And rightly so. They spent billions of dollars and years of research to garner those patents. Nobody was stopping Apple from investing heavily in cell networks in the early 90's. They just weren't interested in the market.
Apple can just "pick a different cellular technology" if they don't want to license from Nokia. I don't see anyone demanding Apple allow third parties to make computers that run OSX... The response is "well you can run windows or linux instead". Well Apple can make a phone that runs on CDMA instead.
It never ceases to amaze me the double standards that get applied to Apple around here...
Opensolaris also has a native CIFS implementation. Don't forget COMSTAR which will allow you to turn the system into a native fibre-channel or iscsi target. I also don't think vimage goes to quite the extent crossbow does... but I've yet to find anything that goes in depth on the project.
You're correct, ALL employees do not have this access. Given you worked there for "a while", I highly doubt you would've fallen into the category of those who do have that access. I can assure you that Facebook has the ability to give the proper authority any and all access to anyone's account hey so choose.
The receptionist at a bank doesn't have access to everyone's accounts. The teller does. I'm not sure why you would be surprised that access is granted on a need-to-have-it basis at facebook, just like most every other successful business in the US.
So instead you're expecting him to put everything "in the cloud" using an OS that doesn't even allow him to burn his email to a cd. Given that google gives absolutely no guarantees you'll have your email tomorrow, that sounds like a terrible idea. In fact, do any of the TOS's of the "cloud providers" give guarantees of service? At least with that horrible "windows desktop" he can easily back his stuff up.
Your response about MS licensing makes me wonder if you've ever even had a job in the real world. CD's and "proof of purchase"?
It's called volume licensing and software assurance. I don't know of a SINGLE company of ANY size (I'm talking over 50 employees), that buys media outright... I'm glad you find my reporting "untrustworthy" when you don't seem to have any experience with either company.
I realize this is slashdot, and maybe your'e just fishing for mod points, but that's about the worst attempt at a troll I've ever seen. I've had nothing but issues with IBM, from global services, to their storage, to their server lines when it comes to "honesty". It's pretty obvious you're an "end user", and haven't ever had to directly deal with them at all. Please just stop.
As for MS being bad. In what DIRECT dealings have you had with MS that they were "unethical"? In what DIRECT dealings with IBM have you had that they were "ethical"? Telling me you FEEL like one is more ethical than the other without ANY experience is about as useful as me telling you I FEEL like winter is a better time of year than summer.
For IBM I can start with fleecing customers on selling storage without the appropriate licenses attached, so at install time the customer found out they needed to purchase another $200,000 in licenses on their "$100,000" storage system.
MS on the other hand has been very direct and up front about what licenses are required for the functionality requested. I have found their upselling to be a bit annoying, but that's to be expected with any sales organization.
Ahh, yes, documented cases. That's an easy scapegoat for an IBM sales guy. Of course nobody is going to provide "documented cases" of something like them being fleeced on a bill of sale. How about you provide copies of PO's without redaction here to slashdot as "proof of ethical activity"? What? You can't find anyone to volunteer for that either?
You think IBM touting Linux on some of their servers is reform? I see you've never dealt with their storage, mainframe, or global services business units.
That's a drop in the bucket compared to what Sun has contributed to open source. Of course, slashdot appears to be perversely against Sun for some reason I cannot fathom.
The write will fail from the start and alert the user to an out of space situation, it won't "write part of the file and fail". Theoretical situations are great, right up until you actually take the time to figure out what the filesystem does in the real world.
First, why would you want it built into a hard drive? Your deduplication ratio would then be limited to what you can store on one drive. The drive would have no way to reference blocks on other drives in the same system. Doing it in software allows you reference (in this case) all data within the entire zpool. That could be petabytes of storage (theoretically it could be far more, but that's probably the realistic limits today due to hardware/performance constraints).
As for your "hell to pay later" that's not true for two reason. First, there is no "modify in place". All data is allocated from new blocks, that's how a copy-on-write filesystem works. If it's "updated" you'd be allocating new blocks. If you're concerned with filling a pool up completely, you can put quota's in place to prevent it.
Second, if you "run out of space", you just add new drives to the raid group and continue on your merry way. You can grow a zpool on the fly.
You say that as though you think Microsoft is unique. That's the general attitude of most successful businesses. Their shareholders don't really care who they "backstab" if it takes care of the bottom line. It's not like that hasn't gone both ways throughout history.
For instance, while the crowd around here celebrates Dell installing Ubuntu on their laptops... that's Dell backstabbing Microsoft. Of course, MS is always the "bad guy" so presenting them as the victim is frowned upon.
Or maybe Intel refusing to upgrade the graphics on many of their platforms to comply with the "Vista ready" status, just so they could make a couple extra bucks while screwing MS. I know, I know, the horror that someone could try to take an unbiased view of the situation!
Why would Apple need different terms? CDDL and BSD are compatible, hence FreeBSD integrating ZFS. Furthermore, Apple already integrated DTRACE under the CDDL. Claiming a licensing issue doesn't make sense... at all. The only thing that does make sense is that Apple was trying to add a bunch of proprietary code to ZFS and didn't want to release their changes. Boo hoo.
It's great that you can store 1TB on it, but what does the performance look like? If it takes me 4 hours to pull a gig of data off of it, it's nearly useless. I could see some very, very corner cases where you need to store data indefinitely, and would be able to recover it with no timeline attached, but that's awfully rare nowadays.
I want to see IOPS and access time;) I'm also wondering how you would even read and write data. They seem to have left that detail out.
Given that two of the companies are LG Electronics and Sony... I'd say it's fairly safe to assume they could fight back in court if they really wanted to.
That's patently false. The NT kernel was not written as a "desktop OS". Just because it leverages a gui, doesn't mean it was built as a "desktop OS". In 2009, has *nix caught up with windows fine grained access controls without third party utilities? read/write/execute can't touch Windows NT ACL's.
As long as we're providing anectdotal evidence, I've seen just the opposite. Win7 x64 is significantly FASTER than XP x64 for me. From boot-up to application launch to standard desktop usage/multitasking. It's been more responsive and quicker to launch in all of the above.
MySQL isn't leading, that's the thing. Oracle isn't just making things up. In the "real world", MySQL doesn't even hit most companies radar. In all of my customers, not a single one runs MySQL for a production database. It's Oracle, MSSQL, or DB2. MySQL's financial numbers back up the fact their market penetration in the paying enterprise is NOTHING.
If they go under, Oracle will just buy all of their IP for pennies on the dollar anyways. At this point about the only thing the EU is doing is trying to drain money out of Oracle to prop up SAP. As others have stated, were Oracle a European company, the review would've been signed off on in a week.
I'm sure I'll get modded down, but don't blame the manufacturers, blame the stock market that encourages this. The way our "open economy" is set up today, it is in a companies best interests to be able to tell wall street EXACTLY what they're going to make the next quarter. Relying on outright sales is rough, and tough to forecast. Having a known monthly income makes it much, much easier. Personally, I'd prefer the stock market go away all together, and companies stay private. From what I've seen, the only people who truly have anything to gain from "going public" are the founders/initial employees who own stock. From there on out, it's all downhill. I'd much prefer companies function without the monkey of "the street" on their backs every quarter so they could more easily make decisions that are better for their long term health, even if it hurts their short-term quarterly numbers. And hell, if your business model is proven, you can still sell the whole company to another entity when you're done with it to make your bag of cash;)
Right... but as my buddy found out the hard way, you can have saves from approximately 3 games played the whole way through before it's so full you have to delete data off of it for the next xboxlive upgrade.
So while I am an xbox360 fan, and own several, I agree you need more storage than the built-in to realistically use it. Oh... and you can't play halo3 multiplayer co-op online without a hard drive.
You don't allow every client to index. There's been several suggestions already, but most enterprises intentionally DISABLE desktop search. It absolutely slaughters the share. It's not a big deal when one user is doing it... but when 5,000 are, the I/O load becomes unsustainable.
Slashdot Mirror
And rightly so. They spent billions of dollars and years of research to garner those patents. Nobody was stopping Apple from investing heavily in cell networks in the early 90's. They just weren't interested in the market.
Apple can just "pick a different cellular technology" if they don't want to license from Nokia. I don't see anyone demanding Apple allow third parties to make computers that run OSX... The response is "well you can run windows or linux instead". Well Apple can make a phone that runs on CDMA instead.
It never ceases to amaze me the double standards that get applied to Apple around here...
Opensolaris also has a native CIFS implementation. Don't forget COMSTAR which will allow you to turn the system into a native fibre-channel or iscsi target. I also don't think vimage goes to quite the extent crossbow does... but I've yet to find anything that goes in depth on the project.
http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Project+crossbow/
You're correct, ALL employees do not have this access. Given you worked there for "a while", I highly doubt you would've fallen into the category of those who do have that access. I can assure you that Facebook has the ability to give the proper authority any and all access to anyone's account hey so choose.
The receptionist at a bank doesn't have access to everyone's accounts. The teller does. I'm not sure why you would be surprised that access is granted on a need-to-have-it basis at facebook, just like most every other successful business in the US.
Private investigator.
So instead you're expecting him to put everything "in the cloud" using an OS that doesn't even allow him to burn his email to a cd. Given that google gives absolutely no guarantees you'll have your email tomorrow, that sounds like a terrible idea. In fact, do any of the TOS's of the "cloud providers" give guarantees of service? At least with that horrible "windows desktop" he can easily back his stuff up.
Your response about MS licensing makes me wonder if you've ever even had a job in the real world. CD's and "proof of purchase"?
It's called volume licensing and software assurance. I don't know of a SINGLE company of ANY size (I'm talking over 50 employees), that buys media outright... I'm glad you find my reporting "untrustworthy" when you don't seem to have any experience with either company.
I realize this is slashdot, and maybe your'e just fishing for mod points, but that's about the worst attempt at a troll I've ever seen. I've had nothing but issues with IBM, from global services, to their storage, to their server lines when it comes to "honesty". It's pretty obvious you're an "end user", and haven't ever had to directly deal with them at all. Please just stop.
As for MS being bad. In what DIRECT dealings have you had with MS that they were "unethical"? In what DIRECT dealings with IBM have you had that they were "ethical"? Telling me you FEEL like one is more ethical than the other without ANY experience is about as useful as me telling you I FEEL like winter is a better time of year than summer.
For IBM I can start with fleecing customers on selling storage without the appropriate licenses attached, so at install time the customer found out they needed to purchase another $200,000 in licenses on their "$100,000" storage system.
MS on the other hand has been very direct and up front about what licenses are required for the functionality requested. I have found their upselling to be a bit annoying, but that's to be expected with any sales organization.
Ahh, yes, documented cases. That's an easy scapegoat for an IBM sales guy. Of course nobody is going to provide "documented cases" of something like them being fleeced on a bill of sale. How about you provide copies of PO's without redaction here to slashdot as "proof of ethical activity"? What? You can't find anyone to volunteer for that either?
You think IBM touting Linux on some of their servers is reform? I see you've never dealt with their storage, mainframe, or global services business units.
That's a drop in the bucket compared to what Sun has contributed to open source. Of course, slashdot appears to be perversely against Sun for some reason I cannot fathom.
The write will fail from the start and alert the user to an out of space situation, it won't "write part of the file and fail". Theoretical situations are great, right up until you actually take the time to figure out what the filesystem does in the real world.
First, why would you want it built into a hard drive? Your deduplication ratio would then be limited to what you can store on one drive. The drive would have no way to reference blocks on other drives in the same system. Doing it in software allows you reference (in this case) all data within the entire zpool. That could be petabytes of storage (theoretically it could be far more, but that's probably the realistic limits today due to hardware/performance constraints).
As for your "hell to pay later" that's not true for two reason. First, there is no "modify in place". All data is allocated from new blocks, that's how a copy-on-write filesystem works. If it's "updated" you'd be allocating new blocks. If you're concerned with filling a pool up completely, you can put quota's in place to prevent it.
Second, if you "run out of space", you just add new drives to the raid group and continue on your merry way. You can grow a zpool on the fly.
You say that as though you think Microsoft is unique. That's the general attitude of most successful businesses. Their shareholders don't really care who they "backstab" if it takes care of the bottom line. It's not like that hasn't gone both ways throughout history.
For instance, while the crowd around here celebrates Dell installing Ubuntu on their laptops... that's Dell backstabbing Microsoft. Of course, MS is always the "bad guy" so presenting them as the victim is frowned upon.
Or maybe Intel refusing to upgrade the graphics on many of their platforms to comply with the "Vista ready" status, just so they could make a couple extra bucks while screwing MS. I know, I know, the horror that someone could try to take an unbiased view of the situation!
It was a joke... MC Hammer... "You can't touch this"...
Why would Apple need different terms? CDDL and BSD are compatible, hence FreeBSD integrating ZFS. Furthermore, Apple already integrated DTRACE under the CDDL. Claiming a licensing issue doesn't make sense... at all. The only thing that does make sense is that Apple was trying to add a bunch of proprietary code to ZFS and didn't want to release their changes. Boo hoo.
It's great that you can store 1TB on it, but what does the performance look like? If it takes me 4 hours to pull a gig of data off of it, it's nearly useless. I could see some very, very corner cases where you need to store data indefinitely, and would be able to recover it with no timeline attached, but that's awfully rare nowadays. I want to see IOPS and access time ;) I'm also wondering how you would even read and write data. They seem to have left that detail out.
Given that two of the companies are LG Electronics and Sony... I'd say it's fairly safe to assume they could fight back in court if they really wanted to.
That's patently false. The NT kernel was not written as a "desktop OS". Just because it leverages a gui, doesn't mean it was built as a "desktop OS". In 2009, has *nix caught up with windows fine grained access controls without third party utilities? read/write/execute can't touch Windows NT ACL's.
As long as we're providing anectdotal evidence, I've seen just the opposite. Win7 x64 is significantly FASTER than XP x64 for me. From boot-up to application launch to standard desktop usage/multitasking. It's been more responsive and quicker to launch in all of the above.
MySQL isn't leading, that's the thing. Oracle isn't just making things up. In the "real world", MySQL doesn't even hit most companies radar. In all of my customers, not a single one runs MySQL for a production database. It's Oracle, MSSQL, or DB2. MySQL's financial numbers back up the fact their market penetration in the paying enterprise is NOTHING.
If they go under, Oracle will just buy all of their IP for pennies on the dollar anyways. At this point about the only thing the EU is doing is trying to drain money out of Oracle to prop up SAP. As others have stated, were Oracle a European company, the review would've been signed off on in a week.
I'm sure I'll get modded down, but don't blame the manufacturers, blame the stock market that encourages this. The way our "open economy" is set up today, it is in a companies best interests to be able to tell wall street EXACTLY what they're going to make the next quarter. Relying on outright sales is rough, and tough to forecast. Having a known monthly income makes it much, much easier. Personally, I'd prefer the stock market go away all together, and companies stay private. From what I've seen, the only people who truly have anything to gain from "going public" are the founders/initial employees who own stock. From there on out, it's all downhill. I'd much prefer companies function without the monkey of "the street" on their backs every quarter so they could more easily make decisions that are better for their long term health, even if it hurts their short-term quarterly numbers. And hell, if your business model is proven, you can still sell the whole company to another entity when you're done with it to make your bag of cash ;)
Right... but as my buddy found out the hard way, you can have saves from approximately 3 games played the whole way through before it's so full you have to delete data off of it for the next xboxlive upgrade.
So while I am an xbox360 fan, and own several, I agree you need more storage than the built-in to realistically use it. Oh... and you can't play halo3 multiplayer co-op online without a hard drive.
You don't allow every client to index. There's been several suggestions already, but most enterprises intentionally DISABLE desktop search. It absolutely slaughters the share. It's not a big deal when one user is doing it... but when 5,000 are, the I/O load becomes unsustainable.
...and I'm... who am I again?