No, you can surely use stock options to profit from a stock declining in value - it's called buying a "PUT". Do some research. However, only if the stock has listed options and SCOX does not so the only way one could profit on SCOX is indeed selling short.
Not to mention, you can buy a 23-watt flourescent bulb at any Home Depot that produces the light output of a 100-watt incandescent bulb for around $7. Oh, and it lasts 10X longer too. What's the big deal about LED's again?
"IF THIS IS THE CASE, the SCO may very well have a valid claim here. The facts on whether SCO is a good Unix, bad Unix, good company, successful company etc, is irrelevant."
So far I have yet to see how this could be the case, considering that IBM has succeeded in getting virtually NONE of their "enterprise" contributions into the kernel!
Multi-queue scheduler? Looks interesting, but we'll use Ingo's instead?
EVMS? Looks interesting, but we'll use Sistina's LVM!
Posix threads? Looks interesting, but we'll use Redhat's!
JFS? Prefer ext3. Maybe it will make it into the kernel in 2.6.
I'd like to see WHAT exactly is in Linux that IBM contributed that supposedly made it "Enterprise ready"? A few printer drivers??
Good advice. I said *next* best peforming RAID level, as in it will do 50% worse than RAID 0. (You do know you can do RAID 1 with an arbirary number of drives right? It's called RAID 1+0)
RAID 5 will do 50% worse again than RAID 1 for the same number of drives. Price / MB has gotten so low that if you are worried about performance, you shouldn't purchase drives based on the amount of storage you need, you should buy them based on the number of drive spindles you need for the minimum level of performance. Only if you have a server where performance isn't much of an issue, e.g. a file server, should you consider RAID 5.
Yes CPU and memory latencies do keep increasing - exponentially. They do so by running the chips at higher and higher frequencies, and using smaller circuits. A 1Ghz processor will have a latency of 1ns, half that of a 500Mhz.
You can make RAM out of the same stuff and it will have the same latency. That's exactly what Intel does for it's custom-made SRAM cache chips on the Xeons.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you can surely use stock options to profit from a stock declining in value - it's called buying a "PUT". Do some research. However, only if the stock has listed options and SCOX does not so the only way one could profit on SCOX is indeed selling short.
Not to mention, you can buy a 23-watt flourescent bulb at any Home Depot that produces the light output of a 100-watt incandescent bulb for around $7. Oh, and it lasts 10X longer too. What's the big deal about LED's again?
"IF THIS IS THE CASE, the SCO may very well have a valid claim here. The facts on whether SCO is a good Unix, bad Unix, good company, successful company etc, is irrelevant."
So far I have yet to see how this could be the case, considering that IBM has succeeded in getting virtually NONE of their "enterprise" contributions into the kernel!
Multi-queue scheduler? Looks interesting, but we'll use Ingo's instead?
EVMS? Looks interesting, but we'll use Sistina's LVM!
Posix threads? Looks interesting, but we'll use Redhat's!
JFS? Prefer ext3. Maybe it will make it into the kernel in 2.6.
I'd like to see WHAT exactly is in Linux that IBM contributed that supposedly made it "Enterprise ready"? A few printer drivers??
I stand corrected. Speeds are increasing.
Good advice. I said *next* best peforming RAID level, as in it will do 50% worse than RAID 0. (You do know you can do RAID 1 with an arbirary number of drives right? It's called RAID 1+0)
RAID 5 will do 50% worse again than RAID 1 for the same number of drives. Price / MB has gotten so low that if you are worried about performance, you shouldn't purchase drives based on the amount of storage you need, you should buy them based on the number of drive spindles you need for the minimum level of performance. Only if you have a server where performance isn't much of an issue, e.g. a file server, should you consider RAID 5.
Yes CPU and memory latencies do keep increasing - exponentially. They do so by running the chips at higher and higher frequencies, and using smaller circuits. A 1Ghz processor will have a latency of 1ns, half that of a 500Mhz.
You can make RAM out of the same stuff and it will have the same latency. That's exactly what Intel does for it's custom-made SRAM cache chips on the Xeons.