You missed the "point" in the article about how faster computers would no longer be able to "make up" for the lack of bandwidth, when in fact, faster computers have never been able to make up for a lack of bandwidth, and have only served to make the lack of bandwidth more obvious.
Just one, get the stuff I asked for done faster...:-)
And we have had GUIs for a while now, each iteration of Windows* takes more hardware, and the things that GUI is capable of doing have not gotten any better, really. I have not seen aero yet, so I dont know if there is something offered aside from eye candy there or not, but I am betting on eye candy, thus far.
*I am mostly thinking NT 4 to Vista, as that is a mostly level playing field.
"Because, if that's true, then making Microsoft dissapear off the face of the earth would have a significant effect on the economy of the United States."
There would be some minor turbulence for a short while, but I cant see a "significant effect". Enron "disappeared", what was the result? Nothing, really. People's computers would continue to run. Also, who said anything about the company disappearing? You cant really punish a company, excepting maybe taking money from it, or cutting it up. Were it to "disappear", the principals would go off, start a "new" company, and just do the same stuff. Cutting it up would do it, but that would have no real effect on the economy. Punishing the decision makers would probably be best, and that should have no impact, other than a ripple on the stock price ( on the punished company, and maybe on related/affilated/dependant companies ) for a while. And note, if the market things things were bad, that ripple can be a positive one for the company.
"That is, like it or not, more important to the US government than applying absolute justice to Microsoft is."
That may be true, but you cant argue that it is right.
"That doesn't mean the government can't levy huge fines, etc...."
And we have seen how affected Microsoft hase been when fined.
I think we ( voters ) are reaping what we have sown, in a sense. Namely
when we ( not I ) bought into the idea that "you should vote for me,
I ran a business". Business people think in terms of revenue, and I see
this "fine as punishment" as a partial outcome of this. I could be
wrong, but I dont think I am way offbase.
They do? And assuming they do, is that a get out of jail free card?
If so, why?
"they make the software that has made computers cheap and ubiquitous for everybody on the planet,"
There were many others in that game too, till they were crushed.
And they have made a very pretty penny from it.
And it is not like it would not have happened anyway ( there is nothing all that special about Microsoft
in that regard )
"and Bill Gates personally funds one of the largest charities in the world."
Again, is this a get out of jail free card? Why do you bring it up?
Is it OK to destroy evidence because you donate money to a charity?
"Now, if I can only get one of their salespeople to call me back about a large new installation I'm getting ready to do..."
Never did it professionally. We had a PDP-11 at my high school, we were supposed to stay in RSTS/E, but the machine had RSX-11 and RT-11, so I dabbled.
Re:I can confirm PJ's existence.
on
SCO Vs. Groklaw
·
· Score: 4, Funny
"Windows subsystem is making multiple syscalls for each library call"
That may be, but I would expect the same for Linux. I could be wrong.
One thing your comment made me remember is there are some Windows calls where you get back an array of items, you have to call the function once with a null pointer and some other param changes, and you get back the count of items, then you allocate the memory for the items, then you call again. I would not expect that to make *that* much difference, but it is there.
I dont know if the representation is deliberate or not. It might be naive. The point is not perfectly on the mark, but it is not wholey off the mark either. A better test would be apache/windows versus apache/linux.
As to apache and iis as the choices, they have bearing in that apache will likely be the choice on linux, and iis will likely be the choice on windows. And if iis has that much to do with the chart, then why is the graph *that* much more involved? Is it doing it's task inefficiently? Are the hooks for ASP or other things that numerous?
There is a difference between "here is funding to study this thing we think is a problem", and "here is some money, and here is the conclusion we want reached".
"Bribery" might well not be the right word for the second case but neither is "funding".
"To which my answer would be emphatically yes. My FTP is just as high
a priority as your VOIP."
Your FTP is not as careing about delays as VIOP is.
"To which I reply: then let the user prioritize, not the telco. My voip use may
compete with their long distance fees, but that is no reason to give them the
option of setting all voip traffic at a lower priority."
If you let the user decide, then you will have everyone setting their priority to high for everything. Then you will be back in the same boat.
As far as the VOIP vs long distance, that is a good point. I dont know how to handle that.
I think you are thinking about these things from an individual user's viewpoint. I am trying to look at things from the aggregate user's perspective.
I would agree that letting the telco prioritize is not good. I am not wild about legislation doing the prioritization, that would be worse. Letting the end user prioritize will lead to everything set to high priority. Having the application developers do the prioritization might work, but I do recall that Microsoft sets what prioritization there is now to high, and I can see other vendors doing the same. And the market will not do a good job with this, in my opinion, unless we get into differential pricing of packets with premiums being paid for high priority traffic. My understanding is that paying by the byte has not worked well, as people cannot predict how much they will be charged until it is too late ( at least that is my theory on why pay per byte pricing has not worked well in the past ( for consumers, anyway... ) )
The packet headers can be used to detect kinds of traffic to some extent at least.
"Why should there be discrimination based on "type of traffic""
Should bittorrent or FTP run at the same priority as VOIP?
"sounds like color of skin to me)" I am missing your point.
"when both traffic users pay the same amount" Yes, and both traffic users can have various types of traffic prioritized differently. Its not like Joe is only going to run traffic type "A" that is always high priority, and Alice will only run traffic type "Z" that is always low priority. There will be a mix, and if several users are all running high priority stuff they will balance each other out. Yes, that sounds like it will lead to lower priority stuff being choked out, but that is only temporary, unless the ISP/telco is running only enough bandwidth to service just that, and if that is the case, then the current one priority system would be choked also.
"Its a common network. We all pay our ISPs monthly fees. Other than buying in bulk, what possible justification is there to rob Joe Sixpack's email priority to sweeten the pot for Daddy Warbucks stock quotes?"
You are assuming a lot there, I think. Each user will be running a variety of things, it will not just be Daddy Warbucks just and only doing stock quotes, and Joe SP running just and only email. Unless you are thinking of end point discrimination, where Daddy Warbucks is paying for priority, which would choke out Joe SP. Recall, my theory would disallow end point discrimination, only traffic type discrimination.
"And while I'm taking pot shots at your theory (all in the spirit of debate mind you) why should end-points not matter? It costs more to get a megabyte to Point Barrow Alaska than it does to Portland Oregon. The user in Barrow already pick up that difference in cost."
Because the user *has* already picked up the cost. Once this is done, why do you care about the end point any more? Also, if you allow end point discrimination, then the ISP/telco can can prioritize their VIOP traffic over competing VIOP solutions. Or make their IPTV stuff run great at the expense of Joe SP's email. If they can only look at type to discriminate, then all VOIP, all IPTV ( and why we need this is a bit beyond me ) would run at the same priority. This would keep them from anti-competitive type behaviours.
It might well have been me. I have had a few comments ( and complaints... ). I have noticed that there are a few others that do it also. Might be the same form of brain damage I have.:-)
And what is funny about the "google want to raise your internet bill" type campaign, is that if google *did* end up paying for it, they would end up passing those costs on to the end users anyway, just in different ways. So, the end user would get the cost, plus some percent of profit going to Google for the transaction.
Slashdot Mirror
You missed the "point" in the article about how faster computers would no longer
be able to "make up" for the lack of bandwidth, when in fact, faster computers
have never been able to make up for a lack of bandwidth, and have only served to
make the lack of bandwidth more obvious.
Just one, get the stuff I asked for done faster... :-)
And we have had GUIs for a while now, each iteration of Windows* takes
more hardware, and the things that GUI is capable of doing have not
gotten any better, really. I have not seen aero yet, so I dont know
if there is something offered aside from eye candy there or not, but
I am betting on eye candy, thus far.
*I am mostly thinking NT 4 to Vista, as that is a mostly level playing field.
"Because, if that's true, then making Microsoft dissapear off the face of the earth would have a significant effect on the economy of the United States."
..."
There would be some minor turbulence for a short while, but I
cant see a "significant effect". Enron "disappeared", what
was the result? Nothing, really. People's computers would
continue to run. Also, who said anything about the company
disappearing? You cant really punish a company, excepting maybe
taking money from it, or cutting it up. Were it to "disappear",
the principals would go off, start a "new" company, and just
do the same stuff. Cutting it up would do it, but that would have
no real effect on the economy. Punishing the decision makers
would probably be best, and that should have no impact, other
than a ripple on the stock price ( on the punished company, and
maybe on related/affilated/dependant companies ) for a while. And
note, if the market things things were bad, that ripple can be
a positive one for the company.
"That is, like it or not, more important to the US government than applying absolute justice to Microsoft is."
That may be true, but you cant argue that it is right.
"That doesn't mean the government can't levy huge fines, etc.
And we have seen how affected Microsoft hase been when fined.
I think we ( voters ) are reaping what we have sown, in a sense. Namely
when we ( not I ) bought into the idea that "you should vote for me,
I ran a business". Business people think in terms of revenue, and I see
this "fine as punishment" as a partial outcome of this. I could be
wrong, but I dont think I am way offbase.
It will be outsourced to Missouri by then.
Well, you are probably right, in which case, he got me good.
"They generate a large fraction of the US GNP, "
They do? And assuming they do, is that a get out of jail free card?
If so, why?
"they make the software that has made computers cheap and ubiquitous for everybody on the planet,"
There were many others in that game too, till they were crushed.
And they have made a very pretty penny from it.
And it is not like it would not have happened anyway ( there is nothing all that special about Microsoft
in that regard )
"and Bill Gates personally funds one of the largest charities in the world."
Again, is this a get out of jail free card? Why do you bring it up?
Is it OK to destroy evidence because you donate money to a charity?
"Now, if I can only get one of their salespeople to call me back about a large new installation I'm getting ready to do..."
Good luck on that.
Sorry, it was my first foray into such a joke.
Never did it professionally. We had a PDP-11 at my high
school, we were supposed to stay in RSTS/E, but the machine
had RSX-11 and RT-11, so I dabbled.
Ah, but who can confirm your existance? :-)
And if I order the book, receive it, and read it, then what is your fallback position?
Lemme guess, someone ghost wrote the book for IBM.
And if I met her, shook her hand? Then I guess I dont##$*)#*)(#(*#(CARRIER LOST
And *I* was the father of the baby, yeah, that's the ticket.
I have worked in a couple companies with H1-B employees.
While those employees where good, they were not better
skilled than the American programmers on staff. Not
worse, but not better.
Who cares which lib they used? glib, libc, etc, etc.
"Windows subsystem is making multiple syscalls for each library call"
That may be, but I would expect the same for Linux. I could be wrong.
One thing your comment made me remember is there are some Windows calls
where you get back an array of items, you have to call the function
once with a null pointer and some other param changes, and you get back
the count of items, then you allocate the memory for the items, then
you call again. I would not expect that to make *that* much difference,
but it is there.
I dont know if the representation is deliberate or not. It might
be naive. The point is not perfectly on the mark, but it is not
wholey off the mark either. A better test would be apache/windows
versus apache/linux.
As to apache and iis as the choices, they have bearing in that
apache will likely be the choice on linux, and iis will likely
be the choice on windows. And if iis has that much to do with
the chart, then why is the graph *that* much more involved?
Is it doing it's task inefficiently? Are the hooks for ASP or
other things that numerous?
I dont know I would say it has *nothing* to do with Windows vs Linux.
It is a map of OS calls required to accomplish a task.
Your point is good, though, a better test would be apache on windows
versus apache on linux.
I have not thought of it that way, but you have hit the nail right on the head.
Been doing it professionally for more than 12 years now, still loving it.
programming, even doing it as a job. *Dont*
tell my boss...
There is a difference between "here is funding to study this thing
we think is a problem", and "here is some money, and here is the
conclusion we want reached".
"Bribery" might well not be the right word for the second
case but neither is "funding".
"To which my answer would be emphatically yes. My FTP is just as high
a priority as your VOIP."
Your FTP is not as careing about delays as VIOP is.
"To which I reply: then let the user prioritize, not the telco. My voip use may
compete with their long distance fees, but that is no reason to give them the
option of setting all voip traffic at a lower priority."
If you let the user decide, then you will have everyone setting their priority
to high for everything. Then you will be back in the same boat.
As far as the VOIP vs long distance, that is a good point. I dont know how to
handle that.
I think you are thinking about these things from an individual user's viewpoint.
I am trying to look at things from the aggregate user's perspective.
I would agree that letting the telco prioritize is not good. I am not wild about
legislation doing the prioritization, that would be worse. Letting the end
user prioritize will lead to everything set to high priority. Having the
application developers do the prioritization might work, but I do recall that
Microsoft sets what prioritization there is now to high, and I can see other
vendors doing the same. And the market will not do a good job with this,
in my opinion, unless we get into differential pricing of packets with premiums
being paid for high priority traffic. My understanding is that paying by the
byte has not worked well, as people cannot predict how much they will be charged
until it is too late ( at least that is my theory on why pay per byte pricing
has not worked well in the past ( for consumers, anyway... ) )
"That's ridiculous."
Why is it ridiculous?
The packet headers can be used to detect kinds of traffic
to some extent at least.
"Why should there be discrimination based on "type of traffic""
Should bittorrent or FTP run at the same priority as VOIP?
"sounds like color of skin to me)"
I am missing your point.
"when both traffic users pay the same amount"
Yes, and both traffic users can have various types of traffic prioritized
differently. Its not like Joe is only going to run traffic type
"A" that is always high priority, and Alice will only run traffic
type "Z" that is always low priority. There will be a mix, and
if several users are all running high priority stuff they will
balance each other out. Yes, that sounds like it will lead to lower
priority stuff being choked out, but that is only temporary, unless
the ISP/telco is running only enough bandwidth to service just that,
and if that is the case, then the current one priority system would
be choked also.
"Its a common network. We all pay our ISPs monthly fees. Other than buying in
bulk, what possible justification is there to rob Joe Sixpack's email priority
to sweeten the pot for Daddy Warbucks stock quotes?"
You are assuming a lot there, I think. Each user will be running a variety
of things, it will not just be Daddy Warbucks just and only doing stock
quotes, and Joe SP running just and only email. Unless you are thinking
of end point discrimination, where Daddy Warbucks is paying for priority,
which would choke out Joe SP. Recall, my theory would disallow end point
discrimination, only traffic type discrimination.
"And while I'm taking pot shots at your theory (all in the spirit of debate
mind you) why should end-points not matter? It costs more to get a megabyte
to Point Barrow Alaska than it does to Portland Oregon. The user in Barrow
already pick up that difference in cost."
Because the user *has* already picked up the cost. Once this is done,
why do you care about the end point any more? Also, if you allow end point
discrimination, then the ISP/telco can can prioritize their VIOP traffic
over competing VIOP solutions. Or make their IPTV stuff run great at the
expense of Joe SP's email. If they can only look at type to discriminate,
then all VOIP, all IPTV ( and why we need this is a bit beyond me ) would
run at the same priority. This would keep them from anti-competitive
type behaviours.
It might well have been me. I have had a :-)
few comments ( and complaints... ). I have
noticed that there are a few others that
do it also. Might be the same form of
brain damage I have.
Very funny!
I know about the formatting, but I just end up
doing it. I really dont know why, or where it
came from. See what I mean?
And what is funny about the "google want to raise your internet bill"
type campaign, is that if google *did* end up paying for it, they
would end up passing those costs on to the end users anyway, just
in different ways. So, the end user would get the cost, plus some
percent of profit going to Google for the transaction.
Discrimination could be allowed, based on type of traffic.
Discrimination based on end points would be the real issue.
That would be crucial part of any legislation.