Well, one of the reasos is that some services get hold of port 80 (or, a few times other ports), and don't want to share it. With virtualization you can share resources with those too... But yes, those services are a minority, and probably won't need a lot of resources...
Another reason is that you may want to give different people permission to administrate different machines... But again, except for companies that sell hosting, that's an exception.
A third reason is that you may want to replicate your environment for backups and testing... Except that you don't need a VM to do that on Linux. You just copy the files, add two devices to/dev and run the bootloader again. It's easier than backing-up a VM in Windows.
And I've never heard about any other reason for virtualization. I can't also think about any other. I'm lost about why sudenly so much people wants it so badly... Ok, all datacenters added specialized machines for decades because of those first two reasons I gave you above, and get some benefit virtualizing them... But the core of a datacenter (the main databases, web servers - the machies that actualy spend the day working) should run on the metal, and altought I've met several people that arguee otherwise, I've never heard any argument for virtualizing them that holds any water.
But now, I think, maybe the HA people should try to virtualize their clusters. They have a huge amount of redundancy, and consolidating several virtual machines in a single real one can help them reduce their costs. (Ok, if you are in doubt, no, I'm not THAT stupid, it's a joke.)
The worst kept secret on the world is that it is way easier to sell if you put something you client emphatises with in front of him. The web is full of testimonials because of that, also salesmen try to dress correctly, use the words the clients are used to, and so on. There is an entire crop of salesmen that'll throw poersonal stories around every time, and it seems to work.
Well there could be a point when the computer gets too smart and crashes upside down or something to save the electronics while sacrificing the passengers
That's not a smart AI, that's an egoistical AI. There is no reason to even give an ego to an AI, and much less reason to make it protect its ego.
Well, at least 90% of the human pilots wouldn't be able to land in the Hudson River either.
Computers can still be safer, even if they can't handle disasters well. They just need cause less disaster than humans, and humans are great at causing disasters.
Having the ability to have a signed private/public key in hardware isn't a BAD thing... just we need to use it better than JUST DRM.
All the technologies behing Trusted Computing are great if the master key comes printed when you buy the computer. The problem is that the consortium forbides that.
and for a bit more $ and Watts you can get a much faster x86/x64 chip.
Or, in ither words, for some less batery life, you can get a computer that performs faster (notice that price doesn't even enter the equation). That may seem like a deal for you, but it is not for lots and lots of people.
The netbooks and servers market is already owned by Intel, ARM can't lose it (they can only gain market share there). Weight and batery life are two of the most important features of a tablet (only comparable to screen size/definition, and OS), it is a tough market for hungry chips.
Most people that claim that ARM is dead arguee that Intel will outinvest them, and consequently get the best portable chip once they start trying. That can't be proven false. But your argument doesn't hold any water.
I can only assume you are referring to market capitalization, and not actual computers sold.
Whatever it is, I'm completely sure the GP wasn't refering to computers manufactured, since Apple doesn't manufacture computers. What, by the way, is a strange feature for the "largest personal computer manufacturer"...
Well, if you take a look, you'll find plenty of Android netbooks to buy.
They aren't selling like water, but they are selling. That 30% figure is well within reason, but it will take some time to achieve. Android is still fringe.
but, with desktop and server cases, it has usually been possible to keep the offspring of a now-deprecated fad limping along for years after it is officially killed.
Or, in other words, dektops and servers are open, while mobile is DRM protected crap.
That won't last much, not anymore. And MS is creating the hardest protection scheme just at the moment people will be more aware of it.
PS now you can do the total cost of ownership on that vehicle in terms of production costs and materials and compare it to the lifespan of an airplane while you're at it.
Don't forget to include all the energy/money that goes into making an maintaining a road vs. a pair of airports.
They loose this advantage against ARM because ARM requires less silicon to do the same job.
They lost this advantage because Moore's law is comming to the end. The cost of shrinking the feature size is exploding (even in semicondutor industry's terms) and the difference between generations are getting smaller (there were 3 generations where Intel couldn't half the feature size already).
All that is right, throughput increases, but you'll still reduce the single thread performance.
I'm aware that AMD replicated a fuller set of the core on their hyperthreading architecture than Intel did. But even then, hyperthreading always means highter throughput but lower thread performance.
And if they really did get 50% more throughput by using 10% more area, they lost the perfect opportunity to come out with a 8 cores 16 threads model. Why did they kept it at 6 cores?
The only problem is that Windows destroyed itself by the early 90's, and then by the late 90's, and then by the early 2000, and then MS couldn't even make another Windows for like 10 years, and then it destroyed itself again... And Linux couldn't steal its market.
Anyway, Windows won't live forever, and Linux will only die if we get something better to play with. So, the plan stays intact.
There is definitely an enthusiast gaming market, but Valve isnt really serving it.
How many hard core gamers are out there?
If you have a 100% marketshare in a 1M people market A, and a 1% marketshare in a 100M people market B, just 50% of your clients will be from market A.
My bet is still that it is a way to keep Windows compatible with Steam.
If Microsoft pulls a "Windows isn't ready untill Steam doesn't run" while Linux will run it, lots of people will switch to Linux... But if MS does that, and Steam only runs on Windows, Valve is over.
Those are still old plants, that depend on power to not meltdown (and possibly blow up, like we saw at Fukushima).
Now, there was plenty of warning, and enough time for testing the redundant power supply and fixing anything wrong with it. There should be no problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, one of the reasos is that some services get hold of port 80 (or, a few times other ports), and don't want to share it. With virtualization you can share resources with those too... But yes, those services are a minority, and probably won't need a lot of resources...
Another reason is that you may want to give different people permission to administrate different machines... But again, except for companies that sell hosting, that's an exception.
A third reason is that you may want to replicate your environment for backups and testing... Except that you don't need a VM to do that on Linux. You just copy the files, add two devices to /dev and run the bootloader again. It's easier than backing-up a VM in Windows.
And I've never heard about any other reason for virtualization. I can't also think about any other. I'm lost about why sudenly so much people wants it so badly... Ok, all datacenters added specialized machines for decades because of those first two reasons I gave you above, and get some benefit virtualizing them... But the core of a datacenter (the main databases, web servers - the machies that actualy spend the day working) should run on the metal, and altought I've met several people that arguee otherwise, I've never heard any argument for virtualizing them that holds any water.
But now, I think, maybe the HA people should try to virtualize their clusters. They have a huge amount of redundancy, and consolidating several virtual machines in a single real one can help them reduce their costs. (Ok, if you are in doubt, no, I'm not THAT stupid, it's a joke.)
There is some empirical evidence supporting that.
Nearly all spiders are docile. Even the dangerous ones. And tarantulas aren't dangerous at all.
(Here at Brazil we have one of the few exceptions, one of the two dangerous spider species we have will atack you if you get too near.)
Yep, I've also first taught about sales pitches.
The worst kept secret on the world is that it is way easier to sell if you put something you client emphatises with in front of him. The web is full of testimonials because of that, also salesmen try to dress correctly, use the words the clients are used to, and so on. There is an entire crop of salesmen that'll throw poersonal stories around every time, and it seems to work.
There, completed it for you. Wasn't it obvious enough?
That's not a smart AI, that's an egoistical AI. There is no reason to even give an ego to an AI, and much less reason to make it protect its ego.
Well, at least 90% of the human pilots wouldn't be able to land in the Hudson River either.
Computers can still be safer, even if they can't handle disasters well. They just need cause less disaster than humans, and humans are great at causing disasters.
The main selling point of ARM (even more important than power efficiency) that kept them alive all this time is price.
Aparently, you don't.
All the technologies behing Trusted Computing are great if the master key comes printed when you buy the computer. The problem is that the consortium forbides that.
Or, in ither words, for some less batery life, you can get a computer that performs faster (notice that price doesn't even enter the equation). That may seem like a deal for you, but it is not for lots and lots of people.
The netbooks and servers market is already owned by Intel, ARM can't lose it (they can only gain market share there). Weight and batery life are two of the most important features of a tablet (only comparable to screen size/definition, and OS), it is a tough market for hungry chips.
Most people that claim that ARM is dead arguee that Intel will outinvest them, and consequently get the best portable chip once they start trying. That can't be proven false. But your argument doesn't hold any water.
Those are way less than the amount of tablets that will be in a landfill two years from now.
That's even the reason the PC market is "colapsing", PCs aren't going to a landfill anymore untill they stop working.
Whatever it is, I'm completely sure the GP wasn't refering to computers manufactured, since Apple doesn't manufacture computers. What, by the way, is a strange feature for the "largest personal computer manufacturer"...
Well, if you take a look, you'll find plenty of Android netbooks to buy.
They aren't selling like water, but they are selling. That 30% figure is well within reason, but it will take some time to achieve. Android is still fringe.
Or, in other words, dektops and servers are open, while mobile is DRM protected crap.
That won't last much, not anymore. And MS is creating the hardest protection scheme just at the moment people will be more aware of it.
Don't forget to include all the energy/money that goes into making an maintaining a road vs. a pair of airports.
They lost this advantage because Moore's law is comming to the end. The cost of shrinking the feature size is exploding (even in semicondutor industry's terms) and the difference between generations are getting smaller (there were 3 generations where Intel couldn't half the feature size already).
The options are simple to understand. People that use MS servers can either 1 - Pay or 2 - Cry. Also, they get to choose often.
All that is right, throughput increases, but you'll still reduce the single thread performance.
I'm aware that AMD replicated a fuller set of the core on their hyperthreading architecture than Intel did. But even then, hyperthreading always means highter throughput but lower thread performance.
And if they really did get 50% more throughput by using 10% more area, they lost the perfect opportunity to come out with a 8 cores 16 threads model. Why did they kept it at 6 cores?
There, FIFY. That's exactly the point the article is making, and an IDE won't drastically improve your productivity on most languages.
Wasn't that the plan all along?
The only problem is that Windows destroyed itself by the early 90's, and then by the late 90's, and then by the early 2000, and then MS couldn't even make another Windows for like 10 years, and then it destroyed itself again... And Linux couldn't steal its market.
Anyway, Windows won't live forever, and Linux will only die if we get something better to play with. So, the plan stays intact.
How many hard core gamers are out there?
If you have a 100% marketshare in a 1M people market A, and a 1% marketshare in a 100M people market B, just 50% of your clients will be from market A.
My bet is still that it is a way to keep Windows compatible with Steam.
If Microsoft pulls a "Windows isn't ready untill Steam doesn't run" while Linux will run it, lots of people will switch to Linux... But if MS does that, and Steam only runs on Windows, Valve is over.
Those are still old plants, that depend on power to not meltdown (and possibly blow up, like we saw at Fukushima).
Now, there was plenty of warning, and enough time for testing the redundant power supply and fixing anything wrong with it. There should be no problem.
What do those true hackers do while they think?