If Microsoft is focused on making money, they are focused on their products. They cannot, at gunpoint, force consumers to purchase their products. In order to make money, they must provide a product that appeals to the largest number of people possible.
So Microsoft is funneling money to SCO in order to legally harass users of competing operating systems out of an honest effort to win their patronage in good faith? And you would hold the same to be true of other situations, such as their insistence not to talk to Novell file servers using anything but case22 NCPs in order to make them appear slow and problematic?
Do these actions appear to you to be the behavior of an honest shopowner working hard and honestly to win his business?
As Microsoft has begun to feel threatened, they have indeed begun to focus on product quality in order to win customers. But to say that this effort is anything more than ancillary and incidental to their overall marketing effort is patently (pun intended) absurd.
Red Hat announced yesterday that they are desperately hurling together a version of their OS -- dubbed 'Red Hat Desktop' -- targeted at disaffected former Red Hat users disenfranchised by their having commercialized and therefore effectively shut down the Red Hat Linux distribution. Based on Mandrake's recent success in the previously abandoned desktop Linux market, it will cost on average about $5 a month per machine, with additional support services available.
Back in the 80's software tended to be tight and trim but now bloatware is king. I respect this fanboy's accuracy. I bet he's MS Office.
Wouldn't that be more like Jabba the hut? Of course, I guess Jabba would have to be in a Tron costume for the analogy to work, and ARGGH!!...mental...image...
Question for outsourcing CEO: (predicted answers in parentheses)
What is the exact nature of the competitive pressure compelling CEOs to outsource labor?
(Everyone else is doing it.)
So these other companies that "did it first" and thereby decreased their costs, passed this on to the consumer in the form of reduced prices?
(That's how the market works.)
Uh, huh. Ok, given that the inflation rate has remained pretty much constant, if not growing slightly, during this period of outsourcing, is it fair to say that the trend of outsourcing is, in fact, not driven by market forces?
(Well, uh, the market is very complex...)
If a group of companies collectively decide to engage in behavior to the detriment of their consumers (prices haven't dropped) and employees (who are out of work), and this behavior is not market driven, can you explain it in the context of antitrust law?
Man, no doubt. A mass of glowing ballooons arranged in a hexagonal pattern, emitting a disturbing cacophany of cellphone ringtones? I started laughing uncontrollably right after clicking the link.
It is a growing project. The traffic management code in the Linux kernel is immensely powerful, but very poorly documented.
Start here. The wondershaper is the kernel of what I did to get that kind of performance. I strongly recommend using the HTB queueing discipline. The strength of the HTB code is enough to get you 60% of the way there. The rest is fine-tuning and careful, scientific measurements of your traffic patterns.
I probably shouldn't go into corperate networking strategy since it sounds like yours is a mess but in my experience a good fast flat network is always more reliable than one with lots of layer 3 rules and messy topologies.
You're either trolling, and throwing me a very big bone, or you've just demonstrated the level of ignorance of networking technology that would roughly translate to the Earth being the back of a turtle in terms of geography. Either way, I'll just back away slowly.
The concept of a bottleneck is not that without it you have unlimited speed. The concept is a single point that is significantly slower than the rest of the system and therefore the limiting factor for speed.
I'm starting to realize, as I see slashdot discussions unfold about topics I am personally expert it, that this place is overrun with people who do not have a fucking clue.
Your hard drive, IO bus, etc. are not bit pumps that operate in constant linear transfer mode. I know you seem to think that what you read on the back of the box in Best Buy is *Reality*, but I've been working in networking for years now, and I have seen situations where adding bandwidth or prioritizing certain traffic in QoS actually had a reverse effect on the performance of the overall system, a phenomenon which your extensive experience with... ahem... Netgear, would be unable to explain.
If you want to spend your money on equipment that "goes up to 11", that is your business. If you actually want improved network performance, then STFU and listen when someone comes along who actually knows their shit.
Could you explain why scp/samba can't talk at GigE speeds? I've got a box that can spew data out at gigabit rates (network benchmarks like iperf confirm this) but I can't get samba/ftp faster than about 15MB/s. Yet the CPU load is low. Trying to figure out why, and if there's a fix.
The short answer is that there is a lot more to networking than most people realise. Network benchmarks don't do encryption, for example, like ssh does, and they aren't concerned with authentication overhead and the other 500 things samba does. And those considerations are only in layer 7. There's 6 other layers in the OSI stack, so there's lots of places for latency to come into play.
I'll just point out that 400mbps is 4x the speed of 100mbit. That's not a small difference. Seems worth the tiny price premium.
It's your money, but I will leave you with the single most important axiom of computer networking:
You do not eliminate bottlenecks- you can only move them around.
Your networking hardware, software, and applications are all designed to tolerate bandwidth problems. They were built to be the bottleneck. Can you say the same of your hard drive or PCI bus? Trying to deal with networking by hurling poorly thought out solutions at it can and does very often yeild the opposite result.
Unless you get a very hot, brand new PC with motherboard integrated gigE, your PCI bus can't push the bandwidth. The same goes for switches. You'll be doing good to get 400 mbps out of a cheap gig switch.
Even if you have a $5000 gigE switch and a PC that can handle it, what are you going to talk to, your cable modem? The only place gigabit ethernet makes sense is when you are aggregating traffic from multiple computers to a centralized server or set of servers, and are using applications that actually require that kind of bandwidth. Even if you want to move that much data around, and have a way to do it (hint - neither scp nor samba can talk that fast), the best benefit you'll see is about double the performance you get with 100.
Here in the networking world (where I live and play), recent advances in traffic management systems have begun to punch holes in the time-worn theory that throwing bandwidth at a network problem = fixed. If you really want network performance, go check out the Linux advanced router/ traffic control site. (lartc.org) There, you'll learn to get lightning response from ssh and your first person shooters, all while running a 2gig/month web server through your home dsl's 256K uplink. And it won't cost you a dime.
I worked up the K-T impact, experienced from a distance of 2km (the K-T object is estimated to have been 10km in diameter) to try to tweak the simulator. The results:
Your position was inside the transient crater and ejected upon impact
Agreed. However, this mostly depends on you having at least some managed switches that can do port mirroring. Of course, that assumes you are using switches.
And the switches in question can mirror at full line rate. (some cannot)
And the backplane and CPU of the switch are not unduly affected by setting up the mirror.
Rule number 0.92 of networking: Heisenberg is always looking over your shoulder.
Capitalism implies the existence of a free market. This is not the case. Outsourcing is the practice of large corporations taking advantage of the global market for labor. The problem is that we consumers don't have that same freedom. We can't buy medications from Canada or Mexico, we can't play cheaply purchased Asia region encoded DVDs, and we can't even purchase imported goods without paying a penalty for their having been brought into the country (tariffs). Companies want a captive serfdom of consumers constrained from taking advantage of a world market to the detriment of those companies, but want to be free to take advantage of the world market to their detriment. This is not free market economics. It is predatory Rockefelleran monopolism.
Even the competitive pressures argument (we have to outsource to stay in business and save jobs!) doesn't hold much water. Where is the competitive pressure? Companies are indeed outsourcing their labor requirements, but they aren't translating that benefit into lower prices for goods and services, the only way competitive pressure could be applied to organizations not engaging in outsourcing. This means that it is much more likely that business are outsourcing simply because they notice that the other guys are making more profits doing it.
There's certainly nothing wrong with making money, but when the transaction is taking place under the duress of unfair market conditions, the behavior is no different than illegal monopolism, racketeering, or any number of other ways we recognize illicit profiteering. Bottom line - it is wrong, it is unamerican, and you are an avaricious scumbag if you do it.
Slashdot Mirror
If Microsoft is focused on making money, they are focused on their products. They cannot, at gunpoint, force consumers to purchase their products. In order to make money, they must provide a product that appeals to the largest number of people possible.
So Microsoft is funneling money to SCO in order to legally harass users of competing operating systems out of an honest effort to win their patronage in good faith? And you would hold the same to be true of other situations, such as their insistence not to talk to Novell file servers using anything but case22 NCPs in order to make them appear slow and problematic?
Do these actions appear to you to be the behavior of an honest shopowner working hard and honestly to win his business?
As Microsoft has begun to feel threatened, they have indeed begun to focus on product quality in order to win customers. But to say that this effort is anything more than ancillary and incidental to their overall marketing effort is patently (pun intended) absurd.
I've been out of the processor loop WAY too long!
Great comment, but Bismark was by no means a cruiser. He was a battleship.
That's a pretty good point. I always considered Clippy Evil Incarnate, but I do regard vi as an old friend.
Red Hat announced yesterday that they are desperately hurling together a version of their OS -- dubbed 'Red Hat Desktop' -- targeted at disaffected former Red Hat users disenfranchised by their having commercialized and therefore effectively shut down the Red Hat Linux distribution. Based on Mandrake's recent success in the previously abandoned desktop Linux market, it will cost on average about $5 a month per machine, with additional support services available.
Extract a statement admitting to the activity before the lawsuit is even filed. From a legal standpoint, it's brilliant.
Hint: Do Not Reply!
The alleged discovery has been greeted with barely concealed mirth by the Mediterranean island's tourism office.
At least the Atlanteans have a good sense of humor about all this.
Alderaan shoots first.
Well, duh. Everyone knows Alderaan deserved it because of their imperialistic foreign policy.
Back in the 80's software tended to be tight and trim but now bloatware is king. I respect this fanboy's accuracy. I bet he's MS Office.
...mental...image...
Wouldn't that be more like Jabba the hut? Of course, I guess Jabba would have to be in a Tron costume for the analogy to work, and ARGGH!!
Why? We all look like him.
Exactly. Which is why I am dressing up as Londo Molari
Work with what you've got.
Let the lawyers know that a juicy insurance settlement awaits their efforts. That will keep them off your back.
I also hear decaying bits of tuna make good shark repellant.
- What is the exact nature of the competitive pressure compelling CEOs to outsource labor?
- (Everyone else is doing it.)
- So these other companies that "did it first" and thereby decreased their costs, passed this on to the consumer in the form of reduced prices?
- (That's how the market works.)
- Uh, huh. Ok, given that the inflation rate has remained pretty much constant, if not growing slightly, during this period of outsourcing, is it fair to say that the trend of outsourcing is, in fact, not driven by market forces?
- (Well, uh, the market is very complex...)
- If a group of companies collectively decide to engage in behavior to the detriment of their consumers (prices haven't dropped) and employees (who are out of work), and this behavior is not market driven, can you explain it in the context of antitrust law?
No further questions, your honor.Man, no doubt. A mass of glowing ballooons arranged in a hexagonal pattern, emitting a disturbing cacophany of cellphone ringtones? I started laughing uncontrollably right after clicking the link.
It is a growing project. The traffic management code in the Linux kernel is immensely powerful, but very poorly documented.
Start here. The wondershaper is the kernel of what I did to get that kind of performance. I strongly recommend using the HTB queueing discipline. The strength of the HTB code is enough to get you 60% of the way there. The rest is fine-tuning and careful, scientific measurements of your traffic patterns.
I probably shouldn't go into corperate networking strategy since it sounds like yours is a mess but in my experience a good fast flat network is always more reliable than one with lots of layer 3 rules and messy topologies.
You're either trolling, and throwing me a very big bone, or you've just demonstrated the level of ignorance of networking technology that would roughly translate to the Earth being the back of a turtle in terms of geography. Either way, I'll just back away slowly.
The concept of a bottleneck is not that without it you have unlimited speed. The concept is a single point that is significantly slower than the rest of the system and therefore the limiting factor for speed.
I'm starting to realize, as I see slashdot discussions unfold about topics I am personally expert it, that this place is overrun with people who do not have a fucking clue.
Your hard drive, IO bus, etc. are not bit pumps that operate in constant linear transfer mode. I know you seem to think that what you read on the back of the box in Best Buy is *Reality*, but I've been working in networking for years now, and I have seen situations where adding bandwidth or prioritizing certain traffic in QoS actually had a reverse effect on the performance of the overall system, a phenomenon which your extensive experience with... ahem... Netgear, would be unable to explain.
If you want to spend your money on equipment that "goes up to 11", that is your business. If you actually want improved network performance, then STFU and listen when someone comes along who actually knows their shit.
Could you explain why scp/samba can't talk at GigE speeds? I've got a box that can spew data out at gigabit rates (network benchmarks like iperf confirm this) but I can't get samba/ftp faster than about 15MB/s. Yet the CPU load is low. Trying to figure out why, and if there's a fix.
The short answer is that there is a lot more to networking than most people realise. Network benchmarks don't do encryption, for example, like ssh does, and they aren't concerned with authentication overhead and the other 500 things samba does. And those considerations are only in layer 7. There's 6 other layers in the OSI stack, so there's lots of places for latency to come into play.
It's your money, but I will leave you with the single most important axiom of computer networking:
- You do not eliminate bottlenecks- you can only move them around.
Your networking hardware, software, and applications are all designed to tolerate bandwidth problems. They were built to be the bottleneck. Can you say the same of your hard drive or PCI bus? Trying to deal with networking by hurling poorly thought out solutions at it can and does very often yeild the opposite result.No, really. I'm serious. Not at home, anyway.
Unless you get a very hot, brand new PC with motherboard integrated gigE, your PCI bus can't push the bandwidth. The same goes for switches. You'll be doing good to get 400 mbps out of a cheap gig switch.
Even if you have a $5000 gigE switch and a PC that can handle it, what are you going to talk to, your cable modem? The only place gigabit ethernet makes sense is when you are aggregating traffic from multiple computers to a centralized server or set of servers, and are using applications that actually require that kind of bandwidth. Even if you want to move that much data around, and have a way to do it (hint - neither scp nor samba can talk that fast), the best benefit you'll see is about double the performance you get with 100.
Here in the networking world (where I live and play), recent advances in traffic management systems have begun to punch holes in the time-worn theory that throwing bandwidth at a network problem = fixed. If you really want network performance, go check out the Linux advanced router/ traffic control site. (lartc.org) There, you'll learn to get lightning response from ssh and your first person shooters, all while running a 2gig/month web server through your home dsl's 256K uplink. And it won't cost you a dime.
I worked up the K-T impact, experienced from a distance of 2km (the K-T object is estimated to have been 10km in diameter) to try to tweak the simulator. The results:
Your position was inside the transient crater and ejected upon impact
haha. All your ejecta are belong to... well, you.
Effects of Thermal Radiation:
- Clothing ignites
- Much of the body suffers third degree burns
- Newspaper ignites
- Plywood flames
- Deciduous trees ignite
- Grass ignites
Seismic effects:- Richter Scale Magnitude: 14.7 (This is greater than any shaking in recorded history)
Ejecta:- Little rocky ejecta reaches this site; fallout is dominated by condensed vapor from the projectile.
Air blast:- The air blast will arrive at approximately 33333.3 seconds.
- Peak Overpressure: 428781.0 Pa = 4.2878 bars = 60.8869 psi
- Max wind velocity: 424.9 m/s = 950.6 mph
- Sound Intensity: 113 dB (May cause ear pain)
So now you know.Agreed. However, this mostly depends on you having at least some managed switches that can do port mirroring. Of course, that assumes you are using switches.
And the switches in question can mirror at full line rate. (some cannot)
And the backplane and CPU of the switch are not unduly affected by setting up the mirror.
Rule number 0.92 of networking: Heisenberg is always looking over your shoulder.
The plan is embrace, extend, then conquer. By creating their own open source license, they're already in step 2.
Capitalism implies the existence of a free market. This is not the case. Outsourcing is the practice of large corporations taking advantage of the global market for labor. The problem is that we consumers don't have that same freedom. We can't buy medications from Canada or Mexico, we can't play cheaply purchased Asia region encoded DVDs, and we can't even purchase imported goods without paying a penalty for their having been brought into the country (tariffs). Companies want a captive serfdom of consumers constrained from taking advantage of a world market to the detriment of those companies, but want to be free to take advantage of the world market to their detriment. This is not free market economics. It is predatory Rockefelleran monopolism.
Even the competitive pressures argument (we have to outsource to stay in business and save jobs!) doesn't hold much water. Where is the competitive pressure? Companies are indeed outsourcing their labor requirements, but they aren't translating that benefit into lower prices for goods and services, the only way competitive pressure could be applied to organizations not engaging in outsourcing. This means that it is much more likely that business are outsourcing simply because they notice that the other guys are making more profits doing it.
There's certainly nothing wrong with making money, but when the transaction is taking place under the duress of unfair market conditions, the behavior is no different than illegal monopolism, racketeering, or any number of other ways we recognize illicit profiteering. Bottom line - it is wrong, it is unamerican, and you are an avaricious scumbag if you do it.