Why in the world would you not want to use a Mini ITX? Here is a 533MHz Eden CPU (no fan), 128MB RAM, 80GB hard drive, CD-ROM drive and a PCI slot for $342 (or less than $300 without the CD-ROM).
Twice the speed, 8 times the storage, more expandable and cheaper? What's the appeal of the AMD device?
All presidents, Washington included, were American born. The requirement was created to prevent Tory-leaning people (who were there even after the Revolution) from electing a Brit; or for that matter, electing a Frenchman (who were allies of the colonists) and reuniting the US with a colonial power.
That's odd. I would have evaluated it very differently. To me, some of your advantages are show-stopping disadvantages:
Slow: The rotation speed is slow (7200 *tops* and most are 5600 or slower), as well as the transfer rate, due to the very small platter size. The bigger the platter the more data over the heads per second. I know you said in a RAID config, but you'd need a *number* of drives (more than 3) to saturate a FD 100Mbit link, let alone Gigabit, which should be the *minimum* performance goal of any server, no matter how small... A pair of decent server drives could easily saturate 100Mbit...
Not designed for 24x7 operation. Most notebook hard drives are only rated for a 3 year life with only 8 or 12 hours operation per day! That's a problem for a server. I want a 5 year life of 24x7...
Heat. It seems to me that notebook drives run *hotter* than an equivilent 3.5" drive. Now most people don't compare equivilents: they're comparing a 40GB 2.5" drive at 4200RPM to a 160GB 3.5" drive at 7200RPM. Of course the desktop drive is hotter. But given the same drive, notebook drives certainly seem to me to be hotter. No real data on that one: maybe my perception is wrong. This isn't quite the same as a CPU where more power=more heat. There *is* mechanical work being done here...
Capacity. I work with some small clients, but even they are maxing out 36GB servers right from the start. To me, 72GB is the base for new servers, no matter how small. If you've already drank the Kool-Aid (or did *not* drink the SCSI Kool-Aid: whatever) and are using IDE drives, it's a lot cheaper to put in two 80GB IDE drives designed for 24x7 than it would be to put in 3-4 notebook drives to get the same level of performance and capacity (given their slower speeds and lower capacity), for marginal gains in "ruggedness"...
That's what's off the top of my head. However, it is not impossible to run with notebook drives. In fact, I had a company that needed to set up a 3-tier commerce server setup with 4 front-end web servers that store no real data that seriously evaluated using notebook computers: they're power efficient, small and have built in UPS. Given that at the time a 1U server was $4k, it would have been a fairly big net *savings*. In the end, it was a combination of low memory capacity, lower CPU performance for a given clock speed and those notebook drives that made them think better...
I only buy Hitachi (nee IBM) drives: I'm a bit of an IBM snob...:)
I wonder if you might be able to comment on the quality of an IBM ThinkPad in that regard (that IBM snob thing again). I've sold a *ton* of them, and I've had clients with a ton of Dells. I've had drives fail in Dells, but not one hard drive (or CD-ROM, for that matter) in a Thinkpad, despite some which were in production for 7 years. However, the ThinkPads have all of the design features you mention: removable CD drives and reasonably easily removable (but not designed to be swapped) hard drives...
No. I don't want a part that's more rugged for my servers. I want a more rugged part. Period.
However, don't forget that the biggest reason notebook hard drives are not more solidly built is because of weight, not size. When every notebook builder is struggling to gain fractions of *ounces*, every bit of extra steel on a hard drive counts. Hence, the cheap, flimsy structure.
Have you ever seen a notebook hard drive? All of the ones I've seen in the last three years have a warning on them: do not push on drive! The top of the drive is little more than stiff foil. If you push on it, it will break the drive.
So, no, I do not want a part specifically engineered to be as thin and flimsy as possible in my server. I don't really want them in my notebook, either, but I don't have a choice there...
I just read about those machines about 2 weeks ago on IBM's site. When I saw them I thought, "Oh crap: IDE notebook drives with a SCSI chip stuck on them in a server. What *were* they thinking?!?"
I must say, though, now having seen the tests and, more importantly, the photographs, that those look *nothing* like a notebook (IDE) hard drive, with their aluminum foil-quality shell almost no real structure. They look like 3.5" hard drives scaled down: still rugged, just small.
I say bring it on! Of course, given my (and my client's) needs, I don't buy rackmount servers...:)
NONE OF YOU ARE LAWYERS SO PLEASE STOP TRYING TO ACT LIKE THEM AND KEEP YOUR ARMCHAIR LEGAL BS TO YOURSELVES!!!!
Do you really need us to all put IANAL? OK, fine: IANAL.
Most of the above argument involves US law, which is no doubt different from Icelandic law.
I'm not talking about the Iceland thing. Rather, the RIAA suing people, which is also in the story.
Also, my understanding... is that Copyright infringment is... something that you can be sued over. So, while A is not nessessarily correct, it is now irrelevent because B, the central issue is now freestanding.
So we agree. Why bother with all of the clarification? The RIAA can sue. The RIAA *has* sued.
We should encourage the RIAA to sue as many people as possible, this lets all the laymen out there who don't care about Artists or copyrights to see the companies making up the RIAA for the thugs they truely are.
In the mean time, I'm refusing to buy any product that supports any constituant member. I don't even download their crappy music or listen to it on the radio because both of those actions still help the RIAA in the end.
Amen to both points. Don't like the RIAA? Don't support them. And that means don't download their music. Boycott them. But don't say, "I don't want to do business with them, but I'll steal their product." The two are inseparable. Anything else makes you (the proverbial you, not the parent) look like a greedy hypocrite.
The person chose to pay the $5000. That was their choice. Period.
Was it a crummy choice? ABSOLUTELY. Immoral. Sickening. But it was her choice. The RIAA did not make her do it.
Did *someone* break the law? Yes. Did the RIAA have the right to go after them for that? Yes, and they did, using the information that was available to them.
Could the RIAA have used better judgement? Maybe. Maybe the story was true, maybe it wasn't. How does the RIAA know? Why should the even care? Sensitivity? Sure. But they sure don't *have* to be sensitive.
The point is, the RIAA did not do anything wrong. The *law* may be wrong, the law may be unfair, but it is still the law, and it is the *only* recourse the RIAA has. Why shouldn't they protect their rights?
Information would be a pure public good then. Like paying for national defense, you couldn't privately deliver such a good since people could enjoy national defense by allowing their neighbours to pay for the army. Everyone could similarily mooch though, thus a pure public good is necessarily provided for by government.
Think about your argument. The production of information would then necessarily depend upon the initiative and regulation of the government. What kind of world would that look like? What result do we see today from government-mandated projects? Effective? Productive? Affordable?
Can you imagine the Department of Information, right next to the Department of Defense? I can't even begin to express the horror of that statement.
In order to get the police to do this, a juge had to sign off on there being probable cause. Therefore, there was some evidence that the users were breaking the law.
How good was the evidence? Don't know. Don't care: that's the judge's responsibility, not mine. That's why he's there. I *hope* that it was an honest judge with legitimate evidence. However, that's how the law works.
Therefore, let me rephrase: There is at least some evidence that these people are breaking the law. This evidence was good enough for a judge to issue a search warrant. What should the RIAA do then? Forget about it? Let people break the law?
Are they guilty? Not until proven. Is there a reason to be suspicious? Yes: a judge said so. Why would the RIAA *not* pursue it?
You *really* believe that illegally infringing on someone's copyright is taking a moral stand?
Really?
REALLY?
Well then: I'm releasing TimOS(tm). It has a *strong* resemblance to that other OS, Linux. Same drivers, same features, same everything. It just says TimOS(tm). I'm going to sell it as part of my (firewall/file server/media center/etc.) after I add a single small driver for a neat whizbang chip that everyone wants a driver for but only I have the documentation for.
Seeing as infringing on someone's copyright is the *moral* thing to do, I'm in the clear. Right?
This would remove all financial motivation for most worldly pursuits. Why write software? Why write a book? Why create music?
For the love of the endeavour? Sure. But what percentage of people would be willing to invest hard money in such a pursuit? Why would a publisher give an author an advance? Why would a record label front the production cost of an album? For a profit on the manufacturing process?
I may settle for 14 years though, if they beg us enough;).
Personally, I would be *estatic* with 14 years. Or 14 years with a renewal for another 14 years. 28 years of exclusive control. If you write something at age 20, you have until you're 48 to produce something new. That's not so bad, is it?
If you wish to believe that, fine. The example was used to hilight that you do not go after the infrastructure provider, you go after the individual.
Again, lots of handwaving about the degree of their crime (excuse me, civil infraction) does not change the fact that they are BREAKING THE LAW. Terrorists? No. Lawbreakers? Yes.
Does the average person equate criminal with lawbreaker? I would venture to say yes. You say no. So what? THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW.
Why do we (well, they: I'm not Icelandic) have courts? To ajudicate such claims. Does this cause the defendant to have to spend money? Yes. But how would you feel if it was *your* copyright that was being infringed?
A person was found covered in a murder victim's blood, holding the knife. He says he didn't do it. We don't want to charge him with a crime and put him on trial: he would incur legal defense fees...
Might these people not have infringed on the copyright? Yes. However, I'm assuming that if their computers were seized, etc., that there was *some* reason for suspecting them of having commited a crime. How is it wrong to charge them?!?
Besides, the argument that it's overpriced is irrelevant. It's their product. Just because it's overpriced does *not* give you the right to infringe (steal) their product. Period.
Boy, that Jaguar is overpriced: it's a few hundred dollars of steel, glass and leather. Therefore, I can steal it.
Don't give me that "copyright-infringement-is-not-stealing-because-I- don't-deprive-you-from-using-it." Do you scream when companies use GPL code without releasing the source? How is this different?
Let's make a deal: Microsoft can close the Linux source and you can copy all the music you want.
But what if they *have* done something wrong? Copyright infringement is a crime. Downloading copyrighted material that you have not purchased is a crime. If you are commiting a crime, they *should* go after you.
I *hate* the RIAA as much as the next guy. But this *IS* the way that the RIAA *should* combat illegal file sharing. You don't go after the phone company to stop bomb threats. You *do* go after those calling in the bomb threat. How is this any different?
Slashdot Mirror
Until I read Poker Nation. The last chapter is disturbing. It sounds just like your brother.
I hope his life isn't quite as screwed up... But I will say, it greatly blunted my interest in gambling games.
Twice the speed, 8 times the storage, more expandable and cheaper? What's the appeal of the AMD device?
- Slow: The rotation speed is slow (7200 *tops* and most are 5600 or slower), as well as the transfer rate, due to the very small platter size. The bigger the platter the more data over the heads per second. I know you said in a RAID config, but you'd need a *number* of drives (more than 3) to saturate a FD 100Mbit link, let alone Gigabit, which should be the *minimum* performance goal of any server, no matter how small... A pair of decent server drives could easily saturate 100Mbit...
- Not designed for 24x7 operation. Most notebook hard drives are only rated for a 3 year life with only 8 or 12 hours operation per day! That's a problem for a server. I want a 5 year life of 24x7...
- Heat. It seems to me that notebook drives run *hotter* than an equivilent 3.5" drive. Now most people don't compare equivilents: they're comparing a 40GB 2.5" drive at 4200RPM to a 160GB 3.5" drive at 7200RPM. Of course the desktop drive is hotter. But given the same drive, notebook drives certainly seem to me to be hotter. No real data on that one: maybe my perception is wrong. This isn't quite the same as a CPU where more power=more heat. There *is* mechanical work being done here...
- Capacity. I work with some small clients, but even they are maxing out 36GB servers right from the start. To me, 72GB is the base for new servers, no matter how small. If you've already drank the Kool-Aid (or did *not* drink the SCSI Kool-Aid: whatever) and are using IDE drives, it's a lot cheaper to put in two 80GB IDE drives designed for 24x7 than it would be to put in 3-4 notebook drives to get the same level of performance and capacity (given their slower speeds and lower capacity), for marginal gains in "ruggedness"...
That's what's off the top of my head. However, it is not impossible to run with notebook drives. In fact, I had a company that needed to set up a 3-tier commerce server setup with 4 front-end web servers that store no real data that seriously evaluated using notebook computers: they're power efficient, small and have built in UPS. Given that at the time a 1U server was $4k, it would have been a fairly big net *savings*. In the end, it was a combination of low memory capacity, lower CPU performance for a given clock speed and those notebook drives that made them think better...I wonder if you might be able to comment on the quality of an IBM ThinkPad in that regard (that IBM snob thing again). I've sold a *ton* of them, and I've had clients with a ton of Dells. I've had drives fail in Dells, but not one hard drive (or CD-ROM, for that matter) in a Thinkpad, despite some which were in production for 7 years. However, the ThinkPads have all of the design features you mention: removable CD drives and reasonably easily removable (but not designed to be swapped) hard drives...
However, don't forget that the biggest reason notebook hard drives are not more solidly built is because of weight, not size. When every notebook builder is struggling to gain fractions of *ounces*, every bit of extra steel on a hard drive counts. Hence, the cheap, flimsy structure.
Have you ever seen a notebook hard drive? All of the ones I've seen in the last three years have a warning on them: do not push on drive! The top of the drive is little more than stiff foil. If you push on it, it will break the drive.
So, no, I do not want a part specifically engineered to be as thin and flimsy as possible in my server. I don't really want them in my notebook, either, but I don't have a choice there...
I must say, though, now having seen the tests and, more importantly, the photographs, that those look *nothing* like a notebook (IDE) hard drive, with their aluminum foil-quality shell almost no real structure. They look like 3.5" hard drives scaled down: still rugged, just small.
I say bring it on! Of course, given my (and my client's) needs, I don't buy rackmount servers... :)
I'm sure it was an honest mistake, but it's the ARRL: Amateur Radio Relay League.
</pedantic_mode>
Do you really need us to all put IANAL? OK, fine: IANAL.
Most of the above argument involves US law, which is no doubt different from Icelandic law.
I'm not talking about the Iceland thing. Rather, the RIAA suing people, which is also in the story.
Also, my understanding... is that Copyright infringment is... something that you can be sued over. So, while A is not nessessarily correct, it is now irrelevent because B, the central issue is now freestanding.
So we agree. Why bother with all of the clarification? The RIAA can sue. The RIAA *has* sued.
We should encourage the RIAA to sue as many people as possible, this lets all the laymen out there who don't care about Artists or copyrights to see the companies making up the RIAA for the thugs they truely are.
In the mean time, I'm refusing to buy any product that supports any constituant member. I don't even download their crappy music or listen to it on the radio because both of those actions still help the RIAA in the end.
Amen to both points. Don't like the RIAA? Don't support them. And that means don't download their music. Boycott them. But don't say, "I don't want to do business with them, but I'll steal their product." The two are inseparable. Anything else makes you (the proverbial you, not the parent) look like a greedy hypocrite.
I decided to enter this discussion rather than moderate. However, I truly wish I could mod your comment.
+1 Insightful.
However, until the law changes, it is still a crime.
Was it a crummy choice? ABSOLUTELY. Immoral. Sickening. But it was her choice. The RIAA did not make her do it.
Did *someone* break the law? Yes. Did the RIAA have the right to go after them for that? Yes, and they did, using the information that was available to them.
Could the RIAA have used better judgement? Maybe. Maybe the story was true, maybe it wasn't. How does the RIAA know? Why should the even care? Sensitivity? Sure. But they sure don't *have* to be sensitive.
The point is, the RIAA did not do anything wrong. The *law* may be wrong, the law may be unfair, but it is still the law, and it is the *only* recourse the RIAA has. Why shouldn't they protect their rights?
Information would be a pure public good then. Like paying for national defense, you couldn't privately deliver such a good since people could enjoy national defense by allowing their neighbours to pay for the army. Everyone could similarily mooch though, thus a pure public good is necessarily provided for by government.
Think about your argument. The production of information would then necessarily depend upon the initiative and regulation of the government. What kind of world would that look like? What result do we see today from government-mandated projects? Effective? Productive? Affordable?
Can you imagine the Department of Information, right next to the Department of Defense? I can't even begin to express the horror of that statement.
In order to get the police to do this, a juge had to sign off on there being probable cause. Therefore, there was some evidence that the users were breaking the law.
How good was the evidence? Don't know. Don't care: that's the judge's responsibility, not mine. That's why he's there. I *hope* that it was an honest judge with legitimate evidence. However, that's how the law works.
Therefore, let me rephrase: There is at least some evidence that these people are breaking the law. This evidence was good enough for a judge to issue a search warrant. What should the RIAA do then? Forget about it? Let people break the law?
Are they guilty? Not until proven. Is there a reason to be suspicious? Yes: a judge said so. Why would the RIAA *not* pursue it?
You *really* believe that illegally infringing on someone's copyright is taking a moral stand?
Really?
REALLY?
Well then: I'm releasing TimOS(tm). It has a *strong* resemblance to that other OS, Linux. Same drivers, same features, same everything. It just says TimOS(tm). I'm going to sell it as part of my (firewall/file server/media center/etc.) after I add a single small driver for a neat whizbang chip that everyone wants a driver for but only I have the documentation for.
Seeing as infringing on someone's copyright is the *moral* thing to do, I'm in the clear. Right?
Right?
The *point* is that uploading/downloading should not be illegal, and any comparison in ANY respect between uploaders and bombers is FUD.
Then say that. I appreciate your right to have such an opinion.
Of course, you just eliminated a tremendous amount of motivation to create copyrighted material at a corporate level. But that's your opinion.
We could have a reasoned discussion regarding this point. It does not change the fact that:
A) These people broke the law
B> The RIAA has the right to sue them
This is a reasoned, intelligent statement.
Let us make copyright 0 years.
This is less so! :)
This would remove all financial motivation for most worldly pursuits. Why write software? Why write a book? Why create music?
For the love of the endeavour? Sure. But what percentage of people would be willing to invest hard money in such a pursuit? Why would a publisher give an author an advance? Why would a record label front the production cost of an album? For a profit on the manufacturing process?
I may settle for 14 years though, if they beg us enough ;).
Personally, I would be *estatic* with 14 years. Or 14 years with a renewal for another 14 years. 28 years of exclusive control. If you write something at age 20, you have until you're 48 to produce something new. That's not so bad, is it?
Never gonna happen, though... :(
If you don't like the way the law and courts work, I would agree. It doesn't mean that what the RIAA is doing is wrong.
Right?
No? I *would* be arrested? And it's a civil infraction? Funny. I wonder how copyright infringement might be handled...
Your desire does not make it so. It doesn't even make it right, moral or upstanding. Doesn't mean it's not, but it is irrelevant.
Again, lots of handwaving about the degree of their crime (excuse me, civil infraction) does not change the fact that they are BREAKING THE LAW. Terrorists? No. Lawbreakers? Yes.
Does the average person equate criminal with lawbreaker? I would venture to say yes. You say no. So what? THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW.
You *really* want to debate the difference between a "crime" and a "civil infraction"? Would the average layman really care?
I know I don't. They are breaking the law. Civil law. So what? IT'S ILLEGAL AND THEY SHOULD BE PUNISHED!
Sigh. Too much coffee.
Why do we (well, they: I'm not Icelandic) have courts? To ajudicate such claims. Does this cause the defendant to have to spend money? Yes. But how would you feel if it was *your* copyright that was being infringed?
A person was found covered in a murder victim's blood, holding the knife. He says he didn't do it. We don't want to charge him with a crime and put him on trial: he would incur legal defense fees...
Might these people not have infringed on the copyright? Yes. However, I'm assuming that if their computers were seized, etc., that there was *some* reason for suspecting them of having commited a crime. How is it wrong to charge them?!?
Boy, that Jaguar is overpriced: it's a few hundred dollars of steel, glass and leather. Therefore, I can steal it.
Don't give me that "copyright-infringement-is-not-stealing-because-I- don't-deprive-you-from-using-it." Do you scream when companies use GPL code without releasing the source? How is this different?
Let's make a deal: Microsoft can close the Linux source and you can copy all the music you want.
Any takers?
I *hate* the RIAA as much as the next guy. But this *IS* the way that the RIAA *should* combat illegal file sharing. You don't go after the phone company to stop bomb threats. You *do* go after those calling in the bomb threat. How is this any different?
Don't want to get sued? DON'T BREAK THE LAW!!!