MP3/CD player), the doors and windows (your ugly beige case), the airconditioning (the fans that cool your box), etc, etc.
A modularized Windows is not a crippled Windows, it's simple a operating system with removable user-level applications.
This is an interesting point, but you could probably take it one step further... like a black box implementation. For example, if I was going to implement this standard, you could sit in one room and read the manual, while I sit in another room and implement it. You can't tell me anything about the manual directly, but I can ask you questions - "Does it have X", "Does it do Y" - and you say yes or no. Eventually we'd have a compatible implementation without breaking the license agreement. :-) I haven't agreed to the license, and I haven't looked at the documentation, and really, you haven't told me anything directly about the manual!
Want to see weather.com's forcast without the annoying popup adds? Go to weather.yahoo.com - it's "powered by" weather.com, so it's the same forcast, but no popups. =)
People DO know because news sites such as Yahoo! and CNet were running this story yesterday (don't have the links, sorry).
And people SHOULD care what OS and Web server is running that site. The entire purpose of that site is to persuade people to think that Windows is as capable as UNIX and then some. So for the site to be running FreeBSD is an embarrasment to Microsoft (or should be).
Would you buy a Hyundai from a salesman who drives a Toyota? I wouldn't.
And the "looking" a whole lot like Apple's Aqua. Apple was pissed about ppl creating a Aqua look and feel for KDE before, they may be pissed again after they see this.
Don't be so sure of IBM's benevolent intensions here. I am just as happy as everyone else that IBM is embracing open source, and no, I don't think they are going to turn around and try to control their contributions. However, you can bet that they are contributing to open source for their own benefit.
Think about it, as the parent post implies, right now it's everyone vs. Microsoft, and to beat Microsoft you need allies (like open source). Sun wants to control java because it created it and it wants financial return on its investments. Letting go of control opens the door for other companies to snatch it up.
I agree that IBM's contributions are a good thing, and that Sun needs so wake up and ally itselft more with the open source community. But don't forget, we live in a capitalist nation where money talks. IBM make look like the "nice guy" right now, but don't think they won't ditch open source the very second that it stops being a profitable investment.
I have a Dell Inspiron 2100 (yes I had to pay the M$ tax to get it tho).
The day I got it, i ripped off 'doze and installed SuSE 7.3 on it. Now I have a 3.5 lb laptop running Linux with:
Granted I have no DVD support (yet) but the computer works perfectly and is no longer infected with Winblows.
The only bad part is that I did pay the M$ tax, but it's still $400 cheaper than a "business class" system, and now it runs a powerful OS with very little work on my part.
Trust me, if you can download and install Mozilla or Gnutella or pracitcally anything else you can install Linux your computer! SuSE, Mandrake, and Red Hat make it practically fool proof.
Yep in SuSE at least since 7.0. It's their default sound system.
It should be obvious to everyone that trully removing IE from windows would break it!
The problem with referring to Microsoft's operating system as simply "Windows" means that we mesh together the kernel and the user interface into one generic term. Would removing IE break the kernel? Of course not. UI code such as browsers does not live in the kernel. But would it break the Windows user interface? Yes.
IE is tightly integrated into the UI. Click "My Computer", "My Documens", or open the File "Explorer" and what pops up? Why it's IE! Not, chance that url at the top that say "My Computer" to http://slashdot.org and now you're browsing Slashdot with Internet Explorer.
It would be impossible to remove IE without breaking the user interface. And why should they remove it? It's their user interface. The same thing holds true in the KDE world. You browse your home directory guess what you're using? Konqueror! The same web browser that comes packaged with the desktop. Similar? I think so.
The point is, I hate MS probably more than most people, but should we care that IE is tightly integrated? I think it's to the user's benefit that it is. Now whether or not Microsoft should allow the user to entirely disable IE's internet exploring abilities is another question. If I make Mozilla my default browser and I click on a link in my email, Windows will open up Mozilla. However, if I type a link into "My Computer" explorer, it just opens the link in that window (ala IE). Maybe the behavior should be to pop open Mozilla?
Anyway, like them or not, Microsoft destructive monopoly. But should packaging a tightly integrated web browser with the user interface illegal? I think not.
No it's not out. It's still the release candidate. Maybe you should check the downloads page before posting.
That's a good question. Probably because they have already somewhat embraced Linux and they are looking to extend their support, not fragment it further by using FreeBSD as well. There's also much more user-land software available/being developed for Linux than FreeBSD. While FreeBSD may be a more scalable OS than Linux, it's Linux getting all the (user-land) development attention right now. Want to run Java products on Linux? Yep, Sun supports it. FreeBSD? Nope, not natively, not yet. And while Sun will certify FreeBSD's soon to be released JVM, they don't offically support it the way they do with 'doze, Linux, and Solaris. BTW, Oracle runs on Linux, not on *BSD. Basically, the hype is around Linux right now, and like it not, you can bet it's going to be the open source OS embraced by corporations (at least for now). -- Scott
Road Runner doesn't support using Linux officially either, but here I sit, writing this on my Linux box on guess what..... a road runner cable modem. Yes XP is controversial but it's basically a dressed up version of windows 2000 and the networking setup is basically unchanged. Road Runner uses DHCP only, so if you have a network card that's recognized by XP, install it, hook up the cable modem, setup TCP/IP for DHCP and you're up and running. This is not newsworthy. All it means is that cable modem installers need time to be "trained" to setup networking on XP boxes. XP is unsupported for now, just like Linux. It doesn't mean it won't work.