Oddly enough, optimizing the Kernel for massive systems with a plethora of processors and RAM could hurt Linux if the big Unix companies see it as a threat.
Did you know that there are kernel patches(available to the kernel folks, but I've never seen them around myself) that have exactly those optomizations? And guess who wrote those patches? Yeah, the Big Iron vendors. Jeeze. Even I'm not that cynical.
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
In the lowest level, plex86 makes it safe to run other operating systems from/under Linux. That means that you'll be running Linux, start plex86, which then starts the operating system of your choice. So, Linux and this other operating system run at the same time, be it Windows 95 in a window, in full-screen(ie: not X11) mode, or DOS in a console window. You get the idea.
Plex86 is wholly a Linux program, although I imagine it wouldn't be impossible to port it to other UNIX-like systems. However, Plex86 is, and will probably always be, X86-specific, meaning you couldn't run it under MacOS.
To make running two completely different operating systems at the same time safe, Plex86 does let the "guest" operating system do anything dangerous(for this example, we'll use Windows as the "guest", which would be running under Linux[the "host"]).
If Windows wants to draw a pixel to the screen, it tries to access the video hardware to draw a pixel to the screen. However, Windows is really running inside a window on our Linux desktop. So, we can't let Windows actually access the hardware - we have to fool it into *thinking* it's accessing the hardware, when in reality, Plex86 has intercepted the instructions which are trying to write that pixel to the screen, and translated them into X11 instructions, to write a pixel into the window in which Windows is running.
Whoa. I think I have a headache. Talk to you later:)
Dave 'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
I'll explain some differences in between plex86 and WINE(which may seem obvious to some, but is a valid question for most).
WINE is replacing all the shared libraries that a regular Windows system would use. So, WINE isn't emulating Windows itself - it's really a compatibility layer.
WINE does a lot more, but that's what it boils down to.
Plex86 is what's loosely called a "virtualizer". You'll need Windows installed(to run Windows), or whatever other operating system plex86 is to use.
When Plex86 runs Windows, Windows is actually runing on the bare metal, for the most part. Plex86 makes it possible to run two operating systems at once by trapping certain instructions that the guest operating system(in this case, Windows) tries to execute. If Windows tries to say, add one plus one, it'll go to the processor without problems; but if Windows tries to get raw access to all available memory, Plex86 will trick Windows into thinking that it has "all" the memory, when it really only has what Plex86 has set aside for it.
This approach has up-sides and down-sides:
Good:
When Plex86 has become more mature, Windows and other guest operating systems will run at near-native speeds.
Since the framework would be in place, you could run a whole slew of other operating systems under Linux, instead of just Windows(great for debugging, since you have total control over what the guest operating system sees and does).
Bad:
Well, you have to have the operating system installed. With WINE, most of the functionality needed will eventually be completely re-written under Linux.
If Plex86 isn't extremely careful about what instructions the guest operating system is allowed to execute, you could end up with a really screwed-up system.
If you think this is all great and good, but you want it NOW, there is a commercial plex86-like program, it's called Win4Lin, and is available at www.win4lin.com . I'm not plugging them - until plex86 is ready, that's what I'm forced to use(and also forced to use an outdated kernel because of it).
Dave 'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Re:On Topic!!! AMD "not knowing what they're doing
on
Chip News To Crunch On
·
· Score: 2
There's a lot more to it. AMD's planned "server" chip would have contained 1-2(!)MB of level-2 cache. That's an big feat - very difficult to achieve.
On the other side, AMD has very fast processors, and a multi-processor capable chipset(using DDR memory) is on its way.
So, as far as I can see, AMD decided to a) not risk everything on a chip that would be difficult to design/manufacture, and b) rely on their current, fast, processors and the soon to be released multi-processor, DDR capable chipset.
Add to the mix that we might be seeing chipsets with ~8 megs of integrated cache within the next year or so, and you see why they might not want to "waste" time on a "server"-oriented processor.
Dave 'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
The reason why a file system makes a lousy 3D object is the fact that it was never meant to be one.
Now, start from the top down. Figure out what you want your 3D computer-world to look like, right from the beginning. Utility programs are best kept in the "garage". You want to find that program that compresses your file? Go into the garage. It'll be a clamp or a compressor.
You want to change some system settings? Go into the drawing room, where there are reams and reams of system design plans. Find the area you want, and change it.
Want to send mail, watch TV, get a file? Go into your communications room.
After you've decided what "room" each and every piece of your system belongs in, you've got a file system in a very organized, very logical(to the normal human mind) manner.
Current file system layout is based wholly on technical design issues./bin,/usr/bin,/opt/bin, and/usr/local/bin (should) keep all your user-level programs. That way, you only need to have those four directories in your $PATH. Why not seperate each packages' files from the rest? 'cause then you would need to add each packages' 'bin' directory to your $PATH. Pain in the arse, so we don't do it.
You get the idea.
Dave 'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
If you're really interested, I've read the size of the "translation cache" somewhere, probably on Transmeta's site. I can't think of it off the top of my head, though:(
I don't know a lot about the Crusoe, but I do know enough to say that it wouldn't take a whole heckuva lot of cache to make it worthwhile - "trouble spots" in code are what slows the computer down - just speeding those up will make a significant impact on performance. In a good way.
Dave 'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
The problem with today's benchmarks are that they don't simulate real honest-to-goodness usage patterns.
Before the Crusoe, they came close enough. Running the same program on a processor multiple times yielded the same results, so long as the program wasn't competing for resources. Those processors were in a limited way "stateless," which is to say that they don't remember anything from the last time the program ran.
Since benchmarkers didn't need to worry to much about it, the benchmarks generally run a program once, then run a different one, then a different one, etc., etc., etc..
In real life, however, a person is likely to open Word, then maybe open Internet Explorer, close Word, open Excel(which shares a lot of code with Word), close Excel, open Internet Explorer, and so on. That is *real life* usage, and Crusoe performs fairly well at it - certainly not as bad as traditional benchmarks would suggest.
When was the last time you played Quake III for two minutes? Yeah, I thought so. Fact is, when you're running on a Crusoe, those first two minutes will be much slower than the subsequent hour;)
So, as you can understand, Crusoe doesn't need "rigged" benchmarks - it just needs *real* benchmarks. The problem isn't that Crusoe will only perform well if the benchmarks are rigged, the problem is that Crusoe *won't* perform well unless the benchmarks put a computer under the same stresses and loads(or lack thereof) that a computer will go through on a daily basis.
Dave 'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
When a programmer knows everything about the platform he's programming for, then he(or she, of course) can write faster programs than any "optimizing compiler." The only reasons it isn't done more nowadays are twofold:
a) Optimizing compilers are actually quite good at what they do, even if a human could do better.
b) It's nearly impossible in this day and age to know everything about the platform you're programming for.
And when I say "everything", I *mean* it. You need to know trace lengths, latencies, exact timings on *each instruction* that's run.
Ever wonder why most Palm apps are so fast, considering they're on a lowly processor? Well, lots of people that write intense Palm apps use assembly - and the hardware is not only very standard, it's also simpler than your average 386/SX.
Dave 'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Well, like all things the government does, there are tradeoffs:)
Why don't more private companies build highways in Canada? They're allowed to, I've checked it out and talked with a few high-ish ranking politicians and lawyers. Fact is, there isn't enough money to be made. People prefer medicore, traffic-laden yet FREE roads over nice and expensive ones.
I think the same might happen here - people will prefer the lowish-cost government internet access over more expensive commercial counterparts.
However, I also doubt that there will be no commercial competition. After all, this is one of the first government ISPs(here in Canada, anyways), and there are how many commerical ones?:) Hey, I'm on DSL right now(which is probably what the government is putting in), but I'd pay for cable if I could get it. The population density in my area is low enough that I'd probably *never* have speeds below DSL, but I'd often have speeds far surpassing it.
Dave 'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Population of Alberta: ~2,700,000
Population of Rural Alberta: ~540,000
Population of Urban Alberta: ~2,160,000
We can probably except that %25 percent of Alberta's population will subscribe to the service(a large porton of rural areas, as well as a smaller portion of urban areas).
So, we've got 25% of Alberta's population(25% = 675,000 people).
675,000 * $40/month = $27,000,000 a MONTH.
So, how long do you think it'll take them to make up the $300,000,000 initial investment? Seems like a damned fine setup to me.
Dave 'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Hehehe:) You're right - the system will have to be replace piece by piece over time. They do that with roads now, though. And it's EXPENSIVE.
I'd argue that it will be cheaper with this "broadband network" than with roads. After all, we'll probably be using fiber for a long time to come, and it hasn't changes much since its inception. That's what's really driving the cost of this network up - laying the fiber.
After the fiber is laid, the rest of the costs are more reasonable. And, assuming the fiber holds out, to upgrade the network you only have to upgrade the nodes/towns that need it. The hardware won't be too expensive either, I bet.
Dave 'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
I agree with you on a few points, but only in a limited way.
You see, I don't look at this as givine 'net connections to a bunch of people who will never use them.
This about when rural areas first got paved roads. I doubt many people had cars(after all, there were no roads, so no cars), and yet it made a profound difference not only in their communities, but to the nation as a whole(not that I'm saying good changes, by the way). All of a sudden, a farmer could feed more than people within 20km of his house - he could feed people 200-300kms away!
There's also a few things you may not realize.
a) Farming is actually an incredibly technical occupation. The amounts of data that a farmer generates in one year is probably more than an an average two-three story office building.
b) There isn't much to do out in the boonies. While farmers usually enjoy their work, their kids might not. This will immediately increase their quality of living. Also, the two absolutely brilliant people I met became brilliant studying on the farm they grew up on - their was nothing else to do.
Dave 'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
I've long felt that governments who could afford it should start treating internet connectivity as another form of infrastructure. Like roads, water supply, and the rest, the internet is probably going to become extremely ubiquitous. Frankly, I don't trust any commercial entity with that sort of responsibility. At least governments can in some ways be held accountable.
Governments shouldn't have to do things like split big monopolies up - they should never have become monopolies in the first place. With the government hooking up its populace, you know you will always have an alternative. And, if for some reason the entire venture becomes "unprofitable", no politician is going to shut down the program after people have gotten used to it. They'll never work again.
Dave 'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
I don't understand the various reactions to this post.
The fact is, we *are* fast-approaching a semblance of godhood. It's a scary thought, but we already have the technology to completely change the face of our world. The only reason we havn't yet is because there hasn't been motivation large enough to warrant the required resources.
In a few hundred, maybe a few thousand years, in a fairyland of nanotechnology, it could be as simple as programming a nanotechnology-based robot to convert all grass into dust. Just let 'er rip, and off it goes.
This is very frightening, but could also be very valuable.
Who here is willing to spend ten years of constant work to go into space? I mean, if someone walked up to you and said, "If you sacrifice ten years of your life to hard effort, I will send you into space," would you take it?
Probably not. We simply don't have the attention span, as a species. Little things like immortality might give us that attention span. After all, if you've lived several hundred years, what's ten? Heck, what's a hundred? If we're willing to sacrifice that kind of time, our potential is nearly unlimited. We could reach the stars.
Yeah, I know, I sound half-baked. Ah well:)
Dave 'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Just because Linux has tons of flaws doesn`t mean every Linux article has to mention them. This guy just stated the stuff he liked about the platform.
Well, most Linux articles I've read DO mention some of the flaws, usually something along the lines of: "Well, it's a good step forward, but there's quite a bit of work to be done yet." This (sneer) article didn't mention anything bad.
Come on, face it. This was an advertisement. I hope they Slashdot paid for it.
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
What's the difference in between a review and an advertisement?
Review: Attempts, at least in some ways, to be impartial. For instance, if there's a huge gaping hole of a bug, they'll tell you about it.
Advertisement: Never, EVER says bad things about the product.
Now, I've used QNX(at work), and it's a pretty nice system. I like it, and I hope it gains adoption in the appliance sector(the smaller the browser, the less extentions. The less extentions, the more standards-compliant), but it has some flaws.
So, was this a review, or an add(doesn't matter who writes it, an ad is an ad)?
Figure it out for yourself.
Dave 'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
BUT, it's still an advertisement, and that should be the headline. For example:
Ad: QNX Real-time OS, symbiosis with Linux
I actually think this is a *very* good idea - a real ad every fix or six stories. Banner ads bite, and there's no real equivalent for commercials on the 'net. I think an ad-story every now and then would sell for some good money. Something like this is actually feasible.
Dave 'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
I apologize if I sound rude, but his is nothing more than an advertisement. Only two or three lines has anything to do with "Open Source"(yeah, right, who here is gonna call THAT "Open Source"???), and the rest of it was them telling us how great QNX is, how well it scales, how easy it is to program for, etc., etc..
Now, if you want to review something, that's great by me - I like reviews. I don't even care if it's a review of an Evil Microsoft product, and I don't mind if you sing its praises.
But is this the forum for blatant advertising? Sure, banner ads are fine, whatever. Even "sponsorship messages" are cool - but LABEL THEM AS SUCH.
Dave 'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Not a bad point, but you've got to take the idea in context. "Sprawl" in urban areas is usually a really bad thing for many reasons.
Economical: You often have a large population with few places to employ them.
Environmental: Current day sprawl is really bad because you lay down *HUGE* tracts of road for all those people, plus the density is still too high to have real farms in the area.
I'm talking about something completely different. In Canada, there's about a square kilometer of good land per person(not counting tundra, which raises it to about 3 square kilometers/person). I'm not talking about having neighbors within hollaring distance.:)
Dave 'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Hehehe:) You don't realize how much thought and research I've put into this;)
Health Insurance: I live in Canada, where almost everything(health-related) is free.
Money for taxes: Well, as far as property taxes goes, it's *real* cheap. There are huge tracts of land in Ontario(and we're talking good land here, not arctic tundra or anything) that are completely tax free - sort of like the Homesteader's Act. School taxes are part of income taxes here, and since I wouldn't be working much, I wouldn't be paying much. Ditto for sales tax.
You've got a good point about taxes going up, though. However, I doubt enough people would do it in large enough numbers to warrant adiscriminating tax law.
As far as sustinance farming, it's not as bad as you might think. I live in an agricultural community/area(my town is "the city", and there's only about 8000 people here), and I grew up with and around farmers. It's hard, yes, but easier than commuting an hour a day and working eight hours. *trust me*. Of course, not everyone could handle being far away from any population centre, but that's a different argument. Oh, back to farming. For a family of six, you can expect to work ~14hrs a day during harvest and sowing seasons, and about ~2-3hrs a day the rest of the year. That's assuming you have animals, and don't just rely on plants(very dangerous to rely solely on plants!).
Now, I'm not going to argue with you on socio-political-religious points, but "communes" are helped North America into cohesive nations, and if for some reason national government broke down communes would be the first things that rose to take its place.
Dave 'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
I've always wanted to live in the middle of nowhere. Unfortunatly, I'm unwilling. No electricity? No telephones? I'd be completely out of touch with the world. No more friends, no nothing.
A technology that allows one to become completely independant from the rest of the world is a really good thing. With these solar/hydrogren cell packs, one could live in the middle of nowhere, with all the comforts you'd have in the city(assuming you raise/grow your own food). Technology like this puts that dream within the reach of the masses. No more would you need to live in a city, squished like sardines.
Does anybody know how cheap it is to live on your own, making your own food? DAMNED cheap. Assuming you owned the property and buildings outright, you would only need to work one year in five(assuming minimum wage) to be comfortable.
Ooooh baby. That forest getaway is looking more and more likely:)
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Slashdot Mirror
Somebody should hit you with a clue stick.
Oddly enough, optimizing the Kernel for massive systems with a plethora of processors and RAM could hurt Linux if the big Unix companies see it as a threat.
Did you know that there are kernel patches(available to the kernel folks, but I've never seen them around myself) that have exactly those optomizations? And guess who wrote those patches? Yeah, the Big Iron vendors. Jeeze. Even I'm not that cynical.
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
In the lowest level, plex86 makes it safe to run other operating systems from/under Linux. That means that you'll be running Linux, start plex86, which then starts the operating system of your choice. So, Linux and this other operating system run at the same time, be it Windows 95 in a window, in full-screen(ie: not X11) mode, or DOS in a console window. You get the idea.
:)
Plex86 is wholly a Linux program, although I imagine it wouldn't be impossible to port it to other UNIX-like systems. However, Plex86 is, and will probably always be, X86-specific, meaning you couldn't run it under MacOS.
To make running two completely different operating systems at the same time safe, Plex86 does let the "guest" operating system do anything dangerous(for this example, we'll use Windows as the "guest", which would be running under Linux[the "host"]).
If Windows wants to draw a pixel to the screen, it tries to access the video hardware to draw a pixel to the screen. However, Windows is really running inside a window on our Linux desktop. So, we can't let Windows actually access the hardware - we have to fool it into *thinking* it's accessing the hardware, when in reality, Plex86 has intercepted the instructions which are trying to write that pixel to the screen, and translated them into X11 instructions, to write a pixel into the window in which Windows is running.
Whoa. I think I have a headache. Talk to you later
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
I'll explain some differences in between plex86 and WINE(which may seem obvious to some, but is a valid question for most).
WINE is replacing all the shared libraries that a regular Windows system would use. So, WINE isn't emulating Windows itself - it's really a compatibility layer.
WINE does a lot more, but that's what it boils down to.
Plex86 is what's loosely called a "virtualizer". You'll need Windows installed(to run Windows), or whatever other operating system plex86 is to use.
When Plex86 runs Windows, Windows is actually runing on the bare metal, for the most part. Plex86 makes it possible to run two operating systems at once by trapping certain instructions that the guest operating system(in this case, Windows) tries to execute. If Windows tries to say, add one plus one, it'll go to the processor without problems; but if Windows tries to get raw access to all available memory, Plex86 will trick Windows into thinking that it has "all" the memory, when it really only has what Plex86 has set aside for it.
This approach has up-sides and down-sides:
Good:
When Plex86 has become more mature, Windows and other guest operating systems will run at near-native speeds.
Since the framework would be in place, you could run a whole slew of other operating systems under Linux, instead of just Windows(great for debugging, since you have total control over what the guest operating system sees and does).
Bad:
Well, you have to have the operating system installed. With WINE, most of the functionality needed will eventually be completely re-written under Linux.
If Plex86 isn't extremely careful about what instructions the guest operating system is allowed to execute, you could end up with a really screwed-up system.
If you think this is all great and good, but you want it NOW, there is a commercial plex86-like program, it's called Win4Lin, and is available at www.win4lin.com . I'm not plugging them - until plex86 is ready, that's what I'm forced to use(and also forced to use an outdated kernel because of it).
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
There's a lot more to it. AMD's planned "server" chip would have contained 1-2(!)MB of level-2 cache. That's an big feat - very difficult to achieve.
On the other side, AMD has very fast processors, and a multi-processor capable chipset(using DDR memory) is on its way.
So, as far as I can see, AMD decided to a) not risk everything on a chip that would be difficult to design/manufacture, and b) rely on their current, fast, processors and the soon to be released multi-processor, DDR capable chipset.
Add to the mix that we might be seeing chipsets with ~8 megs of integrated cache within the next year or so, and you see why they might not want to "waste" time on a "server"-oriented processor.
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
I agree with you - at least for current systems.
/bin, /usr/bin, /opt/bin, and /usr/local/bin (should) keep all your user-level programs. That way, you only need to have those four directories in your $PATH. Why not seperate each packages' files from the rest? 'cause then you would need to add each packages' 'bin' directory to your $PATH. Pain in the arse, so we don't do it.
The reason why a file system makes a lousy 3D object is the fact that it was never meant to be one.
Now, start from the top down. Figure out what you want your 3D computer-world to look like, right from the beginning. Utility programs are best kept in the "garage". You want to find that program that compresses your file? Go into the garage. It'll be a clamp or a compressor.
You want to change some system settings? Go into the drawing room, where there are reams and reams of system design plans. Find the area you want, and change it.
Want to send mail, watch TV, get a file? Go into your communications room.
After you've decided what "room" each and every piece of your system belongs in, you've got a file system in a very organized, very logical(to the normal human mind) manner.
Current file system layout is based wholly on technical design issues.
You get the idea.
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
If you're really interested, I've read the size of the "translation cache" somewhere, probably on Transmeta's site. I can't think of it off the top of my head, though :(
I don't know a lot about the Crusoe, but I do know enough to say that it wouldn't take a whole heckuva lot of cache to make it worthwhile - "trouble spots" in code are what slows the computer down - just speeding those up will make a significant impact on performance. In a good way.
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
The problem with today's benchmarks are that they don't simulate real honest-to-goodness usage patterns.
;)
Before the Crusoe, they came close enough. Running the same program on a processor multiple times yielded the same results, so long as the program wasn't competing for resources. Those processors were in a limited way "stateless," which is to say that they don't remember anything from the last time the program ran.
Since benchmarkers didn't need to worry to much about it, the benchmarks generally run a program once, then run a different one, then a different one, etc., etc., etc..
In real life, however, a person is likely to open Word, then maybe open Internet Explorer, close Word, open Excel(which shares a lot of code with Word), close Excel, open Internet Explorer, and so on. That is *real life* usage, and Crusoe performs fairly well at it - certainly not as bad as traditional benchmarks would suggest.
When was the last time you played Quake III for two minutes? Yeah, I thought so. Fact is, when you're running on a Crusoe, those first two minutes will be much slower than the subsequent hour
So, as you can understand, Crusoe doesn't need "rigged" benchmarks - it just needs *real* benchmarks. The problem isn't that Crusoe will only perform well if the benchmarks are rigged, the problem is that Crusoe *won't* perform well unless the benchmarks put a computer under the same stresses and loads(or lack thereof) that a computer will go through on a daily basis.
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
When a programmer knows everything about the platform he's programming for, then he(or she, of course) can write faster programs than any "optimizing compiler." The only reasons it isn't done more nowadays are twofold:
a) Optimizing compilers are actually quite good at what they do, even if a human could do better.
b) It's nearly impossible in this day and age to know everything about the platform you're programming for.
And when I say "everything", I *mean* it. You need to know trace lengths, latencies, exact timings on *each instruction* that's run.
Ever wonder why most Palm apps are so fast, considering they're on a lowly processor? Well, lots of people that write intense Palm apps use assembly - and the hardware is not only very standard, it's also simpler than your average 386/SX.
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
You know, I had noticed that X died on me fairly often, but I found out that it was Java that was causing the problems. I didn't really care, though.
;) runtime from java.sun.com, and now all the crashes have stopped.
This was a few months ago. A few days ago, I got the Java2(1.3
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Are you telling me that operating expenses even approach the tens of millions of dollars in revenue they'd be making? :)
Keep in mind I'm not trying to say that this is perfect, I'm just trying to dispel the "they're wasing our tax money on frivilous technology!" myth.
I think it's pretty obvious that this will be making money, and lots of it, in not too long a time.
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Well, like all things the government does, there are tradeoffs :)
:) Hey, I'm on DSL right now(which is probably what the government is putting in), but I'd pay for cable if I could get it. The population density in my area is low enough that I'd probably *never* have speeds below DSL, but I'd often have speeds far surpassing it.
Why don't more private companies build highways in Canada? They're allowed to, I've checked it out and talked with a few high-ish ranking politicians and lawyers. Fact is, there isn't enough money to be made. People prefer medicore, traffic-laden yet FREE roads over nice and expensive ones.
I think the same might happen here - people will prefer the lowish-cost government internet access over more expensive commercial counterparts.
However, I also doubt that there will be no commercial competition. After all, this is one of the first government ISPs(here in Canada, anyways), and there are how many commerical ones?
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Population of Alberta: ~2,700,000
Population of Rural Alberta: ~540,000
Population of Urban Alberta: ~2,160,000
We can probably except that %25 percent of Alberta's population will subscribe to the service(a large porton of rural areas, as well as a smaller portion of urban areas).
So, we've got 25% of Alberta's population(25% = 675,000 people).
675,000 * $40/month = $27,000,000 a MONTH.
So, how long do you think it'll take them to make up the $300,000,000 initial investment? Seems like a damned fine setup to me.
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Hehehe :) You're right - the system will have to be replace piece by piece over time. They do that with roads now, though. And it's EXPENSIVE.
I'd argue that it will be cheaper with this "broadband network" than with roads. After all, we'll probably be using fiber for a long time to come, and it hasn't changes much since its inception. That's what's really driving the cost of this network up - laying the fiber.
After the fiber is laid, the rest of the costs are more reasonable. And, assuming the fiber holds out, to upgrade the network you only have to upgrade the nodes/towns that need it. The hardware won't be too expensive either, I bet.
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Ugh, I apologize for the spelling and bad grammar. It's rather late here.
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
I agree with you on a few points, but only in a limited way.
You see, I don't look at this as givine 'net connections to a bunch of people who will never use them.
This about when rural areas first got paved roads. I doubt many people had cars(after all, there were no roads, so no cars), and yet it made a profound difference not only in their communities, but to the nation as a whole(not that I'm saying good changes, by the way). All of a sudden, a farmer could feed more than people within 20km of his house - he could feed people 200-300kms away!
There's also a few things you may not realize.
a) Farming is actually an incredibly technical occupation. The amounts of data that a farmer generates in one year is probably more than an an average two-three story office building.
b) There isn't much to do out in the boonies. While farmers usually enjoy their work, their kids might not. This will immediately increase their quality of living. Also, the two absolutely brilliant people I met became brilliant studying on the farm they grew up on - their was nothing else to do.
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
I've long felt that governments who could afford it should start treating internet connectivity as another form of infrastructure. Like roads, water supply, and the rest, the internet is probably going to become extremely ubiquitous. Frankly, I don't trust any commercial entity with that sort of responsibility. At least governments can in some ways be held accountable.
Governments shouldn't have to do things like split big monopolies up - they should never have become monopolies in the first place. With the government hooking up its populace, you know you will always have an alternative. And, if for some reason the entire venture becomes "unprofitable", no politician is going to shut down the program after people have gotten used to it. They'll never work again.
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
I don't understand the various reactions to this post.
:)
The fact is, we *are* fast-approaching a semblance of godhood. It's a scary thought, but we already have the technology to completely change the face of our world. The only reason we havn't yet is because there hasn't been motivation large enough to warrant the required resources.
In a few hundred, maybe a few thousand years, in a fairyland of nanotechnology, it could be as simple as programming a nanotechnology-based robot to convert all grass into dust. Just let 'er rip, and off it goes.
This is very frightening, but could also be very valuable.
Who here is willing to spend ten years of constant work to go into space? I mean, if someone walked up to you and said, "If you sacrifice ten years of your life to hard effort, I will send you into space," would you take it?
Probably not. We simply don't have the attention span, as a species. Little things like immortality might give us that attention span. After all, if you've lived several hundred years, what's ten? Heck, what's a hundred? If we're willing to sacrifice that kind of time, our potential is nearly unlimited. We could reach the stars.
Yeah, I know, I sound half-baked. Ah well
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Shit.
Change "I hope they Slashdot paid for it." to:
"I hope they paid Slashdot for it."
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Just because Linux has tons of flaws doesn`t mean every Linux article has to mention them. This guy just stated the stuff he liked about the platform.
Well, most Linux articles I've read DO mention some of the flaws, usually something along the lines of: "Well, it's a good step forward, but there's quite a bit of work to be done yet." This (sneer) article didn't mention anything bad.
Come on, face it. This was an advertisement. I hope they Slashdot paid for it.
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Try again.
What's the difference in between a review and an advertisement?
Review: Attempts, at least in some ways, to be impartial. For instance, if there's a huge gaping hole of a bug, they'll tell you about it.
Advertisement: Never, EVER says bad things about the product.
Now, I've used QNX(at work), and it's a pretty nice system. I like it, and I hope it gains adoption in the appliance sector(the smaller the browser, the less extentions. The less extentions, the more standards-compliant), but it has some flaws.
So, was this a review, or an add(doesn't matter who writes it, an ad is an ad)?
Figure it out for yourself.
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Oh, I found the text terribly interesting :)
BUT, it's still an advertisement, and that should be the headline. For example:
Ad: QNX Real-time OS, symbiosis with Linux
I actually think this is a *very* good idea - a real ad every fix or six stories. Banner ads bite, and there's no real equivalent for commercials on the 'net. I think an ad-story every now and then would sell for some good money. Something like this is actually feasible.
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
I apologize if I sound rude, but his is nothing more than an advertisement. Only two or three lines has anything to do with "Open Source"(yeah, right, who here is gonna call THAT "Open Source"???), and the rest of it was them telling us how great QNX is, how well it scales, how easy it is to program for, etc., etc..
Now, if you want to review something, that's great by me - I like reviews. I don't even care if it's a review of an Evil Microsoft product, and I don't mind if you sing its praises.
But is this the forum for blatant advertising? Sure, banner ads are fine, whatever. Even "sponsorship messages" are cool - but LABEL THEM AS SUCH.
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Not a bad point, but you've got to take the idea in context. "Sprawl" in urban areas is usually a really bad thing for many reasons.
:)
Economical: You often have a large population with few places to employ them.
Environmental: Current day sprawl is really bad because you lay down *HUGE* tracts of road for all those people, plus the density is still too high to have real farms in the area.
I'm talking about something completely different. In Canada, there's about a square kilometer of good land per person(not counting tundra, which raises it to about 3 square kilometers/person). I'm not talking about having neighbors within hollaring distance.
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
Hehehe :) You don't realize how much thought and research I've put into this ;)
Health Insurance: I live in Canada, where almost everything(health-related) is free.
Money for taxes: Well, as far as property taxes goes, it's *real* cheap. There are huge tracts of land in Ontario(and we're talking good land here, not arctic tundra or anything) that are completely tax free - sort of like the Homesteader's Act. School taxes are part of income taxes here, and since I wouldn't be working much, I wouldn't be paying much. Ditto for sales tax.
You've got a good point about taxes going up, though. However, I doubt enough people would do it in large enough numbers to warrant adiscriminating tax law.
As far as sustinance farming, it's not as bad as you might think. I live in an agricultural community/area(my town is "the city", and there's only about 8000 people here), and I grew up with and around farmers. It's hard, yes, but easier than commuting an hour a day and working eight hours. *trust me*. Of course, not everyone could handle being far away from any population centre, but that's a different argument. Oh, back to farming. For a family of six, you can expect to work ~14hrs a day during harvest and sowing seasons, and about ~2-3hrs a day the rest of the year. That's assuming you have animals, and don't just rely on plants(very dangerous to rely solely on plants!).
Now, I'm not going to argue with you on socio-political-religious points, but "communes" are helped North America into cohesive nations, and if for some reason national government broke down communes would be the first things that rose to take its place.
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
This is what I've been waiting for.
:)
I've always wanted to live in the middle of nowhere. Unfortunatly, I'm unwilling. No electricity? No telephones? I'd be completely out of touch with the world. No more friends, no nothing.
A technology that allows one to become completely independant from the rest of the world is a really good thing. With these solar/hydrogren cell packs, one could live in the middle of nowhere, with all the comforts you'd have in the city(assuming you raise/grow your own food). Technology like this puts that dream within the reach of the masses. No more would you need to live in a city, squished like sardines.
Does anybody know how cheap it is to live on your own, making your own food? DAMNED cheap. Assuming you owned the property and buildings outright, you would only need to work one year in five(assuming minimum wage) to be comfortable.
Ooooh baby. That forest getaway is looking more and more likely
Dave
'Round the firewall,
Out the modem,
Through the router,
Down the wire,