It's not enough for you that I call it "good enough for most folk"? I was being generous. Here, in the depths of nobody-listensville you want to engage me in operating systems design combat? Meh. I don't care any more. You win. Take your badge and go home, kid.
Does that make you happy? If I were you I would take my "Symbolset slayer" badge and go home. Lay it on the hearth and call it a career.
If you were skilled in the art you would know how primitive the NT kernel, XP and W7 are. They are sad. But as sad as they are, they are "good enough" for most folk and that's fine for most folk. For people who actually care about uptime, reliability, quality, portability or flexibility: we weren't looking in this direction anyway.
Google has the backbone fiber to do this, and the tech to make it work. Nobody else does. And they do, in fact, leverage non-standard tech to move their bits over their own fiber. They design their own switches, switch links and so on and they leverage emerging technologies like this. Just like they design their own servers, and go direct to China for motherboards and Intel for processors, they're not paying $1300 for a 10Gbps SFP+ LR GBIC.
They bought this fiber for pennies on the dollar it cost to lay, back in the.bomb era. There is quite a lot of it. Quite a lot more than they could ever need, even if they wired every home in America with 10Gig.
Nobody moves bits cheaper than Google does. And this is part of why.
If only there were a whole brigade of scientists, chemists, physicists, mathematicians, materials and electronics engineers who could build us up a vast library of prior art and explore potential avenues for success by integrating the known with new thought and experiment, using innovative supercomputer modeling, 3d printing, viewing, manipulating and manufacturing process tools never before available. That would be neat. That would be like, um, progress.
Standards are for weenies. If you own both ends of the glass pipe, how you put data down it is up to you. It's not standard. It's not Ethernet. But I really don't think Google gives a damn because they own both ends of the pipe and what they care about is moving bits for least cost at minimum latency.
I was taking a more general application of "what's the point?" The first connection to what would become the Internet was made between UCLA and SRI in Menlo Park, CA after all. That was a big deal for them, but a bigger deal for us. What the point of that was is rather subjective.
100PB seems like a lot of data today - 3,000 times the 3TB storage available in a standard PC. But I am so old I wear an onion on my belt, as was the fashion in my day. 1/3000th of that 3TB is 1GB. I can remember when to have 1GB of storage in your PC was an undreamt of wealth of storage richness: a bottomless well that might never be filled. Hell, I can remember a day when 3TB of digital info storage was more storage than there was - everywhere on Earth. In fact in my early days there was talk of a terabyte being the sum of human knowledge (silly, I know). It's reasonable to expect that when that much more time has passed again, 100PB will not be a big deal either.
So now we carry around a 1TB 2.5" USB drive in our shirt pocket like it's no big deal. And when guys like this do things like this we talk about what it means to them - and that's fine. But there is a larger story, like there was a larger story at UCLA - and that is "what does this mean to the rest of us?"
Now 339Gbps isn't such a big deal. NEC wizards have already passed 101 Tbps - 300 times as much over a single fiber, though not to this distance. That's enough bandwidth to pass your 100PB in 20 minutes, over a single strand of glass fiber.
The LA Metro area is about 15 million people, or 3 million homes. To deliver 1Gbps to a reasonable half of 3 million homes and mesh it out for global distribution is going to require a lot of these links. The aggregate demand would probably be under 1% of peak potential of 3,000 Tbps or about 30Tbps. 100 times the bandwidth of this link. Using CDNs(*) - particularly for YouTube, CableTV, the usual porn suspects and BitTorrent you could diminish the need for wider bandwidth considerably but you still need a wide pipe to the outside world. And all the Internet servers in the world would need to be updated to support the crushing demand with higher performance, SSD storage and the like. And that's great for the economy, and it's just LA.
These innovations are neat, but they're neater still when they come home to all of us.
TL;DR: Get off my lawn.
/(*) Define CDN: A CDN, or Content Delivery Network is a facility for moving high bandwidth, high demand or high transaction content closer to a nexus of consumers. An example would be Netflix, which delivers streaming video content to 21 million subscribers, comprising by some estimates a full third of Internet traffic. Netflix provides for free to Internet providers BackBlaze boxes that move Netflix content closer to the end user, reducing backbone usage. Similar boxes are provided by advertising networks and other content providers.
Also, if you want to bring next-gen gigabit fiber networking to homes in a major metro area your backhaul network needs to push the limits of fiber. Otherwise you run out of backbone capacity. Even with this speed, CDN endpoints are needed to reduce backbone bandwidth requirements for things like streaming video and TV.
2012 was toward the end of the "PC" era, when the basic software, or "operating system" of our information appliances was still updated frequently so as to make it incompatible with older devices and applications. We did actually pay for the software that did this to us.
The rationale for this was that historically this software was very primitive, and new versions gave important improvements in utility, security and performance. By 2002 however, operating system software had become mature enough that it did not need such radical continuous improvement. It had become stable enough.
In 2012 though the customer's need for this had long passed, software and hardware companies still clung to this old tradition because they needed their old software and hardware to be made obsolete so they could sell the same products to the same customers again.
Sometime around 2010 consumers started becoming wise to this game. The result was a new "mobile" era of information appliances that didn't have this legacy tradition.
Actually, no. This PC is an 8 year old HP DC7600 SFF I got for less than free from surplus some 4 years ago, running Ubuntu now. 3.4 GHz, single core, 2GB RAM. I got paid to "dispose of" 500 of these as part of a PC replacement project, and my kids run XP on them mostly. I kept about 12 (some to use, some for spares). Most of them I gave to K-8 schools that didn't have computers at all. I couldn't sell them because of partner grey-market agreements. I'm kind of happy about that, since those kids could use the PCs and there was no rule about not giving the stuff away as long as they didn't wind up in the market. Giving them to schools was cheaper than paying for disposal.
I have other gear. Quite a lot of newer, higher end server gear - and tablets and Android gear too. I have dual quad-core workstations, dual hex-core servers with 96GB RAM, right here right now. Believe it or not I have several dozen terabytes of iSCSI SAN in my garage. I could stand up an FC SAN here too if I wanted. But this happens to be what I'm using to post this: an eight year old HP SFF workstation with Ubuntu. It would be sad except: it is sufficient to the task.
But to say that MSFT can't write a good OS is just the height of arrogance, its elitist horseshit to make little nerds feel good about themselves by ignoring the fact that there are literally hundreds of millions of Windows installs out there and you know what? people are happy with them, it does what they want it to do.
This is probably going to come off as rude, and for that I'm sorry. You say that Microsoft can write good software. Being a member of the community these last 30 years and skilled in the art, I would ask: "show me."
Which kind of own data is Microsoft preventing you from using or locking you out from on Windows?
As it is redundantly said on every post about Microsoft, "Office is the One True Document platform".
If you put your word processing document in Word, your spreadsheet in Excel, your presentation in Powerpoint, then the information in that document is hostage to Microsoft proprietary formats, notoriously and deliberately incompatible with all others. It becomes a leash to lead you with, that you created of your own efforts. And the Office team revels in your self-destruction!
There is no reliable way to get your data out of a Microsoft Office document, either individually or in bulk. So putting your data in is a one-way trip where you commit to your own loss. The literary equivalent is a deal with the devil.
The Kin sold at last report 300 units globally in six weeks. And Microsoft bought most of those back. That's for both models of the KIN. I wish I had thought to buy one for the collectible value.
I was recommending the Acer Chromebook for certain folk who might want to put Linux on it - and it's great for that. It might be interesting on its own. The thing is only released a few days ago, and hasn't had enough time to achieve KIN levels of fail. Regardless, specifically referencing my post, the hardware is well worth the price and amenable to considerable utility beyond the manufacturers intent. Maybe it's nice as the manufacturer intended too, but I wasn't pushing that. Certainly Acer is going to have to step up the build quality to get my business.
You guys from Microsoft's marketing team probably shouldn't bring up the KIN with me since I was actually the guy who took the story of its failure viral. Pushing this issue with me is not how you succeed in your mission and it has certain extreme risks.
I should think that there would be something on your corkboard that says: "symbolset: Do NOT engage with this person even AC! Termination offense!" Certainly if I was leading your effort I would post that there given the history of how these efforts have worked out over the last ten years.
By providing the sugar that the malware yeast feasts upon, Microsoft is responsible. You cannot run Windows without antivirus/antimalware now - and yet the devices we buy ship with software horrors beyond imagining: Both Norton and McAffee. If you give birth to the monster and suckle it, and feed it until it grows into Grendel, then Grendel is your fault. By providing ample opportunities for exploits Microsoft is responsible for the multibillion dollar malware industry that exploits users of their ware.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not enough for you that I call it "good enough for most folk"? I was being generous. Here, in the depths of nobody-listensville you want to engage me in operating systems design combat? Meh. I don't care any more. You win. Take your badge and go home, kid. Does that make you happy? If I were you I would take my "Symbolset slayer" badge and go home. Lay it on the hearth and call it a career.
If you were skilled in the art you would know how primitive the NT kernel, XP and W7 are. They are sad. But as sad as they are, they are "good enough" for most folk and that's fine for most folk. For people who actually care about uptime, reliability, quality, portability or flexibility: we weren't looking in this direction anyway.
Google has the backbone fiber to do this, and the tech to make it work. Nobody else does. And they do, in fact, leverage non-standard tech to move their bits over their own fiber. They design their own switches, switch links and so on and they leverage emerging technologies like this. Just like they design their own servers, and go direct to China for motherboards and Intel for processors, they're not paying $1300 for a 10Gbps SFP+ LR GBIC.
They bought this fiber for pennies on the dollar it cost to lay, back in the .bomb era. There is quite a lot of it. Quite a lot more than they could ever need, even if they wired every home in America with 10Gig.
Nobody moves bits cheaper than Google does. And this is part of why.
something, something, "partnership"
If only there were a whole brigade of scientists, chemists, physicists, mathematicians, materials and electronics engineers who could build us up a vast library of prior art and explore potential avenues for success by integrating the known with new thought and experiment, using innovative supercomputer modeling, 3d printing, viewing, manipulating and manufacturing process tools never before available. That would be neat. That would be like, um, progress.
It's a spoof. A beautiful one. Nicely done.
There once was this thing, the "trustworty computing" pledge.
What happened to that?
Standards are for weenies. If you own both ends of the glass pipe, how you put data down it is up to you. It's not standard. It's not Ethernet. But I really don't think Google gives a damn because they own both ends of the pipe and what they care about is moving bits for least cost at minimum latency.
There are 3d printers that use concrete media, and can print you a house?
Or as we call it, a "beer storage array".
I was taking a more general application of "what's the point?" The first connection to what would become the Internet was made between UCLA and SRI in Menlo Park, CA after all. That was a big deal for them, but a bigger deal for us. What the point of that was is rather subjective.
100PB seems like a lot of data today - 3,000 times the 3TB storage available in a standard PC. But I am so old I wear an onion on my belt, as was the fashion in my day. 1/3000th of that 3TB is 1GB. I can remember when to have 1GB of storage in your PC was an undreamt of wealth of storage richness: a bottomless well that might never be filled. Hell, I can remember a day when 3TB of digital info storage was more storage than there was - everywhere on Earth. In fact in my early days there was talk of a terabyte being the sum of human knowledge (silly, I know). It's reasonable to expect that when that much more time has passed again, 100PB will not be a big deal either.
So now we carry around a 1TB 2.5" USB drive in our shirt pocket like it's no big deal. And when guys like this do things like this we talk about what it means to them - and that's fine. But there is a larger story, like there was a larger story at UCLA - and that is "what does this mean to the rest of us?"
Now 339Gbps isn't such a big deal. NEC wizards have already passed 101 Tbps - 300 times as much over a single fiber, though not to this distance. That's enough bandwidth to pass your 100PB in 20 minutes, over a single strand of glass fiber.
The LA Metro area is about 15 million people, or 3 million homes. To deliver 1Gbps to a reasonable half of 3 million homes and mesh it out for global distribution is going to require a lot of these links. The aggregate demand would probably be under 1% of peak potential of 3,000 Tbps or about 30Tbps. 100 times the bandwidth of this link. Using CDNs(*) - particularly for YouTube, CableTV, the usual porn suspects and BitTorrent you could diminish the need for wider bandwidth considerably but you still need a wide pipe to the outside world. And all the Internet servers in the world would need to be updated to support the crushing demand with higher performance, SSD storage and the like. And that's great for the economy, and it's just LA.
These innovations are neat, but they're neater still when they come home to all of us.
TL;DR: Get off my lawn.
/(*) Define CDN: A CDN, or Content Delivery Network is a facility for moving high bandwidth, high demand or high transaction content closer to a nexus of consumers. An example would be Netflix, which delivers streaming video content to 21 million subscribers, comprising by some estimates a full third of Internet traffic. Netflix provides for free to Internet providers BackBlaze boxes that move Netflix content closer to the end user, reducing backbone usage. Similar boxes are provided by advertising networks and other content providers.
Also, if you want to bring next-gen gigabit fiber networking to homes in a major metro area your backhaul network needs to push the limits of fiber. Otherwise you run out of backbone capacity. Even with this speed, CDN endpoints are needed to reduce backbone bandwidth requirements for things like streaming video and TV.
2012 was toward the end of the "PC" era, when the basic software, or "operating system" of our information appliances was still updated frequently so as to make it incompatible with older devices and applications. We did actually pay for the software that did this to us.
The rationale for this was that historically this software was very primitive, and new versions gave important improvements in utility, security and performance. By 2002 however, operating system software had become mature enough that it did not need such radical continuous improvement. It had become stable enough.
In 2012 though the customer's need for this had long passed, software and hardware companies still clung to this old tradition because they needed their old software and hardware to be made obsolete so they could sell the same products to the same customers again.
Sometime around 2010 consumers started becoming wise to this game. The result was a new "mobile" era of information appliances that didn't have this legacy tradition.
WP7 and WP8 don't even run on the same kernel. They are mutually incompatible. How stupid can you be?
If you know code, you know bad code.
You are part of the problem. You are walking blindfolded through a minefield and think that by your bare luck you are an expert in navigating such.
Hunh? How do you come by that?
Well it's not still in-box, but it should be worth good money in a few years.
Also, they discontinued that product. To complete the cycle for you.
Actually, no. This PC is an 8 year old HP DC7600 SFF I got for less than free from surplus some 4 years ago, running Ubuntu now. 3.4 GHz, single core, 2GB RAM. I got paid to "dispose of" 500 of these as part of a PC replacement project, and my kids run XP on them mostly. I kept about 12 (some to use, some for spares). Most of them I gave to K-8 schools that didn't have computers at all. I couldn't sell them because of partner grey-market agreements. I'm kind of happy about that, since those kids could use the PCs and there was no rule about not giving the stuff away as long as they didn't wind up in the market. Giving them to schools was cheaper than paying for disposal.
I have other gear. Quite a lot of newer, higher end server gear - and tablets and Android gear too. I have dual quad-core workstations, dual hex-core servers with 96GB RAM, right here right now. Believe it or not I have several dozen terabytes of iSCSI SAN in my garage. I could stand up an FC SAN here too if I wanted. But this happens to be what I'm using to post this: an eight year old HP SFF workstation with Ubuntu. It would be sad except: it is sufficient to the task.
Oh please. The Reddit article is a link to my /. journal.
But to say that MSFT can't write a good OS is just the height of arrogance, its elitist horseshit to make little nerds feel good about themselves by ignoring the fact that there are literally hundreds of millions of Windows installs out there and you know what? people are happy with them, it does what they want it to do.
This is probably going to come off as rude, and for that I'm sorry. You say that Microsoft can write good software. Being a member of the community these last 30 years and skilled in the art, I would ask: "show me."
I ain't seen it yet.
Which kind of own data is Microsoft preventing you from using or locking you out from on Windows?
As it is redundantly said on every post about Microsoft, "Office is the One True Document platform".
If you put your word processing document in Word, your spreadsheet in Excel, your presentation in Powerpoint, then the information in that document is hostage to Microsoft proprietary formats, notoriously and deliberately incompatible with all others. It becomes a leash to lead you with, that you created of your own efforts. And the Office team revels in your self-destruction!
There is no reliable way to get your data out of a Microsoft Office document, either individually or in bulk. So putting your data in is a one-way trip where you commit to your own loss. The literary equivalent is a deal with the devil.
The Kin sold at last report 300 units globally in six weeks. And Microsoft bought most of those back. That's for both models of the KIN. I wish I had thought to buy one for the collectible value.
I was recommending the Acer Chromebook for certain folk who might want to put Linux on it - and it's great for that. It might be interesting on its own. The thing is only released a few days ago, and hasn't had enough time to achieve KIN levels of fail. Regardless, specifically referencing my post, the hardware is well worth the price and amenable to considerable utility beyond the manufacturers intent. Maybe it's nice as the manufacturer intended too, but I wasn't pushing that. Certainly Acer is going to have to step up the build quality to get my business.
You guys from Microsoft's marketing team probably shouldn't bring up the KIN with me since I was actually the guy who took the story of its failure viral. Pushing this issue with me is not how you succeed in your mission and it has certain extreme risks.
I should think that there would be something on your corkboard that says: "symbolset: Do NOT engage with this person even AC! Termination offense!" Certainly if I was leading your effort I would post that there given the history of how these efforts have worked out over the last ten years.
By providing the sugar that the malware yeast feasts upon, Microsoft is responsible. You cannot run Windows without antivirus/antimalware now - and yet the devices we buy ship with software horrors beyond imagining: Both Norton and McAffee. If you give birth to the monster and suckle it, and feed it until it grows into Grendel, then Grendel is your fault. By providing ample opportunities for exploits Microsoft is responsible for the multibillion dollar malware industry that exploits users of their ware.