As long as what's free and what's not free is clearly labeled and the non-free part can be easily excluded, you should be able to call it "mostly free."
There is a considerable amount of money to be made in interpreting for others what is free, and what is not - especially if you are willing to represent as your own nonfree work stuff that is neither yours nor nonfree. You might not be caught, and if you are your fine might be less than your profits.
I am quite comfortable with proprietary software if it is the best solution for my need.
Me too. And I'm pragmatic enough to realize that if my vendor gets me hooked on a proprietary solution he's going to drag me by that hook as far as he can. Because he's got a job, and kids, and his kids expect presents under their tree.
It's miserable how they have hijacked the word "free."
Back then, the "free" was implied. We called it software and that you could use it as you would was assumed. It's only a generation of lawsuits that have pulled us back from the brink of progress.
It may be the intent of hardware vendors to drive us into this narrow course where we can accept their binary blobs or not support their hardware. And if they were pushing in that direction, what would their motivation be? Who would profit? Follow the money.
They're exceedingly fine. The careful dividing of interpretations of propriety is an endeavor that gives work to lawyers. Anything that gives work to lawyers is not a good thing.
That's what the general public thinks of free software geeks. This page, and ones like it, are why. Sure, it's good to know how stuff works - that's how you master the ins and outs of security and optimize efficiency. But this is an example of how to write documentation for software that should have been made simpler.
Without any documentation all an average admin can install Virtualbox or VMWare, run it and install an OS in a virtual machine.
Maybe that's the new model of commercial software: to dumb down the infinite flexibility of free software to the point where its usable. The bike is free, but the training wheels are going to cost ya a bundle.
If we wanted to provide 1950-level care today, it would cost less than it cost in 1950.
oh? I think not. The high cost of medical care is driven by nothing more than a desire to limit care and deprive many of care so as to make more abhorrent the downside of not paying increasingly exhorbitant rates for coverage. It's extortion and its end result is that the uncovered will always be with us because they must be untreated to preserve the profit motive.
What healthcare needs is a healthy dose of supply side economics. Eliminate the patents on medicine. Retrain all those auto workers for healthcare jobs and flood the market with care. The price will come down. It does not take a rocket scientist to pull a tooth, set a simple fracture, administer antibiotics or immunizations, or tell people to go home when they have the flu.
It's a common misconception that people are trying to shoehorn everything into browsers. They're not.
The heck they're not. And for good reason.
The browser has all of the display goodness most programs need, and the network makes a nice channel to throw it all through. If your user-centric program (not a driver, kernel or os-specific utility) isn't testing the limits of 3d hardware there's no excuse to not have the backend be a web server and the application itself being a link to the specific port on localhost.
Operating systems are cute and all, but local apps are not cross platform and they're hard to port. Apps that dish a web interface are tons more portable.
I meant 1.8 of course. Seeking tests in TFA give 1.6. Typical SAS 15krpm platter drives are almost 5x that.
With SATA SSD, thermals and consumption are not issues. IOPS and throughput are a clean win, and the SAS interface is no advantage because SAS spinning drives can't deliver the throughput, latency or IOPS of SSDs because they are not solid state. Price per GB is comparable with high-end SAS. The last critical measurement is pure volume per drive and GB/$ and neither SAS nor SSD can compete with SATA 1.5TB drives in that arena.
When we talk about the increased performance of rotational speed, why do we ignore the benefits of areal density? Why? A 1.5 TB drive has something like 25x the data flying under its head at 7200 RPM as a 72GB 15kRPM SAS drive does. Why in the world is this factor not important?
Now about full out... I don't have a citation but if you get more than 1.4, let me know. That would be... interesting.
On the upside for SAS, these SATA drives plug right into your SAS array, so they've got that going for them. They don't make a SAS version of this drive yet but SAS controllers are compatible with SATA drives (although the reverse is not true). But of course you knew that. Yes, I know an SSD is technically not a "drive". If that's where you were headed don't bother. It would be tedious and pedantic.
Research the history on this one. the tabs were sold in major catalogues with the same listing glut as obama memorabilia has now.
I don't have to research the history. I was there.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not unfairly biased against LSD. There are occasions where tripping fry can be therapeutic and/or fun, in an appropriate setting with trusted sober friends or under the supervision of a qualified professional. It can be educational and harmless. The research in the field is both broad and deep and there's a lot of upside potential. There's also some small downside risk even in the best of cases and in many situations that arose daily from common use raised the risk to unacceptable levels. Plus, the period while a person is incapacitated while high varies by the individual not the dose and can be quite variable even with the same individual and dose, which adds an unacceptable uncertainty to the recreational fry weekend among people who work for a living. Some few people suffer schizophrenic or other psychotic episodes under LSD influence, though I'm not sure it's not just revealing a latent tendency. LSD is still available on the black market and it's so easy to make that it always will be, but there will never be a hue and cry to overturn its ban.
Further psychoactive chemical research has given us E, which could eventually become that popular. And continuing research brings us compounds every year that are too new to be listed, and so are still legal until they rise to the level of popularity where they catch the attention of The Man so we will never fail of new and interesting trips if we're so inclined. Chemically enhanced navel gazing will not stop just because LSD is banned.
The repeal of alcohol prohibition happened, and it was more an acknowlegement of the harmfulness of the attempt than an evaluation of the merits of alcohol.
MJ legalization and copyright rationalization are both about the same thing: the public will not obey a law that is patently unfair unless the thing proscribed is one they didn't want anyway. Such laws harm the governed by promoting lawlessness.
LSD? You're on your own there. It's not popular enough for refusal to obey the ban to cause social harm to society in general, and it never will be. People in general don't want it, legal or not.
A fair deal that we've had since time dancing around a campfire was a political gesture is that songs and stories and legends and art become apart of the commons after a period of time. We've made a deal with the artists and their representatives that they can have exclusive use of their works for a limited time in order to encourage them to make more. That's "the deal".
With their exploitive contracts, exclusive play deals, abusive lawsuits and lobbying to get the "limited time" extended to "essentially forever", they undermine every possible benefit in an attempt to "improve their deal". They just don't get - and they won't ever get - that the deal they're breaking is the one that allows them to profit at all.
A growing share of people consider the deal broken and its terms no longer binding and they are enforcing their view of things by technical force. This may not yet be legal, but it certainly is ethical and eventually the law tends to come around to the common point of view. At first there were only a few remix geeks and DJ's. Now the amount of storage media sold in a day outstrips a year's published sales of content. I suppose it's the vast majority of people now and demographically more often the young. The young are responsible for the most enduring social changes so this change looks fairly permanent. As the years go on peer pressure will kill the rest of their market - "Kalen bought encrypted music again? He didn't learn the last six times! (tee hee)."
Copyright as applies to media content is a dead letter. It should be abolished. Maybe after a generation it can be started again with strict limits to ensure it doesn't follow the same hateful course.
Here's where I would go with a useful link. "Duplex" doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means in this context. The use of this term bare is misleading, as perhaps the marketing person who invented the meme intended to be.
"FYI, SAS full duplex means that one channel can be used for data traffic and the other channel can be simultaneously used for command traffic. Both channels cannot be simultaneously used for data. So when Mr Batty says 6Gb/s is available and that's 4x SATA I, he is technically correct, but end users will not see 4x performance."
If you can't sell on the features, it's ok for some people to make stuff up when they're selling. But not us, here, ok? Let's be honest with one another here around the water cooler.
There are actually a few compelling use cases... Short of space is one of them. Server consolidation has freed up a lot of rack space lately, though, so most people have the space.
And we're talking about drives that burn under one watt running full out. How many do your SAS 15K RPM drives burn?
Now plug these things into your SAN -- because they plug right in -- and do the math again. 50% price premium for 80x the aggregate IOPS and 10x the bandwidth? Your SAN needs new connectors to handle the speed.
Slashdot Mirror
As long as what's free and what's not free is clearly labeled and the non-free part can be easily excluded, you should be able to call it "mostly free."
There is a considerable amount of money to be made in interpreting for others what is free, and what is not - especially if you are willing to represent as your own nonfree work stuff that is neither yours nor nonfree. You might not be caught, and if you are your fine might be less than your profits.
The environment sure is getting interesting.
I am quite comfortable with proprietary software if it is the best solution for my need.
Me too. And I'm pragmatic enough to realize that if my vendor gets me hooked on a proprietary solution he's going to drag me by that hook as far as he can. Because he's got a job, and kids, and his kids expect presents under their tree.
It's miserable how they have hijacked the word "free."
Back then, the "free" was implied. We called it software and that you could use it as you would was assumed. It's only a generation of lawsuits that have pulled us back from the brink of progress.
Get off my lawn kid.
It may be the intent of hardware vendors to drive us into this narrow course where we can accept their binary blobs or not support their hardware. And if they were pushing in that direction, what would their motivation be? Who would profit? Follow the money.
RMS and FSF are really pushing it too far. Their agenda subconsciously is to prevent people from making money from their work.
RMS and FSF make their living from people who pay for their work. It does not serve their purpose to bind the mouths of kine that feed them.
Which makes them no better than the developers. And no worse.
They're exceedingly fine. The careful dividing of interpretations of propriety is an endeavor that gives work to lawyers. Anything that gives work to lawyers is not a good thing.
That's what the general public thinks of free software geeks. This page, and ones like it, are why. Sure, it's good to know how stuff works - that's how you master the ins and outs of security and optimize efficiency. But this is an example of how to write documentation for software that should have been made simpler.
Without any documentation all an average admin can install Virtualbox or VMWare, run it and install an OS in a virtual machine.
Maybe that's the new model of commercial software: to dumb down the infinite flexibility of free software to the point where its usable. The bike is free, but the training wheels are going to cost ya a bundle.
And he was good there as well.
$80k/yr for good programmers, 40 programmers, 6 years. Figure $800k for pizza and Jolt cola.
No, that's about right.
And... it's a heckuva deal considering that Microsoft spent a good multiple of that just to market IE5, and we know what a dog that was.
It will become necessary to kill them.
If we wanted to provide 1950-level care today, it would cost less than it cost in 1950.
oh? I think not. The high cost of medical care is driven by nothing more than a desire to limit care and deprive many of care so as to make more abhorrent the downside of not paying increasingly exhorbitant rates for coverage. It's extortion and its end result is that the uncovered will always be with us because they must be untreated to preserve the profit motive.
What healthcare needs is a healthy dose of supply side economics. Eliminate the patents on medicine. Retrain all those auto workers for healthcare jobs and flood the market with care. The price will come down. It does not take a rocket scientist to pull a tooth, set a simple fracture, administer antibiotics or immunizations, or tell people to go home when they have the flu.
It's a common misconception that people are trying to shoehorn everything into browsers. They're not.
The heck they're not. And for good reason.
The browser has all of the display goodness most programs need, and the network makes a nice channel to throw it all through. If your user-centric program (not a driver, kernel or os-specific utility) isn't testing the limits of 3d hardware there's no excuse to not have the backend be a web server and the application itself being a link to the specific port on localhost.
Operating systems are cute and all, but local apps are not cross platform and they're hard to port. Apps that dish a web interface are tons more portable.
erg... "in a sea". Catlike typing detected.
MOTD: I am looking for a honest man. -- Diogenes the Cynic
He's a wise choice, a rational voice is a sea of stupidity. Picking him would represent a striking change, a sudden outbreak of common sense.
Therefore it ain't gonna happen.
You make some good points. I think that's a thorough coverage of the topic.
I meant 1.8 of course. Seeking tests in TFA give 1.6. Typical SAS 15krpm platter drives are almost 5x that.
With SATA SSD, thermals and consumption are not issues. IOPS and throughput are a clean win, and the SAS interface is no advantage because SAS spinning drives can't deliver the throughput, latency or IOPS of SSDs because they are not solid state. Price per GB is comparable with high-end SAS. The last critical measurement is pure volume per drive and GB/$ and neither SAS nor SSD can compete with SATA 1.5TB drives in that arena.
When we talk about the increased performance of rotational speed, why do we ignore the benefits of areal density? Why? A 1.5 TB drive has something like 25x the data flying under its head at 7200 RPM as a 72GB 15kRPM SAS drive does. Why in the world is this factor not important?
Here is the specific page of TFA about the objects under discussion. 0.62W at idle.
Now about full out... I don't have a citation but if you get more than 1.4, let me know. That would be... interesting.
On the upside for SAS, these SATA drives plug right into your SAS array, so they've got that going for them. They don't make a SAS version of this drive yet but SAS controllers are compatible with SATA drives (although the reverse is not true). But of course you knew that. Yes, I know an SSD is technically not a "drive". If that's where you were headed don't bother. It would be tedious and pedantic.
Research the history on this one. the tabs were sold in major catalogues with the same listing glut as obama memorabilia has now.
I don't have to research the history. I was there.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not unfairly biased against LSD. There are occasions where tripping fry can be therapeutic and/or fun, in an appropriate setting with trusted sober friends or under the supervision of a qualified professional. It can be educational and harmless. The research in the field is both broad and deep and there's a lot of upside potential. There's also some small downside risk even in the best of cases and in many situations that arose daily from common use raised the risk to unacceptable levels. Plus, the period while a person is incapacitated while high varies by the individual not the dose and can be quite variable even with the same individual and dose, which adds an unacceptable uncertainty to the recreational fry weekend among people who work for a living. Some few people suffer schizophrenic or other psychotic episodes under LSD influence, though I'm not sure it's not just revealing a latent tendency. LSD is still available on the black market and it's so easy to make that it always will be, but there will never be a hue and cry to overturn its ban.
Further psychoactive chemical research has given us E, which could eventually become that popular. And continuing research brings us compounds every year that are too new to be listed, and so are still legal until they rise to the level of popularity where they catch the attention of The Man so we will never fail of new and interesting trips if we're so inclined. Chemically enhanced navel gazing will not stop just because LSD is banned.
And... we're thoroughly off topic.
The repeal of alcohol prohibition happened, and it was more an acknowlegement of the harmfulness of the attempt than an evaluation of the merits of alcohol.
MJ legalization and copyright rationalization are both about the same thing: the public will not obey a law that is patently unfair unless the thing proscribed is one they didn't want anyway. Such laws harm the governed by promoting lawlessness.
LSD? You're on your own there. It's not popular enough for refusal to obey the ban to cause social harm to society in general, and it never will be. People in general don't want it, legal or not.
They want attribution
A fair deal that we've had since time dancing around a campfire was a political gesture is that songs and stories and legends and art become apart of the commons after a period of time. We've made a deal with the artists and their representatives that they can have exclusive use of their works for a limited time in order to encourage them to make more. That's "the deal".
With their exploitive contracts, exclusive play deals, abusive lawsuits and lobbying to get the "limited time" extended to "essentially forever", they undermine every possible benefit in an attempt to "improve their deal". They just don't get - and they won't ever get - that the deal they're breaking is the one that allows them to profit at all.
A growing share of people consider the deal broken and its terms no longer binding and they are enforcing their view of things by technical force. This may not yet be legal, but it certainly is ethical and eventually the law tends to come around to the common point of view. At first there were only a few remix geeks and DJ's. Now the amount of storage media sold in a day outstrips a year's published sales of content. I suppose it's the vast majority of people now and demographically more often the young. The young are responsible for the most enduring social changes so this change looks fairly permanent. As the years go on peer pressure will kill the rest of their market - "Kalen bought encrypted music again? He didn't learn the last six times! (tee hee)."
Copyright as applies to media content is a dead letter. It should be abolished. Maybe after a generation it can be started again with strict limits to ensure it doesn't follow the same hateful course.
Here's where I would go with a useful link. "Duplex" doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means in this context. The use of this term bare is misleading, as perhaps the marketing person who invented the meme intended to be.
"FYI, SAS full duplex means that one channel can be used for data traffic and the other channel can be simultaneously used for command traffic. Both channels cannot be simultaneously used for data. So when Mr Batty says 6Gb/s is available and that's 4x SATA I, he is technically correct, but end users will not see 4x performance."
If you can't sell on the features, it's ok for some people to make stuff up when they're selling. But not us, here, ok? Let's be honest with one another here around the water cooler.
There are actually a few compelling use cases... Short of space is one of them. Server consolidation has freed up a lot of rack space lately, though, so most people have the space.
And we're talking about drives that burn under one watt running full out. How many do your SAS 15K RPM drives burn?
Now plug these things into your SAN -- because they plug right in -- and do the math again. 50% price premium for 80x the aggregate IOPS and 10x the bandwidth? Your SAN needs new connectors to handle the speed.
This is a slam dunk. Admit it.