From what I recall, the file sharing benchmarks have proven to be faster
Oddly enough, I just benchmarked that yesterday for my Samba implementation project. For the test, I used a 100MB or so directory, composed of a mix of large and small files, which also happened to be part of my home directory. Compared to NFS Maestro on the clients, mounting a shared directory from a Solaris box, Samba3 measured 78 percent faster writing to the server, and 73 percent faster reading from the server.
Hard to argue against a tool that's not only free, but is also substantially faster.
The permanent magnet motors in your hard drive have a DC magnetic field, called B0 (B-Zero). It's strong, but it's not changing.
To change data on magnetic media, a DC field isn't going to do it. You need to get the particles moving first, using an AC magnetic field at a bias frequency. That allows the particles to go into a state where they can be set by the record signal, another AC signal which has the actual signal to be recorded. In the analog world, a bias frequency might be, say, 40KHz, that gets the particles moving, and then the signal which is your audio information, which sets the particles in place. A DC field won't change much without a biasing signal going on.
It's very similar to the model used in iTunes music store and other online music services. See, I think that is part of my point. If I'm going to end up with a cd-r of some package and none of the packaging or dead-tree manuals, I might as well just download it and be done with it. Like someone else said, contract with Apple to handle the shareware sales for you, great idea. Other than download time, I can't see what this buys me vs. buying online and burning it to CD myself. Sure, I'm spoiled by an embarrassingly fast link, but still, how often do you buy (or download) more than a CD or two worth of software at one time?
Wow. I can't tell you how many times I've said "Gee, I'd really like to buy software from a vending machine at a computer store". I mean, it's so much easier than just pulling it down off the shelf, and there are so few things that could go wrong with this.
OK, sarcasm aside, if I'm going to buy software from a store, I want the box, a paper manual, and all that other stuff that goes with shrinwrap software. If I wanted a CD-R and no printed materials, there are other ways to do it.
Re:Suping Up Cars
on
Hack Your Ride
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You can get an add on kit for a truck that connects up to the sensor inputs to the engine and has a console in the car. It allows you to adjust settings on the fly but telling the sensors certain things.
Sorry, but no "button on the dashboard" is going to give you the sensitivity and responsiveness of an engine management computer which is adjusting boost, fuel, and spark timing on an indivudual, every time the engine fires, time frame.
There is a device you can by for any modern car that connects up to the adapter onder the drivers side.
Any time absolutes like "every" are tossed around, that's a clear sign that the issue is being oversimplified. Likewise, the adapter on my car is on the _passenger_ side, and it's probably using a different connector, data format, and programming language as compared to your car. There is no quick fix on this; the carmakers don't cripple their product by making it less powerful than it can reliably be. If they could get more power from a given engine so easily, they'd be doing it, to use smaller engines, to reduce weight. They're not, because there's not the ability to get "double the torque with a push of a button".
I'm sorry to contradict you but the attack of a sound has nothing to do with frequency, at all.
Likewise, I am loath to contradict you, but I believe you don't quite have it right either.
Sound, as reproduced by speakers in this example, can be described as a combination of amplitudes of varying frequencies. If you put the sound through a Fast Fourier Transform, you can visually see the different frequencies which make up what you think of as the sound. A 20 Hz sound is going to have a slope which is, by definition, constrained by the shape of a 20-Hz sine wave. If the attack of the sound is faster than the slope of that line, that difference is made up by another sine wave (or waves) of higher frequencies, the sum of which add up to the resultant sine wave. A FFT ('an fft?') will show the components of the sound graphically, here is one example. If you took an FFT of, say, a cannon blast, you'd see the low frequency component you expect, but the initial attack would show up as a higher frequency component which is, in this case, handled by the non-subwoofer speakers.
In other words, to get the A of the ADSR to the slope necessary, higher frequencies have to be added to the low frequency to get there. A fast attack, by definition, has to come from higher frequency sounds; it's the only way to get the sum from one place to another quickly.
Seems that you didn't RTFA. This was built by a company who does sound engineering, and is their own showcase system. For some reason, I think that they probably have a better handle on what will sound good or not than you could get from looking at some pictures of their design.
Further, the "attack" you mention that it won't produce for bass drums and explosions, are high-frequency components of those sounds, which are handled by the other speakers. TFA doesn't say this is the only speaker in the system, and TFPictures show what else is in use. The highs get handled by those, the lows get handled by this.
Now, that's an interesting thought. Once SCO gets whacked hard and repeatedly by several to many judges, what will it take for those of us who got said letter to rip what's left of SCO to shreds? Might be merely a moral victory, but it's certainly something to look forward to.
As I say in my journal though, I'm not convinced they want to win any case, I still think that their goal is to cripple open source at the prompting of Microsoft. If they get bought out, the FUD doesn't get struck down. It's imperitive that they get flamed, hard, by the legal system.
Thanks, I'll explain to the CIO of a fortune-100 company that some anonymous coward on Slashdot thinks he's wrong.
Actually no. His job is to direct our technology decisions in a way that will maximize our value to the shareholders. He understands that this is a temporarysetback to adopting a new technology. His job isn't to be some sort of activist, his job is to keep us going in a profitable direction. We'll let IBM slap down SCO for us, and then we'll move forward with our plans...bucko.
CIOs are open to hearing about formal risk mitigation techniques like these.
Do you have some links for me to check out? I'm not particularly attached to any particular software or hardware vendor, so it's worth some study. We've got the IBM Z-series mainframe even, which would (will) run it quite nicely once we get past this hurdle. I'd be interested in any pointers you have. (Tried to google but the topic is...a bit...voluminous)
Our CIO is a sharp guy, understands that Linux is the appropriate technical answer to several of the problems we have, and understands the value of open-source software in genereal. The problem is, we got _the letter_, and he's understadably not interested in becoming a headline-making company for the wrong reasons. It's annoying and frustrating, but until SCO gets slapped down hard and goes away, we have to consider the legal/political aspect as well as the technical merits. Yes, it's BS. Yes, their claims are worthless, but yes, he has chosen not to put us at risk as a target of SCO. He expressed the same frustration that we techies are feeling.
If SCO is just a shill for Microsoft, and is trying to delay the inevitable slide away from Windows, well, in our case, it's having some of that effect. If they're not doing this as an agent of Microsoft, well, it has the same effect.
Are there any other time-sensitive easter eggs we can trigger today? For that matter, does someone have a list of hidden gems like this phpinfo(); call that codefungus mentions?
Re:Article Text (Slashdotted Server)
on
Optimizing distcc
·
· Score: 1
how would you know that the goatse site is... nevermind
Read about it on slashdot, oddly enough.
Re:Article Text (Slashdotted Server)
on
Optimizing distcc
·
· Score: 1
So, then those are the types who get modded into oblivion. Self-correcting problem. To mod down a legitimate post (text of an unreadable site) because some of the people who do that might then post the goatse link, well, isn't all that realistic. (the fact that the goatse site is down notwithstanding).
Perhaps you're attributing motivations to this behavior (making a useful post) that doesn't apply.
Re:Article Text (Slashdotted Server)
on
Optimizing distcc
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Are there actually regular participants of Slashdot whose karma _isn't_ listed as excellent? If that's the case, how can "karma whoring" come into it at all? It's not like you get promoted to "excellenter" or "excellentest" or something.
Re:Article Text (Slashdotted Server)
on
Optimizing distcc
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
If it was posted _seconds earlier_, then how could he know he was being redundant?
The purpose of that tag is to say "Yes, we know, people keep making that point over and over, please read the thread". In this case, neither applies.
Re:Article Text (Slashdotted Server)
on
Optimizing distcc
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
Thank you for reposting the article which I was unable to see. To whomever moderated it as "redundant", well, read the moderator guidelines.
Oh, we understand the science, but you all don't understand the dangers of big technology.
Oh wise and glorious anonymous coward, kindly educate us since you know so much.
I suspect that the majority of you who are whining about safe American nuclear power are under the age of 30. The anti-nuclear movement stopped the spread of nuclear power for many solid scientific and political reasons.
Fear, uncertainty, and doubt being the prevalant reasons, of course. Make people who don't understand the technology fear it by drawing false comparisons to dissimilar technology and it's failure, er, _for instance_.
Chernobyl showed, when big tech has accidents, it has dramatic impacts on humans and the biosphere.
Chernobyl showed that when a design is implemented that is fundamentally flawed, _and_ you add human mis-management and error, that problems can happen. My point was and is, that we don't generate power with that sort of reactor, and comparing it to TMI is deceitful at best.
Some of you make the laughable assumption that nuke power is safe because the designs are safe and Americans won't "experiment." This is a classic example of simplistic thinking about nucler power.
Actually, that's a classic example of a straw-man argument. None of us have brought up the point that you conveniently have a rebuttal for.
The health effects of nuclear power do exist.
They sure do. Something like 40% of all medical devices (and, well, everything else running on electricity) is powered by nuclear power, so the health effects are quite significant.
They stopped building nuclear power plants for solid reasons. Crack a book on the subject if you want to learn more.
Yes, the solid reasons were people who like the benefits of nuclear power, but were scared by people like you into believing that what happened in a different part of the world, in a different technology, and which _could not_ happen in an American nuclear reactor, somehow were relevant. It's a solid reason, but it's not a valid reason.
By the way, when your argument relies on the ignorance of your audience in order for it to succeed, suggesting that they "read a book to learn more" is counterproductive.
With the posting of the Chernobyl story yesterday, this should make some of us pause and think about what could have been...
Very true. It allows us to realize how fortunate it is that our engineers rejected the open-pile design which caused Chernobyl to be so dangerous. It also makes me thankful that, due to the skillful design, the TMI incident is a disaster only in the terms of public-relations among those who don't understand, or want to understand the science.
I don't think that anyone who isn't rabidly anti-nuclear power would consider these to events to be anywhere near equivalent. It says a lot for the systems that, despite the chain of human and mechanical failures, the incident at TMI was limited to such a small environmental impact. That wasn't by luck, it was by design decisions, choosing a much safer way to use nuclear energy to create power.
Bringing Chernobyl into the context of TMI shows that the person doing so either doesn't understand the science, or is trying to use fear of Chernobyl to convince others who don't understand the differences.
Nobody, including your apparent un-friend Ashcroft, is saying anything abuot "mandatory prayer in school". It weakens your point when you resort to clear falsehoods - anyone who is undecided will take your obvious lie as a good indication that your argument is so weak, you need to lie to make your points.
Anybody else on this board that have moved toward woodworking?
Yup, I built my house (footings, foundation,
all the framing, roof, electrical, plumbing,
drywall, the whole bit), and am currently working on building selected pieces of furniture as I find time.
Like you say, it's nice to have that visual progress of having something you can point to, and that other people can understand. "What did you do at work today?" "Well, I reconfigured the kernel on our database server so that the blah blah blah" doesn't make sense to anyone, but "Hey, check out this end-table I made over the weekend", even someone who doesn't understand the work involved can at least understand what you did.
That, and it's nice to be able to work in the shop, turn off the constant buzz of thought & just work with wood.
It's less useful than a Tablet PC. You'd think MS would notice that nobody wants this & move on, but it must be someone's pet project or something.
Definately lacking in market research, seems to me. The price is too close to a laptop (hell, a few hundred bucks will get you a dvd-playing laptop if you watch eBay), and being locked into a proprietary media format isn't my idea of a "feature".
Slashdot Mirror
From what I recall, the file sharing benchmarks have proven to be faster
Oddly enough, I just benchmarked that yesterday for my Samba implementation project. For the test, I used a 100MB or so directory, composed of a mix of large and small files, which also happened to be part of my home directory. Compared to NFS Maestro on the clients, mounting a shared directory from a Solaris box, Samba3 measured 78 percent faster writing to the server, and 73 percent faster reading from the server.
Hard to argue against a tool that's not only free, but is also substantially faster.
It's a Joe Job - that's actually MY IP address.
The permanent magnet motors in your hard drive have a DC magnetic field, called B0 (B-Zero). It's strong, but it's not changing.
To change data on magnetic media, a DC field isn't going to do it. You need to get the particles moving first, using an AC magnetic field at a bias frequency. That allows the particles to go into a state where they can be set by the record signal, another AC signal which has the actual signal to be recorded. In the analog world, a bias frequency might be, say, 40KHz, that gets the particles moving, and then the signal which is your audio information, which sets the particles in place. A DC field won't change much without a biasing signal going on.
So...do you drive your Neon at 98MPH often?
Someone should tell that guy (er, me) about closing one's tags if one doesn't want to preview. Sheesh.
It's very similar to the model used in iTunes music store and other online music services. See, I think that is part of my point. If I'm going to end up with a cd-r of some package and none of the packaging or dead-tree manuals, I might as well just download it and be done with it. Like someone else said, contract with Apple to handle the shareware sales for you, great idea. Other than download time, I can't see what this buys me vs. buying online and burning it to CD myself. Sure, I'm spoiled by an embarrassingly fast link, but still, how often do you buy (or download) more than a CD or two worth of software at one time?
Wow. I can't tell you how many times I've said "Gee, I'd really like to buy software from a vending machine at a computer store". I mean, it's so much easier than just pulling it down off the shelf, and there are so few things that could go wrong with this.
OK, sarcasm aside, if I'm going to buy software from a store, I want the box, a paper manual, and all that other stuff that goes with shrinwrap software. If I wanted a CD-R and no printed materials, there are other ways to do it.
You can get an add on kit for a truck that connects up to the sensor inputs to the engine and has a console in the car. It allows you to adjust settings on the fly but telling the sensors certain things.
Sorry, but no "button on the dashboard" is going to give you the sensitivity and responsiveness of an engine management computer which is adjusting boost, fuel, and spark timing on an indivudual, every time the engine fires, time frame.
There is a device you can by for any modern car that connects up to the adapter onder the drivers side.
Any time absolutes like "every" are tossed around, that's a clear sign that the issue is being oversimplified. Likewise, the adapter on my car is on the _passenger_ side, and it's probably using a different connector, data format, and programming language as compared to your car. There is no quick fix on this; the carmakers don't cripple their product by making it less powerful than it can reliably be. If they could get more power from a given engine so easily, they'd be doing it, to use smaller engines, to reduce weight. They're not, because there's not the ability to get "double the torque with a push of a button".
I'm sorry to contradict you but the attack of a sound has nothing to do with frequency, at all.
Likewise, I am loath to contradict you, but I believe you don't quite have it right either.
Sound, as reproduced by speakers in this example, can be described as a combination of amplitudes of varying frequencies. If you put the sound through a Fast Fourier Transform, you can visually see the different frequencies which make up what you think of as the sound. A 20 Hz sound is going to have a slope which is, by definition, constrained by the shape of a 20-Hz sine wave. If the attack of the sound is faster than the slope of that line, that difference is made up by another sine wave (or waves) of higher frequencies, the sum of which add up to the resultant sine wave. A FFT ('an fft?') will show the components of the sound graphically, here is one example. If you took an FFT of, say, a cannon blast, you'd see the low frequency component you expect, but the initial attack would show up as a higher frequency component which is, in this case, handled by the non-subwoofer speakers.
In other words, to get the A of the ADSR to the slope necessary, higher frequencies have to be added to the low frequency to get there. A fast attack, by definition, has to come from higher frequency sounds; it's the only way to get the sum from one place to another quickly.
It will just sound like an aural pool of mud.
Seems that you didn't RTFA. This was built by a company who does sound engineering, and is their own showcase system. For some reason, I think that they probably have a better handle on what will sound good or not than you could get from looking at some pictures of their design.
Further, the "attack" you mention that it won't produce for bass drums and explosions, are high-frequency components of those sounds, which are handled by the other speakers. TFA doesn't say this is the only speaker in the system, and TFPictures show what else is in use. The highs get handled by those, the lows get handled by this.
Why not turn "the letter" over to a DA?
Now, that's an interesting thought. Once SCO gets whacked hard and repeatedly by several to many judges, what will it take for those of us who got said letter to rip what's left of SCO to shreds? Might be merely a moral victory, but it's certainly something to look forward to.
As I say in my journal though, I'm not convinced they want to win any case, I still think that their goal is to cripple open source at the prompting of Microsoft. If they get bought out, the FUD doesn't get struck down. It's imperitive that they get flamed, hard, by the legal system.
Thanks, I'll explain to the CIO of a fortune-100 company that some anonymous coward on Slashdot thinks he's wrong.
Actually no. His job is to direct our technology decisions in a way that will maximize our value to the shareholders. He understands that this is a temporarysetback to adopting a new technology. His job isn't to be some sort of activist, his job is to keep us going in a profitable direction. We'll let IBM slap down SCO for us, and then we'll move forward with our plans...bucko.
CIOs are open to hearing about formal risk mitigation techniques like these.
Do you have some links for me to check out? I'm not particularly attached to any particular software or hardware vendor, so it's worth some study. We've got the IBM Z-series mainframe even, which would (will) run it quite nicely once we get past this hurdle. I'd be interested in any pointers you have. (Tried to google but the topic is...a bit...voluminous)
Our CIO is a sharp guy, understands that Linux is the appropriate technical answer to several of the problems we have, and understands the value of open-source software in genereal. The problem is, we got _the letter_, and he's understadably not interested in becoming a headline-making company for the wrong reasons. It's annoying and frustrating, but until SCO gets slapped down hard and goes away, we have to consider the legal/political aspect as well as the technical merits. Yes, it's BS. Yes, their claims are worthless, but yes, he has chosen not to put us at risk as a target of SCO. He expressed the same frustration that we techies are feeling.
If SCO is just a shill for Microsoft, and is trying to delay the inevitable slide away from Windows, well, in our case, it's having some of that effect. If they're not doing this as an agent of Microsoft, well, it has the same effect.
Are there any other time-sensitive easter eggs we can trigger today? For that matter, does someone have a list of hidden gems like this phpinfo(); call that codefungus mentions?
how would you know that the goatse site is... nevermind
Read about it on slashdot, oddly enough.
So, then those are the types who get modded into oblivion. Self-correcting problem. To mod down a legitimate post (text of an unreadable site) because some of the people who do that might then post the goatse link, well, isn't all that realistic. (the fact that the goatse site is down notwithstanding).
Perhaps you're attributing motivations to this behavior (making a useful post) that doesn't apply.
Are there actually regular participants of Slashdot whose karma _isn't_ listed as excellent? If that's the case, how can "karma whoring" come into it at all? It's not like you get promoted to "excellenter" or "excellentest" or something.
If it was posted _seconds earlier_, then how could he know he was being redundant?
The purpose of that tag is to say "Yes, we know, people keep making that point over and over, please read the thread". In this case, neither applies.
Thank you for reposting the article which I was unable to see. To whomever moderated it as "redundant", well, read the moderator guidelines.
Oh, we understand the science, but you all don't understand the dangers of big technology.
Oh wise and glorious anonymous coward, kindly educate us since you know so much.
I suspect that the majority of you who are whining about safe American nuclear power are under the age of 30. The anti-nuclear movement stopped the spread of nuclear power for many solid scientific and political reasons.
Fear, uncertainty, and doubt being the prevalant reasons, of course. Make people who don't understand the technology fear it by drawing false comparisons to dissimilar technology and it's failure, er, _for instance_.
Chernobyl showed, when big tech has accidents, it has dramatic impacts on humans and the biosphere.
Chernobyl showed that when a design is implemented that is fundamentally flawed, _and_ you add human mis-management and error, that problems can happen. My point was and is, that we don't generate power with that sort of reactor, and comparing it to TMI is deceitful at best.
Some of you make the laughable assumption that nuke power is safe because the designs are safe and Americans won't "experiment." This is a classic example of simplistic thinking about nucler power.
Actually, that's a classic example of a straw-man argument. None of us have brought up the point that you conveniently have a rebuttal for.
The health effects of nuclear power do exist.
They sure do. Something like 40% of all medical devices (and, well, everything else running on electricity) is powered by nuclear power, so the health effects are quite significant.
They stopped building nuclear power plants for solid reasons. Crack a book on the subject if you want to learn more.
Yes, the solid reasons were people who like the benefits of nuclear power, but were scared by people like you into believing that what happened in a different part of the world, in a different technology, and which _could not_ happen in an American nuclear reactor, somehow were relevant. It's a solid reason, but it's not a valid reason.
By the way, when your argument relies on the ignorance of your audience in order for it to succeed, suggesting that they "read a book to learn more" is counterproductive.
With the posting of the Chernobyl story yesterday, this should make some of us pause and think about what could have been...
Very true. It allows us to realize how fortunate it is that our engineers rejected the open-pile design which caused Chernobyl to be so dangerous. It also makes me thankful that, due to the skillful design, the TMI incident is a disaster only in the terms of public-relations among those who don't understand, or want to understand the science.
I don't think that anyone who isn't rabidly anti-nuclear power would consider these to events to be anywhere near equivalent. It says a lot for the systems that, despite the chain of human and mechanical failures, the incident at TMI was limited to such a small environmental impact. That wasn't by luck, it was by design decisions, choosing a much safer way to use nuclear energy to create power.
Bringing Chernobyl into the context of TMI shows that the person doing so either doesn't understand the science, or is trying to use fear of Chernobyl to convince others who don't understand the differences.
Nobody, including your apparent un-friend Ashcroft, is saying anything abuot "mandatory prayer in school". It weakens your point when you resort to clear falsehoods - anyone who is undecided will take your obvious lie as a good indication that your argument is so weak, you need to lie to make your points.
Anybody else on this board that have moved toward woodworking?
Yup, I built my house (footings, foundation, all the framing, roof, electrical, plumbing, drywall, the whole bit), and am currently working on building selected pieces of furniture as I find time.
Like you say, it's nice to have that visual progress of having something you can point to, and that other people can understand. "What did you do at work today?" "Well, I reconfigured the kernel on our database server so that the blah blah blah" doesn't make sense to anyone, but "Hey, check out this end-table I made over the weekend", even someone who doesn't understand the work involved can at least understand what you did.
That, and it's nice to be able to work in the shop, turn off the constant buzz of thought & just work with wood.
It's less useful than a Tablet PC. You'd think MS would notice that nobody wants this & move on, but it must be someone's pet project or something.
Definately lacking in market research, seems to me. The price is too close to a laptop (hell, a few hundred bucks will get you a dvd-playing laptop if you watch eBay), and being locked into a proprietary media format isn't my idea of a "feature".