ftp's policy is to get every byte through byte-perfect and in sequence and it will retry until it gets there. udp just throws out packets and hopes they get there.
Over a 100Mb LAN the difference is effectively nothing, but once you involve slow and lossy networks the difference is considerable. The impact is great enough over terrestrial radio nets and is a zillion times worse interplanetary.
Let's say you have a rover that sends a position message once a second. What you're really interested in, typically, is the most up to date info. If you're using tcp, then you won't get the up to date info until the retries etc have been done to get the old info through (iie. it's noon, but the noon data is not being sent because we're still doing the resneds to get the 8 am data through). This means that the up to date info gets delayed. With udp the lost data is just ignored and the up to date data arrives when it should.
Of course ftp still (might) be a useful way to shift large files etc, but often the udp equivalents (eg. tftp instead of ftp) will be more apropriate.
Like doubleclick hiring clickers, "artists" might hire downloaders to boost their ratings. Apart from ego-inflation it also helps up the celeb status and eventually money.
Much of the "fat" is not built into most systems. There are, for instance, approx 30 different file systems to serve different needs. You won't be building all those into a desktop. Nor will you be compiling the ARM and PowerPC stuff into an x86 build.
or any game actually. One just has to look at "independent market analysis" used by Microsoft and others or benchmarks generated by CPU and compiler vendors etc.
I agree that the clicking thing is fraudulent, but no more so than many other activities. It seems we're getting immune to this and expect to be lied to.
I think there's more honest feedback in open source-land. Firstly, people generally get an email address of an actual developer (how many Outlook programmers addresses do you have?).
The users and the programmers both feel part of a community rather thatn the screwer and the screwee.People will give honest feedback when they feel part of the action.
IMHO, one big defect in the GPL is that it does not protect the rights of the testers and others who put in the hard yards to change a bunch of lines of code into real useful software.
Last time I checked, XP needed a (non optional) hard disk for a swap space and only runs on x86. If you're going thin client you can do way better by using something that is lighter-weight and runs on a cooler CPU. That could take fans off the desk etc.
It is way easier to grade a design based on quanifyable values like use of correct diagrams, headings, spelling etc than it is to grade a design on whether it will produce a good chunk of software.
At the end of the day, the professor and the PHB have similar goals. Keep employment and grow their powerbase wilth minimal stress. This is far more easily done by throwing around and demanding buzzword compliance (makes you sound cutting edge) etc and being picky about little details.
If you think that the motor vehicle industry is really serious about fuel economy, consider that the most popular modern vehicles of today have worse mpg than the Model T Ford. Progress - I don't think so.
For personal flying vehicles, a helicopter probably is not the most fuel efficient. A gyrocopter or fixed wing would be better.
GPL and FSF's stance is "software shall be free". This is very different to saying "you're free to use it in any way". For that you need a differnt licence, maybe BSD.
As has been discussed many times, GPL is a "viral" licence that "infects" anything it is joined to. Bolt GPL onto other code and it must be, or become, GPL too.
What is interesting/confusing is that there are exceptions specified in the GPL FAQ (not that you have to consider this binding since it is not part of the GPL). For instance, it is OK to build GPL code with a Microsoft (or other proprietary) compiler and link in proprietary Microsoft libraries that ship with the compiler (eg. the C-library stuff). This makes for some interesting loopholes. If I bundled up a compiler with MyLib (my secret stuff), could I use it with GPL and keep my stuff non-GPL?
Nobody (that matters) likes MS or software patents, but when MS gets hurt by the weapons it uses then a cheer goes up from the GoodSide.
It's a bit like mean people using landmines. Both the people and the mines are nasty. When a mine layer gets his leg torn off by a landmine then there's some poetic justice.
There's no denying that Hubble has generated some nice piccies, but Hubble had a lot of project issues (especially the lens thing) that a lot of people in NASA and associates would, I'm sure, rather have forgotten.
For a lot of people, being able to bury history would be a GoodThing.
These are wants, surely, not needs. The distinction is important. If a company is doing things that deprive you of your needs, then yell away. If you don't get what you want then just don't buy the damn thing.
But seriously, I bet you want an excuse to hang a jelly-pink dildo around your neck. That would be a need!
Your average S American is not going to shell out real bucks for a real version mainly because he does not have that money. If MS do the upgrades on a small incremental/modular basis (eg. Pay $10 for great feature 1 and another $10 for great feature 2) then maybe.
AFAIK, most S American computers are expected to go into universities and large businesses etc. (ie. the owner is not the user). In these cases pop-ups will do nothing but annoy, since the user is hardly going to pull out his own money to pay for upgrades.
Even in the 80s it was apparent that the shuttle had some basic conceptual flaws. Everyone else uses cargo craft to launch satellites etc while NASA used a far more expesive shuttle: (it's a bit like flying airfreight in the first-class cabin of an aircraft - it can be done, but it is far more effective to use a cargo plane for that purpose).
So, instead of spending the 80s and 90s designing better and more suited craft, they kept up the sham that the shuttle is the best way of getting stuff into space. If someone had had the balls to admit a mistake back then, things could have moved along a lot faster.
It looks like the primary objectives of the current shuttle flights is to "prove" that NASA is still in the race and that the shittle is not a complete has-been. It is important for NASA to prove - if only to themselves - that the shuttle can make its way to the ISS and back.
This is/., so a sports analogy is probably wasted here, but it is a bit like the aging football player taking shots and hobbling through a season to prove he's not dead yet.
IBM has been a service company - rather than a product company - for at least 20 years now. Sure they've always sold lumps of iron, but the bulk of their revenues have been services in one form or another.
Slashdot Mirror
Over a 100Mb LAN the difference is effectively nothing, but once you involve slow and lossy networks the difference is considerable. The impact is great enough over terrestrial radio nets and is a zillion times worse interplanetary.
Let's say you have a rover that sends a position message once a second. What you're really interested in, typically, is the most up to date info. If you're using tcp, then you won't get the up to date info until the retries etc have been done to get the old info through (iie. it's noon, but the noon data is not being sent because we're still doing the resneds to get the 8 am data through). This means that the up to date info gets delayed. With udp the lost data is just ignored and the up to date data arrives when it should.
Of course ftp still (might) be a useful way to shift large files etc, but often the udp equivalents (eg. tftp instead of ftp) will be more apropriate.
Like doubleclick hiring clickers, "artists" might hire downloaders to boost their ratings. Apart from ego-inflation it also helps up the celeb status and eventually money.
Much of the "fat" is not built into most systems. There are, for instance, approx 30 different file systems to serve different needs. You won't be building all those into a desktop. Nor will you be compiling the ARM and PowerPC stuff into an x86 build.
the lecturers threw blackboard erasers at people who didn't listen. I guess throwing an ipod is new.
"Listen up or I'll take away your ipod"
Online advertising works. It is highly effective and low-cost. This is the only way to sell your product to millions of people.
People love to get up to date information on your products so that they can buy them.
Double click are the people to deal with. We already have a great relationship with web surfers and we're the only way to go.
I agree that the clicking thing is fraudulent, but no more so than many other activities. It seems we're getting immune to this and expect to be lied to.
It would be bad biz to show customers how bad the click-to-buy ratio really is.
The users and the programmers both feel part of a community rather thatn the screwer and the screwee.People will give honest feedback when they feel part of the action.
IMHO, one big defect in the GPL is that it does not protect the rights of the testers and others who put in the hard yards to change a bunch of lines of code into real useful software.
Last time I checked, XP needed a (non optional) hard disk for a swap space and only runs on x86. If you're going thin client you can do way better by using something that is lighter-weight and runs on a cooler CPU. That could take fans off the desk etc.
Sure they don't work with sucky servers and networks, but with grunty servers, networks and reasonable software thet can work fine.
At the end of the day, the professor and the PHB have similar goals. Keep employment and grow their powerbase wilth minimal stress. This is far more easily done by throwing around and demanding buzzword compliance (makes you sound cutting edge) etc and being picky about little details.
Naked dsl just makes all pictures of people into pron. Like those xray gogs in the back of comic books.
For personal flying vehicles, a helicopter probably is not the most fuel efficient. A gyrocopter or fixed wing would be better.
As has been discussed many times, GPL is a "viral" licence that "infects" anything it is joined to. Bolt GPL onto other code and it must be, or become, GPL too.
What is interesting/confusing is that there are exceptions specified in the GPL FAQ (not that you have to consider this binding since it is not part of the GPL). For instance, it is OK to build GPL code with a Microsoft (or other proprietary) compiler and link in proprietary Microsoft libraries that ship with the compiler (eg. the C-library stuff). This makes for some interesting loopholes. If I bundled up a compiler with MyLib (my secret stuff), could I use it with GPL and keep my stuff non-GPL?
It's a bit like mean people using landmines. Both the people and the mines are nasty. When a mine layer gets his leg torn off by a landmine then there's some poetic justice.
For a lot of people, being able to bury history would be a GoodThing.
These are wants, surely, not needs. The distinction is important. If a company is doing things that deprive you of your needs, then yell away. If you don't get what you want then just don't buy the damn thing.
But seriously, I bet you want an excuse to hang a jelly-pink dildo around your neck. That would be a need!
Yes, I know Sony marketing read /. every day and appreciate all the great feedback but really if you don't like it don't buy it.
AFAIK, most S American computers are expected to go into universities and large businesses etc. (ie. the owner is not the user). In these cases pop-ups will do nothing but annoy, since the user is hardly going to pull out his own money to pay for upgrades.
So, instead of spending the 80s and 90s designing better and more suited craft, they kept up the sham that the shuttle is the best way of getting stuff into space. If someone had had the balls to admit a mistake back then, things could have moved along a lot faster.
This is /., so a sports analogy is probably wasted here, but it is a bit like the aging football player taking shots and hobbling through a season to prove he's not dead yet.
Maybe God was cleaning up and poured a God-size jug of bleach into the ocean by mistake.
Anywhere else they'd look at the BABES.
IBM has been a service company - rather than a product company - for at least 20 years now. Sure they've always sold lumps of iron, but the bulk of their revenues have been services in one form or another.