I'd also like to see an interview with the author of the low-latency patch as well as a comparison of the two. Bits I've read from Kernel Traffic give me the impression that people think the low-latency patch generally provides better responsiveness and scalability.
robotic cars, at a minimum, would produce better fuel efficiencies the same way that cruise control does.
try it some time on a long trip. cruise control is better at maintaining constant speeds and gives better gas mileage. humans have a tendency to speed up or slow down without noticing (we're highly distractable) then brake suddenly or accelerate to compensate. we make crappy pilots for mundane/repeatable/non-creative tasks which is where machines excel.
other "environmental" benefits would be reduced loss of life. maybe not environmental in the classical definition... that benefit alone is worth the price of admission. no more drunk driving deaths.
robotic cars would go a long way to reducing congestion synonymous with rush hour. congestion is basically brought on by a) consistently bad high-latency decision making and b) aggressive me-only thinking. reducing congestion would reduce travel times (thus emissions) and high emissions produced during constant braking/acceleration cycles.
Re:For a simpler introduction to Quantum Gravity..
on
Quantum Gravity Observed
·
· Score: 5, Informative
how is the FIRST post to point out that the article is an ancient repeat mod'ed Offtopic and Redundant while the rest posted much later are (Score 5: Informative)???
Microsoft can use the same list Lindows is compiling to go back and harass or sue the companies/authors of the programs now that it's a hot-button issue... because they can't be inconsistent in the eyes of the court. And it looks like a couple items on the list are open source projects. They'll be real easy pickin's for Microsoft lawyers.
then what do you think the odds are of getting Apple to port this to Linux? I'd buy it in a second. from reports at MacExpo, it seems like Apple is cozying up to the Linux community.
There is a good collection of information here on efforts to get the iPod working with Linux. It's not just a matter of HFS+ support, but also reverse-engineering the iTunes database format.
While I agree about computer usage, CT can be caused by other factors. For example: we just had our first kid. As we found out, CT can sometimes be brought on by hormone fluctuations post-partum. This is the case with my wife. I've never known anyone with severe CT, but now I know how excruciating it can be. She's often unable to lift our child and she certainly can't drive a car. It may be temporary (we certainly hope so), but in the meantime, it's pretty debilitating.
I'm glad you found it acceptable to use third party tools to navigate the quagmire that is NetInfo. I did not. It shouldn't be so friggin complicated (setting up a single NFS import in NetInfo by hand takes 5 minutes) and if it is, then Apple should be the ones providing the tools. The out of box experience with NFS is appalling.
However, NFS is only part of the story. There's a lot more to integrating a system than NFS mounts. NIS and SMB are also only pieces of the story. The point remains valid; and that is that OS X doesn't make any of it easy.
Apple set the bar for ease of use a decade ago but seems to have walked away from it since. Any Linux, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, or other un*x distribution is easier to use for network interoperability. If you can't see that then you're blinded by your loyalty to Apple.
OS X is unfinished to say the least. I was pretty excited when I got a new iMac with OS X to play around with. But when I got around to integrating it into my Linux-base environment, it really fell apart.
NFS support is severely lacking. You can't even count on a command-line mount of an nfs volume. If I try to mount with "mount server:/local/mnt/local", the "/mnt/local" directory disappears. The mount doesn't and you can't unmount without rebooting. There is a shareware program that makes it possible to use NFS, but c'mon folks. This is a violation of some basic trust. NFS should just work.
SMB is nearly as bad. At least you can reliable mount samba volumes. However, it's highly unstable. Changing files on the server will cause OS X to behave unpredictably. Updating an app binary, for example, will cause subsequent execution of that app to fail with bus errors.
NIS? Good luck. Not supported. There is an FAQ for enabling it. But my success with this has been limited at best.
Until they get the basics sorted out, it'll just sit on the kitchen counter as a nice little internet and recipe browser for my wife.
Which confirms my experience... that if it is available, it's only on the expensive stuff and even then it's still highly proprietary and very limited. This industry could use a dose of PC-like standardization. It hasn't substantially improved it's offerings in decades.
...about computer technology. When I was re-doing a basement as a home theater, just about every installer/dealer that I spoke to was either completely ignorant of the state of computer technology and/or dismissed it outright. The stuff you buy in AV stores is pretty much identical to the stuff you bought 15 years ago. Control: IR! Where's the serial port or LAN hookup? Modularity? Zip or proprietary. C'mon.
They're getting all this coverage from "journalists" who's desks and cars are sporting fancy new *free* XM sattellite radios. It's not like it just became an interesting topic.
Pretty much identical to my setup except I'm using a 3ware card to host the 4 drives. This allows me to run RAID 10 (striped/mirrored) and surface them all as a single SCSI drive. I can easily saturate and sustain 100Mb to/from the server with NFS and Samba.
We experienced this first hand with our son. The first practice we went to was extremely eager to do ultrasounds, so we consented for the first two. A third was done out of possible medical necessity. Each time, he would become highly agitated after about 15-20 seconds of scanning. My wife said it would take half an hour after they stopped scanning for him to calm down.
We'll never do an ultrasound during pregnancy again unless there are very serious indications that it's necessary.
Mac OS X does this. Just rename a directory wth the ".app" extension and it becomes executable. There is an expected heirarchy underneath a ".app" directory for resources, libraries, icons, etc but it's pretty straightforward.
This has always confused me as well. If these are the real goals of the divergent branches, why not call them FastBSD, XBSD and SecureBSD respectively... or something to that effect. The current naming system seems like every other abusive overuse of popular catch words: they sound good but they lack meaning and in the end are generally confusing to the public.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd also like to see an interview with the author of the low-latency patch as well as a comparison of the two. Bits I've read from Kernel Traffic give me the impression that people think the low-latency patch generally provides better responsiveness and scalability.
because I hit submit a little too quickly...
robotic cars, at a minimum, would produce better fuel efficiencies the same way that cruise control does.
try it some time on a long trip. cruise control is better at maintaining constant speeds and gives better gas mileage. humans have a tendency to speed up or slow down without noticing (we're highly distractable) then brake suddenly or accelerate to compensate. we make crappy pilots for mundane/repeatable/non-creative tasks which is where machines excel.
other "environmental" benefits would be reduced loss of life. maybe not environmental in the classical definition... that benefit alone is worth the price of admission. no more drunk driving deaths.
robotic cars would go a long way to reducing congestion synonymous with rush hour. congestion is basically brought on by a) consistently bad high-latency decision making and b) aggressive me-only thinking. reducing congestion would reduce travel times (thus emissions) and high emissions produced during constant braking/acceleration cycles.
the fixed url.
puzzle me this...
how is the FIRST post to point out that the article is an ancient repeat mod'ed Offtopic and Redundant while the rest posted much later are (Score 5: Informative)???
The idiot that mod'ed this Offtopic should get a good thump in the nuts. This news is so old and crusty it could pass for Cowboy Neal's underwear.
Microsoft can use the same list Lindows is compiling to go back and harass or sue the companies/authors of the programs now that it's a hot-button issue... because they can't be inconsistent in the eyes of the court. And it looks like a couple items on the list are open source projects. They'll be real easy pickin's for Microsoft lawyers.
I fear that this is one area where porn will not lead a technical revolution.
then what do you think the odds are of getting Apple to port this to Linux? I'd buy it in a second. from reports at MacExpo, it seems like Apple is cozying up to the Linux community.
There is a good collection of information here on efforts to get the iPod working with Linux. It's not just a matter of HFS+ support, but also reverse-engineering the iTunes database format.
you still have to pay for Windows to run in VMWare.
you are paying for Windows, aren't you?
Oh, look, here comes the BSA. *duck*
While I agree about computer usage, CT can be caused by other factors. For example: we just had our first kid. As we found out, CT can sometimes be brought on by hormone fluctuations post-partum. This is the case with my wife. I've never known anyone with severe CT, but now I know how excruciating it can be. She's often unable to lift our child and she certainly can't drive a car. It may be temporary (we certainly hope so), but in the meantime, it's pretty debilitating.
not a smart ass, but just as smart.
Event Horizon and Supernova are two of the worst movies I've ever seen.
I'm glad you found it acceptable to use third party tools to navigate the quagmire that is NetInfo. I did not. It shouldn't be so friggin complicated (setting up a single NFS import in NetInfo by hand takes 5 minutes) and if it is, then Apple should be the ones providing the tools. The out of box experience with NFS is appalling.
However, NFS is only part of the story. There's a lot more to integrating a system than NFS mounts. NIS and SMB are also only pieces of the story. The point remains valid; and that is that OS X doesn't make any of it easy.
Apple set the bar for ease of use a decade ago but seems to have walked away from it since. Any Linux, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, or other un*x distribution is easier to use for network interoperability. If you can't see that then you're blinded by your loyalty to Apple.
OS X is unfinished to say the least. I was pretty excited when I got a new iMac with OS X to play around with. But when I got around to integrating it into my Linux-base environment, it really fell apart.
/mnt/local", the "/mnt/local" directory disappears. The mount doesn't and you can't unmount without rebooting. There is a shareware program that makes it possible to use NFS, but c'mon folks. This is a violation of some basic trust. NFS should just work.
NFS support is severely lacking. You can't even count on a command-line mount of an nfs volume. If I try to mount with "mount server:/local
SMB is nearly as bad. At least you can reliable mount samba volumes. However, it's highly unstable. Changing files on the server will cause OS X to behave unpredictably. Updating an app binary, for example, will cause subsequent execution of that app to fail with bus errors.
NIS? Good luck. Not supported. There is an FAQ for enabling it. But my success with this has been limited at best.
Until they get the basics sorted out, it'll just sit on the kitchen counter as a nice little internet and recipe browser for my wife.
Which confirms my experience... that if it is available, it's only on the expensive stuff and even then it's still highly proprietary and very limited. This industry could use a dose of PC-like standardization. It hasn't substantially improved it's offerings in decades.
...about computer technology. When I was re-doing a basement as a home theater, just about every installer/dealer that I spoke to was either completely ignorant of the state of computer technology and/or dismissed it outright. The stuff you buy in AV stores is pretty much identical to the stuff you bought 15 years ago. Control: IR! Where's the serial port or LAN hookup? Modularity? Zip or proprietary. C'mon.
hell, I pay for cable and I still can't get Howard Stern uncensored on E!. damn damn damn.
They're getting all this coverage from "journalists" who's desks and cars are sporting fancy new *free* XM sattellite radios. It's not like it just became an interesting topic.
You and maybe 10 other people in the boonies. That's not going to float the billion or so a year required to keep these loons in business.
Pretty much identical to my setup except I'm using a 3ware card to host the 4 drives. This allows me to run RAID 10 (striped/mirrored) and surface them all as a single SCSI drive. I can easily saturate and sustain 100Mb to/from the server with NFS and Samba.
Sweet.
We experienced this first hand with our son. The first practice we went to was extremely eager to do ultrasounds, so we consented for the first two. A third was done out of possible medical necessity. Each time, he would become highly agitated after about 15-20 seconds of scanning. My wife said it would take half an hour after they stopped scanning for him to calm down.
We'll never do an ultrasound during pregnancy again unless there are very serious indications that it's necessary.
Mac OS X does this. Just rename a directory wth the ".app" extension and it becomes executable. There is an expected heirarchy underneath a ".app" directory for resources, libraries, icons, etc but it's pretty straightforward.
This has always confused me as well. If these are the real goals of the divergent branches, why not call them FastBSD, XBSD and SecureBSD respectively... or something to that effect. The current naming system seems like every other abusive overuse of popular catch words: they sound good but they lack meaning and in the end are generally confusing to the public.