I don't pay $50 most of the time either. I wait for sale (BestBuy often has new releases for $35 in the first week) or I wait until they come down. I just won't pay $50 for what is a likely a crapshoot at whether it's good or not.
And i refuse to pay for a game that I will then have to turn around and pay a monthly fee for.
On Larger systems, where the system and applications can be tuned to operate within a performance envelope, I think swap should be eliminated. It's a legacy concept, and will drag down any system if it has to operate in swap actively.
If the system is small and resources are scarce, then swap is needed, but I would still think the best solution would be to get a new system or expand resources to accomodate. Just piling on swap to handle an application that is overrunning RAM is like trying to put out a fire by throwing logs on it.
Personal Note: The fact that large database vendors can recommend 1x to 2x swap to RAM on large systems that have upwards of 256G of RAM is ludicrous.
I have heard the statement "This is the best Sci-Fi currently running" used as a compliment for the following Sci-Fi shows recently:
Battlestar Galactica Stargate SG1 Farscape and a little longer ago Babylon 5
The only problem I have is that just because a show is "edgy" or "shocking" or doesn't have a happy ending, doesn't mean it's "good writing" or even more likely "good sci-fi".
It's all about the writing. I was a huge B5 fan (yes..did the usenet groups, lurker's guide, etc,etc) and was always upset that there wasn't more mainstream acceptance of the show when it was airing (it was always a battle to get the show to the full 5 years, and then Crusade collapsed).
So...Is the question more "what is good sci-fi" or "does the US TV/Cable market have enough of a trackable viewership to warrant selling advertising space for shows that have a space/alien theme"?
I think the writers and actors and shows have always been around, but support isn't that available to keep it running in broadcast.
How about just watch what you want. (myself, SG:1, BS:G, Law and Order, and reruns of other stuff, can't get into SG:A).
This could be dialed down to very specific levels to validate or invalidate either argument. I'm not a kernel hacker at all, but if you read some of the histories of OS's, the main NT architect worked on VMS, and much of the early foundations on NT/2k/XP are based in much older OS's.
We could churn on things like that forever. I don't usually hold alot of stake on how old something is or getting rid of something or keeping something based upon age (either way).
Does it work? How much will it cost? Can it be supported?
Heck...You still have companies buying mainframes...and with the way that OS's are becoming more abstract, with abilities to put a whatever OS on whatever hardware, then the real question is does it do what you need?
If it does, good, if it doesn't, get something that does.:)
That's like saying a custom hod rod built from scratch is an open implementation of a 140 year old architecture. (the first Internal Combustion Engine was built around 1864).
Why the heck are we still riding around in these claptraps! Where are all the flying cars?
People who do not understand the technology need standardization. it's not the users/admins/engineers of Linux/GNU/OSS/whatever that need the standards, it's the managers/salespeople/directors/vendors/beancounter s that need to to feel more comfortable with adopting something. It's easier to sell something that is "supported" that gives a director someone to "blame". If gives perimeter groups better feelings that they are following a "standard" or a "platform". Vendors can support a known configuration.
The sole reason for this is money. The creation of money and an entirely new business model and a large number of companies that would like to keep the money they have made and make more of it. The only way to do that is to provide stablility to the platform. Less answers to customers asking why this or that won't work with their version. Less problems. More ability to blame someone else "it doesn't work because the distro you are using is non-standard!".
Who does this really serve? Standards are nice, but the problem I could see is it might reduce the usage of "non-standard" distros. Not from a technology or licensing standpoint, but after a few generations, only the groups that follow the standard will be able to be "approved" or "supported".
While this may not seem like a problem in the short term, it seems to me that this only serves the commercial distros. ISO is an industry standard, but how does this serve the Linux product as a whole, other than to caste the community?
Is Linux as a community "forking" off "real" distros, from the "rabble"?
Slashdot Mirror
It's in Alpha, but it's free and it's fun to play.
http://armada-online.com/
I don't pay $50 most of the time either. I wait for sale (BestBuy often has new releases for $35 in the first week) or I wait until they come down. I just won't pay $50 for what is a likely a crapshoot at whether it's good or not.
;)
And i refuse to pay for a game that I will then have to turn around and pay a monthly fee for.
but that's just me.
On Larger systems, where the system and applications can be tuned to operate within a performance envelope, I think swap should be eliminated. It's a legacy concept, and will drag down any system if it has to operate in swap actively.
If the system is small and resources are scarce, then swap is needed, but I would still think the best solution would be to get a new system or expand resources to accomodate. Just piling on swap to handle an application that is overrunning RAM is like trying to put out a fire by throwing logs on it.
Personal Note: The fact that large database vendors can recommend 1x to 2x swap to RAM on large systems that have upwards of 256G of RAM is ludicrous.
I have heard the statement "This is the best Sci-Fi currently running" used as a compliment for the following Sci-Fi shows recently:
,etc) and was always upset that there wasn't more mainstream acceptance of the show when it was airing (it was always a battle to get the show to the full 5 years, and then Crusade collapsed).
:)
Battlestar Galactica
Stargate SG1
Farscape
and a little longer ago
Babylon 5
The only problem I have is that just because a show is "edgy" or "shocking" or doesn't have a happy ending, doesn't mean it's "good writing" or even more likely "good sci-fi".
It's all about the writing. I was a huge B5 fan (yes..did the usenet groups, lurker's guide, etc
So...Is the question more "what is good sci-fi" or "does the US TV/Cable market have enough of a trackable viewership to warrant selling advertising space for shows that have a space/alien theme"?
I think the writers and actors and shows have always been around, but support isn't that available to keep it running in broadcast.
How about just watch what you want. (myself, SG:1, BS:G, Law and Order, and reruns of other stuff, can't get into SG:A).
Can can JMS get a little love?
This could be dialed down to very specific levels to validate or invalidate either argument. I'm not a kernel hacker at all, but if you read some of the histories of OS's, the main NT architect worked on VMS, and much of the early foundations on NT/2k/XP are based in much older OS's.
:)
We could churn on things like that forever. I don't usually hold alot of stake on how old something is or getting rid of something or keeping something based upon age (either way).
Does it work? How much will it cost? Can it be supported?
Heck...You still have companies buying mainframes...and with the way that OS's are becoming more abstract, with abilities to put a whatever OS on whatever hardware, then the real question is does it do what you need?
If it does, good, if it doesn't, get something that does.
That's like saying a custom hod rod built from scratch is an open implementation of a 140 year old architecture. (the first Internal Combustion Engine was built around 1864).
Why the heck are we still riding around in these claptraps! Where are all the flying cars?
People who do not understand the technology need standardization. it's not the users/admins/engineers of Linux/GNU/OSS/whatever that need the standards, it's the managers/salespeople/directors/vendors/beancounter s that need to to feel more comfortable with adopting something. It's easier to sell something that is "supported" that gives a director someone to "blame". If gives perimeter groups better feelings that they are following a "standard" or a "platform". Vendors can support a known configuration.
:)
The sole reason for this is money. The creation of money and an entirely new business model and a large number of companies that would like to keep the money they have made and make more of it. The only way to do that is to provide stablility to the platform. Less answers to customers asking why this or that won't work with their version. Less problems. More ability to blame someone else "it doesn't work because the distro you are using is non-standard!".
It's all about the $$$
Who does this really serve? Standards are nice, but the problem I could see is it might reduce the usage of "non-standard" distros. Not from a technology or licensing standpoint, but after a few generations, only the groups that follow the standard will be able to be "approved" or "supported".
While this may not seem like a problem in the short term, it seems to me that this only serves the commercial distros. ISO is an industry standard, but how does this serve the Linux product as a whole, other than to caste the community?
Is Linux as a community "forking" off "real" distros, from the "rabble"?
I got my Handspring (The most basic model, 2M memory) for around $100 over a year ago. It's been sturdy and held up well, and is expandable.
Fry's Electronics even sells refurbs for good prices for the Deluxe's (8M mem) and some of the later models.
I still use my Handspring, and am waiting to see the direction of the product lines before jumping up to a high priced/performance unit.
I stayed away from the M series because they just seemed too low end.
I'd prefer to see some sort of alerting or notice (syslog, mail, app log, etc) be the method to encourage SysAdmins to upgrade, not time-bombing them.
It's Open Source isn't it? If it can be freely developed, shouldn't it be freely used as well with few restrictions?