It's also strongly based on Warsong. It's been awhile since I've played Wesnoth, but one of the missions in the first campaign is very reminiscent of one of the missions in Warsong (the one with the basilisks, IIRC), I mentioned it in the IRC channel and the main developer confirmed that that wasn't an accident.
Apparently they will release their KVM based vitalization before the management tools run on anything other than Windows 2003. That's what they got from Qumranet and that's why I won't be using it.
[ citation needed ]
Seriously, I don't even think KVM runs on Windows at all.
KVM is going to be slower than XEN unless you have a super-duper-mega-new CPU with Intel EPT or AMD RVI support.
You mean like any CPU either have released in oh... about the past 3 years?
It's amazing to compare the cost to produce an indie game like the one in the article to a big name game, such as most games you can find in a brick and mortar store. Cost figures aren't usually released, but you can bet that EA probably spent 10-100x more on Madden n+1 than the ~$120k quoted in the article. Now, Madden n+1 probably also sold more copies, but it's definitely not 10-100x better of a game (some would argue it's worse, but I won't go there). So, where does all that extra cash go? Sure, diminishing returns (big company inefficiency, time creating flashier graphics, etc) accounts for some of it, but more likely is that advertising takes the cake. Advertising is incredibly expensive, so much so that only big companies can afford to do it, presumably it usually results in a net profit, but those numbers aren't generally available. It's an unfortunate situation, as there's definitely more to fun games than flashy graphics, and as it stands, most indie games are doomed to a relatively tiny audience, far smaller than they deserve.
So what can be done? Most people that play Game! seem to enjoy it a lot, but word of mouth only goes so far. How do we get indie games to a larger audience? I think that's a question a lot of people are trying to answer, but the Internet certainly helps, without it, we'd be unlikely to see indie games that get exposure outside of the town or possibly country that they were made in.
Also, working position: fixed; CSS support in Safari. They really have no excuse for breaking it. Anyone know if it's been fixed yet? If so, I could update the monsters in the Pit of Defiled Standards in Game!
Just return an unending stream of crap from/dev/random on your server until it crashes the RSS reader at the other end. After a few days of this I'm sure they'll sort it out from their end:-)
Make sure you use/dev/urandom,/dev/random blocks when it doesn't have enough entropy.
This is pretty much what I thought. A friends-only posting somewhere is no more inherently private than a conversation had between friends without anyone else present.
Actually, it's substantially less private. Most in person conversations aren't digitally recorded and kept until the end of time.
Multithreaded h.264 decoding is what I'm missing. Still only slice-based multithreading support, which doesn't work with 95% the content out there, which means you can't get real time decoding of full hd content on A64 X2...
That's not true. I have an Athlon X2 4200+ (Socket 939, one of the originals), and it plays 1080p H.264 content without a hitch, and that's without GPU accelerated video decoding.
Random write speeds on MLC SSDs range from mediocre to abysmal, generally tending towards the latter. In this case, spinner platter drives are much better. Add in the fact that random writes are a very common workload and you end up with MLC SSDs being junk.
Yeah, except only the SLC SSDs are worth having. MLC SSDs are junk and extremely common, you're better off with a spinning platter drive. However, I can't recommend SLC SSDs enough, they're substantially faster than conventional spinning platter drives in all ways.
I agree that 1000 unique visitors is peanuts, but as for how to do HA, it really depends a lot on your situation. For example, the primary server for Game! started acting up about 2 weeks ago, but it mattered little as I was able to flip over to the backup server and came out with barely any downtime and no data loss. In the mean time, I was able to diagnose and fix the primary server, then point the traffic back at it. In my case, all the dynamic data is in MySQL, which is replicated to the backup server, so when I switched over I simply swapped the slave and the master and redirected traffic at the backup server. You also have to consider the code, which you presumably make semi-frequent updates to. In my case, the code is stored in SVN and updated automagically on both the master and the slave simultaneously.
Having said all that, there's more to consider than just your own hardware when it comes to HA. What happens if your network connection goes down? In most cases, there's nothing you can do about it except twiddle your thumbs while you wait on hold with customer service. Redundant Internet connections are expensive due to the fact that you basically need to be in a big (and expensive) colocation facility to get it.
Also, how easy it is to have HA depends largely on how important writes are to your database (or filesystem). Does it matter if this comment doesn't make it to the live page for a couple seconds after I hit submit? No, not really. Does it matter if I change my equipment in Game! but don't see the changes immediately? Yes, definitely. Indeed, if your content is 100% static, you can just keep a dozen complete copies and put a load balancer in front that pulls dead machines out of the loop automagically and be done with it.
The over-reliance of the Linux kernel and it's hardcoded options for GCC means you have to port GCC to your platform first, before you can use a compiler which may already be written by/for your CPU vendor (a good example was always Codewarrior.. but that's defunct now)
GCC itself is rather prolific... Is there any noteworthy platform that it doesn't already support?
What? You don't have a flash drive (with firefox.exe on it) with you at all times?
No... why would I want to run Firefox in Wine? I'll just use the native copy.
Re:looks like it still loses history
on
BASH 4.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
I think he means he doesn't find ^R useful past the most recent dozen or so commands, which is pretty reasonable until you realize that you can hit ^R again (and again, and again...) to go to the next (previous) match.
It's a mixed bag, some things are better in IE7 than IE6, but IE7 also threw in a bunch of new problems. For example, if you use opacity on any element, IE7 permanently turns off cleartype for all of the text inside that element and permanently disables PNG alpha support for that element and all of its children. Both very irritating problems if you care about IE users.
They have tons to do with the real world. It means that, as a baseline, the machine in that benchmark will never run a CakePHP application faster than ~37 requests/s, which is pretty bloody slow.
Will a full fledged PHP app be slower than a hello world CakePHP app? Not even close, at least in my experience. For example, Game! runs in excess of 100 requests/s on the very modest hardware I mentioned above, and would likely be well over 300 requests/s on the 3 GHz machine in the benchmark I linked (assuming it's a single core, double that for a dual core), and it is most certainly more than hello world. It is, of course, written in stock PHP, not CakePHP.
The point of my post is that comparing to CakePHP is a lousy comparison, because a) CakePHP is a pretty minor player in the PHP world, and b) CakePHP is hideously slow. Honestly, I don't know how they managed to make CakePHP so slow, it's not even hard to write fast PHP code.
Oh, and here's the benchmark I was looking for earlier. Here we see CakePHP more than an order of magnitude slower than CodeIgniter, though IMO they're all too slow to consider. CakePHP in particular serves a dismal 7 requests/s, which (at least to me) isn't even acceptable for a single user.
The topic of framework vs no framework is another flamewar altogether, which I won't go into here.
Once again: Look at the actual statistic I'm quoting. Are you suggesting this was CakePHP, run as a web app, benchmarked with a web benchmark, yet somehow run as a commandline app?
I've never used CakePHP before, but every benchmark I find on it suggests that it's horribly slower (10-100x slower, if not more) than stock PHP. For example, over here they get 37.46 requests/s for a hello world CakePHP page on a 3 GHz Intel machine with 512M RAM. I gave a plain PHP hello world page a try on a 1.3 GHz Pentium-M laptop with 512M RAM (a substantially slower machine) with the same ab parameters and I get 1254.75 requests/s. In other words, the substantially slower machine gave 33x better performance with stock PHP than the substantially faster machine gave with CakePHP.
So yes, maybe RoR has comparable performance to CakePHP, but who cares? CakePHP is painfully slow and I don't know anyone or anything that actually uses it. Wake me up with RoR (or Ruby) is faster than stock PHP.
Slashdot Mirror
It's also strongly based on Warsong. It's been awhile since I've played Wesnoth, but one of the missions in the first campaign is very reminiscent of one of the missions in Warsong (the one with the basilisks, IIRC), I mentioned it in the IRC channel and the main developer confirmed that that wasn't an accident.
[ citation needed ]
Seriously, I don't even think KVM runs on Windows at all.
You mean like any CPU either have released in oh... about the past 3 years?
Tell you what, I'll be a nice guy and sell you this copy of GIMP here for a very reasonable $1,800.
It's amazing to compare the cost to produce an indie game like the one in the article to a big name game, such as most games you can find in a brick and mortar store. Cost figures aren't usually released, but you can bet that EA probably spent 10-100x more on Madden n+1 than the ~$120k quoted in the article. Now, Madden n+1 probably also sold more copies, but it's definitely not 10-100x better of a game (some would argue it's worse, but I won't go there). So, where does all that extra cash go? Sure, diminishing returns (big company inefficiency, time creating flashier graphics, etc) accounts for some of it, but more likely is that advertising takes the cake. Advertising is incredibly expensive, so much so that only big companies can afford to do it, presumably it usually results in a net profit, but those numbers aren't generally available. It's an unfortunate situation, as there's definitely more to fun games than flashy graphics, and as it stands, most indie games are doomed to a relatively tiny audience, far smaller than they deserve.
So what can be done? Most people that play Game! seem to enjoy it a lot, but word of mouth only goes so far. How do we get indie games to a larger audience? I think that's a question a lot of people are trying to answer, but the Internet certainly helps, without it, we'd be unlikely to see indie games that get exposure outside of the town or possibly country that they were made in.
Also, working position: fixed; CSS support in Safari. They really have no excuse for breaking it. Anyone know if it's been fixed yet? If so, I could update the monsters in the Pit of Defiled Standards in Game!
Make sure you use /dev/urandom, /dev/random blocks when it doesn't have enough entropy.
Actually, it's substantially less private. Most in person conversations aren't digitally recorded and kept until the end of time.
No, unfortunately not. The popularity of netbooks suggests the opposite, even.
I doubt anyone starts new projects in ActiveX today.
Lousy programmers stick with the tools they know. Many business people aren't tech-savvy, so they wouldn't know any better with regards to that.
There, fixed that for you.
That's not true. I have an Athlon X2 4200+ (Socket 939, one of the originals), and it plays 1080p H.264 content without a hitch, and that's without GPU accelerated video decoding.
I write in plain text, wrapped at 50 chars per line, and make my viewers telnet to port 80 and manually GET the pages you insensitive clod!
50 chars? That's absurd! Go for the standard 80 chars.
Random write speeds on MLC SSDs range from mediocre to abysmal, generally tending towards the latter. In this case, spinner platter drives are much better. Add in the fact that random writes are a very common workload and you end up with MLC SSDs being junk.
Yeah, except only the SLC SSDs are worth having. MLC SSDs are junk and extremely common, you're better off with a spinning platter drive. However, I can't recommend SLC SSDs enough, they're substantially faster than conventional spinning platter drives in all ways.
You had 75 Mbit/s upstream to the Internet? In 2001? Wow! Where do you get that kind of bandwidth, and how much did it cost?
I agree that 1000 unique visitors is peanuts, but as for how to do HA, it really depends a lot on your situation. For example, the primary server for Game! started acting up about 2 weeks ago, but it mattered little as I was able to flip over to the backup server and came out with barely any downtime and no data loss. In the mean time, I was able to diagnose and fix the primary server, then point the traffic back at it. In my case, all the dynamic data is in MySQL, which is replicated to the backup server, so when I switched over I simply swapped the slave and the master and redirected traffic at the backup server. You also have to consider the code, which you presumably make semi-frequent updates to. In my case, the code is stored in SVN and updated automagically on both the master and the slave simultaneously.
Having said all that, there's more to consider than just your own hardware when it comes to HA. What happens if your network connection goes down? In most cases, there's nothing you can do about it except twiddle your thumbs while you wait on hold with customer service. Redundant Internet connections are expensive due to the fact that you basically need to be in a big (and expensive) colocation facility to get it.
Also, how easy it is to have HA depends largely on how important writes are to your database (or filesystem). Does it matter if this comment doesn't make it to the live page for a couple seconds after I hit submit? No, not really. Does it matter if I change my equipment in Game! but don't see the changes immediately? Yes, definitely. Indeed, if your content is 100% static, you can just keep a dozen complete copies and put a load balancer in front that pulls dead machines out of the loop automagically and be done with it.
Maybe, but you can get a USB key for $10, and that's not even bulk pricing.
GCC itself is rather prolific... Is there any noteworthy platform that it doesn't already support?
No... why would I want to run Firefox in Wine? I'll just use the native copy.
I think he means he doesn't find ^R useful past the most recent dozen or so commands, which is pretty reasonable until you realize that you can hit ^R again (and again, and again...) to go to the next (previous) match.
Flashblock! (Addon for Firefox)
Not installing Flash is much more effective.
He said safer, not better.
It's a mixed bag, some things are better in IE7 than IE6, but IE7 also threw in a bunch of new problems. For example, if you use opacity on any element, IE7 permanently turns off cleartype for all of the text inside that element and permanently disables PNG alpha support for that element and all of its children. Both very irritating problems if you care about IE users.
They have tons to do with the real world. It means that, as a baseline, the machine in that benchmark will never run a CakePHP application faster than ~37 requests/s, which is pretty bloody slow.
Will a full fledged PHP app be slower than a hello world CakePHP app? Not even close, at least in my experience. For example, Game! runs in excess of 100 requests/s on the very modest hardware I mentioned above, and would likely be well over 300 requests/s on the 3 GHz machine in the benchmark I linked (assuming it's a single core, double that for a dual core), and it is most certainly more than hello world. It is, of course, written in stock PHP, not CakePHP.
The point of my post is that comparing to CakePHP is a lousy comparison, because a) CakePHP is a pretty minor player in the PHP world, and b) CakePHP is hideously slow. Honestly, I don't know how they managed to make CakePHP so slow, it's not even hard to write fast PHP code.
Oh, and here's the benchmark I was looking for earlier. Here we see CakePHP more than an order of magnitude slower than CodeIgniter, though IMO they're all too slow to consider. CakePHP in particular serves a dismal 7 requests/s, which (at least to me) isn't even acceptable for a single user.
The topic of framework vs no framework is another flamewar altogether, which I won't go into here.
What, no car analogy?
I've never used CakePHP before, but every benchmark I find on it suggests that it's horribly slower (10-100x slower, if not more) than stock PHP. For example, over here they get 37.46 requests/s for a hello world CakePHP page on a 3 GHz Intel machine with 512M RAM. I gave a plain PHP hello world page a try on a 1.3 GHz Pentium-M laptop with 512M RAM (a substantially slower machine) with the same ab parameters and I get 1254.75 requests/s. In other words, the substantially slower machine gave 33x better performance with stock PHP than the substantially faster machine gave with CakePHP.
So yes, maybe RoR has comparable performance to CakePHP, but who cares? CakePHP is painfully slow and I don't know anyone or anything that actually uses it. Wake me up with RoR (or Ruby) is faster than stock PHP.