"When you buy a system and colocate it, you get 100% of the system resources."
Yes. And 100% of the inconveniencies.
"When you use OpenStack (or any resource virtualization scheme) you lose 15% of all the resources to begin with"
Yes. And when the hardware breaks you lose 100% of said resources. Something a migration (maybe even live) can save you of. Now, how many servers do you know with *exactly* 100% load?
"All hardware-acceleration (no TOE on the network)"
Given that the standard live for a production server is about three years, you can bet that, unless you use a lessen OS, about half of that life you are better managing network packets on the OS than on the NIC firmware.
"To add, then you're charged for CPU time per core, Bandwidth by the byte, and disk IOPS by the IOPS."
Yes... or not. There's nothing in the IaaS business model that forces to charge for any single of those items. On the other hand, you *are* paying for CPU, network, etc. on your dedicated server, only it's not itemized, nor upgradable.
But there's something else you are not noticing. Openstack is basically two things: a manager for the IaaS provider and a standard API for the consumer. Nothing more, nothing less. There's absolutly nothing avoiding a provider to offer you a "dedicated server" (minus the virtualization overhead, and even this is probably going to change, given that Openstack is aiming at providing "bare iron" provisioning in the future) just like any other current provider, exactly on the same terms of service and then even more (if wanted/needed) because of the provider-facing facilities any "cluster manager" like Openstack adds.
"Building this stuff is expensive"
But not more expensive than your own datacenter/server room under other technologies.
"and using cheap commodity hardware is unreliable"
But much more reliable than a traditional server room under same conditions (you can't live-migrate instances on a traditional server room).
"so the only way to beat Amazon is to either have enough leverage to make the bandwidth free, or to use unreliable hardware configurations"
"What may help is if the concept of "****stack" is eliminated. Instead of trying to create 4 VM's on one machine, it should instead be about virtualizing the storage system"
You don't have the slightest idea of what Openstack brings to the table, do you? Well, here comes a starting point: http://www.openstack.org/
"so they won't do the things that would make them members of the club."
Oh, yes, they'd do. Why do you think in the real world capitalism (individual selfishness tamed into common welfare) outperforms comunism (individual altruism working for the common welfare)?
It's only the current meritocracy insures that the ones on the top will be real power-thirsty sociopaths instead of people that "just" behave as sociopaths due to the circumnstances. It's in our genes that power corrupts (us) and absolute power absolutly corrupt (us).
"The periodic revolutions mostly act to thin the herd of psychopaths a bit."
Looking at the results, they are a big fail then. Revolutions at most manage to substitute some (some, not all) sociopaths with other sociopaths at the top.
"Then the process of corruption begins anew"
Oh, no! the corruption process begins even before the revolution started. How do you think the revolution leaders manage to be the revolution leaders and then, the new post-revolutionary overlords? Just dig a bit into History.
"Using an ad hominem in place of a rationale strongly suggests that you don't have one."
True, up to a certain point. If you don't get it after more that 25 centuries of phylosophy, I don't get a rationale for you to be offered on a Slashdot post.
"I think you are confused. As I've already posted above, the "outsiders" in BNW get sent to islands full of other highly intelligent people; it is a reward rather than a punishment."
Well, I'd say it's you the one confused: those that would want to shake the other people and say "awake, don't you see what's happening?" are deprived *exactly* of that. It *is* a punishment that will only not look like that to those that shouldn't go to the island anyway.
The fact that a majority of them accept the punishment instead of going into the wild makes the triumph of BNW even more resounding: the island is the BNW version for those that don't integrate in the standard BNW, just as in our current world they have their own islands (i.e. in the Internet), but are nevertheless integrated into the system (only a different part of it).
"So, on the one hand, we have a government trying to emulate 1984. (China). On the other, we have a thriving Brave New World."
But our Brave New World leaders, clever as Mustafa Mond, adapt to new times and added a bit of 1984 salt to the equation: we've been always at war with Eastasia (so we never gave weapons to Al-Qaeda, and Donald Rumsfeld never shaked his hand with Saddam Hussein); it's obvious what a fine Emmanuel Goldstein Osama Bin Laden did (I was quite surprised when they killed him, but they are fast at finding substitutes); with regards of Newspeak and the Ministry of Truth, it's not only that, say, Julian Assange makes for an almost perfect Winston Smith -sex included, but that "political correctness" is pushed to absurd levels; countries like UK are not so far from the cameras everywhere distopia; and CIA doesn't even hide the fact that they play Brotherhood's O'Brian role as needed. Finally, just compare USA's current sociopolitical situation with the central 1984 motto and cry: "WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH".
But all this formal/tactical similitudes are just superficial because deeply is the Brave New World pilosophy. As such, is not that say, photographs of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein are forbidden and destroyed, or that the massive destruction weapons issue is not known to be fake, it is that it really doesn't matter; it is not that the Big Brother prosecutes critical thinking, it is that people, all by themselves, choose religious crooks for presidents; it is not that the national lotto is faked but that people really believe that working hard and adapting to the "true way", they'll reach to the 0.01% status.
In the end, I find Brave New World much more depressing than 1984 because for 1984 world to work, the stablishment is forced to always be on top of everything, always watching and the coertion is too visible and the obvious target to figth against. Brave New World, on the other hand, is self-stabilizing: people voluntarily choose it and the government doesn't need to search and destroy the outsiders, society itself does it.
"Arthur C. Clakes Childhood's End, that wasn't depressing, certainly not up there with the most obvious example 1984"
1984 is depressing just till you read Huxley' s Brave New World. And the fact that nobody has even mentioned it after well over 100 comments shows exactly why it's so depressing.
"A balanced vegetarian diet is good enough, if you know what to eat."
Which was exactly my point. I don't "need to know what to eat" to have a ballanced diet if I add meat to it.
"Don't fall for meat industry propaganda "
Don't fall in the fallacy of thinking everybody is from US of A. Hint: I'm not. There's no "meat industry propaganda" over here as there's no 35,7% obesity over here.
But still you *do* comment. You said "I wish that Linux distros and various apps were developed like that" (adding just security updates to otherwise stable software), when it's obvious you didn't take the time to learn if that's already the case or not.
"I'm guessing a lot of people would do the same because, well, most Americans hate vegetables"
The sad point is that most Americans seem to hate meat too. Anything that is not properly "processed" so it doesn't look like it was a portion of a leaving being prior to reach the supermarket tends to look "ugly".
Slashdot Mirror
"When you buy a system and colocate it, you get 100% of the system resources."
Yes. And 100% of the inconveniencies.
"When you use OpenStack (or any resource virtualization scheme) you lose 15% of all the resources to begin with"
Yes. And when the hardware breaks you lose 100% of said resources. Something a migration (maybe even live) can save you of. Now, how many servers do you know with *exactly* 100% load?
"All hardware-acceleration (no TOE on the network)"
Given that the standard live for a production server is about three years, you can bet that, unless you use a lessen OS, about half of that life you are better managing network packets on the OS than on the NIC firmware.
"To add, then you're charged for CPU time per core, Bandwidth by the byte, and disk IOPS by the IOPS."
Yes... or not. There's nothing in the IaaS business model that forces to charge for any single of those items. On the other hand, you *are* paying for CPU, network, etc. on your dedicated server, only it's not itemized, nor upgradable.
But there's something else you are not noticing. Openstack is basically two things: a manager for the IaaS provider and a standard API for the consumer. Nothing more, nothing less. There's absolutly nothing avoiding a provider to offer you a "dedicated server" (minus the virtualization overhead, and even this is probably going to change, given that Openstack is aiming at providing "bare iron" provisioning in the future) just like any other current provider, exactly on the same terms of service and then even more (if wanted/needed) because of the provider-facing facilities any "cluster manager" like Openstack adds.
"Building this stuff is expensive"
But not more expensive than your own datacenter/server room under other technologies.
"and using cheap commodity hardware is unreliable"
But much more reliable than a traditional server room under same conditions (you can't live-migrate instances on a traditional server room).
"so the only way to beat Amazon is to either have enough leverage to make the bandwidth free, or to use unreliable hardware configurations"
So you have done the numbers, didn't you? Just in case you didn't: http://www.buildcloudstorage.com/2012/01/can-openstack-swift-hit-amazon-s3-like.html
"What may help is if the concept of "****stack" is eliminated. Instead of trying to create 4 VM's on one machine, it should instead be about virtualizing the storage system"
You don't have the slightest idea of what Openstack brings to the table, do you? Well, here comes a starting point: http://www.openstack.org/
The iPhone sports a master encryption key and DOJ has access to it.
"Some people are inherently evil. Most aren't"
But still they are wolves to the others.
"so they won't do the things that would make them members of the club."
Oh, yes, they'd do. Why do you think in the real world capitalism (individual selfishness tamed into common welfare) outperforms comunism (individual altruism working for the common welfare)?
It's only the current meritocracy insures that the ones on the top will be real power-thirsty sociopaths instead of people that "just" behave as sociopaths due to the circumnstances. It's in our genes that power corrupts (us) and absolute power absolutly corrupt (us).
"The periodic revolutions mostly act to thin the herd of psychopaths a bit."
Looking at the results, they are a big fail then. Revolutions at most manage to substitute some (some, not all) sociopaths with other sociopaths at the top.
"Then the process of corruption begins anew"
Oh, no! the corruption process begins even before the revolution started. How do you think the revolution leaders manage to be the revolution leaders and then, the new post-revolutionary overlords? Just dig a bit into History.
"hat doesn't answer my question."
Yes it does: you don't get it.
"Using an ad hominem in place of a rationale strongly suggests that you don't have one."
True, up to a certain point. If you don't get it after more that 25 centuries of phylosophy, I don't get a rationale for you to be offered on a Slashdot post.
"my humanity shouldn't breed"
Absolutly right: your humanity shouldn't breed.
"compared to a Siberian Tiger, even the Mars Curiosity rover is nothing"
Sadly enough, no siberian tiger did appear at Mars, so the Curiosity won the "Being Something" conquest by lack of rivals.
Mars Curiosity might be something, after all.
>> countries like UK are not so far from the cameras everywhere distopia;
> Not true. Not even slightly true.
There's a guesstimate of about 4.2 million CCTVs in UK for a population of around 62 million, or about one camera each 15 people. Nough' said.
"What, exactly speaking, is wrong with being content when you have everything you need, and the same is true for everyone else?"
That we are human beings, not irrational animals. You either get it or don't get it.
So the standard method is that untested software is always optimum quality? No wonder there are problems, then.
"I think you are confused. As I've already posted above, the "outsiders" in BNW get sent to islands full of other highly intelligent people; it is a reward rather than a punishment."
Well, I'd say it's you the one confused: those that would want to shake the other people and say "awake, don't you see what's happening?" are deprived *exactly* of that. It *is* a punishment that will only not look like that to those that shouldn't go to the island anyway.
The fact that a majority of them accept the punishment instead of going into the wild makes the triumph of BNW even more resounding: the island is the BNW version for those that don't integrate in the standard BNW, just as in our current world they have their own islands (i.e. in the Internet), but are nevertheless integrated into the system (only a different part of it).
"So, on the one hand, we have a government trying to emulate 1984. (China). On the other, we have a thriving Brave New World."
But our Brave New World leaders, clever as Mustafa Mond, adapt to new times and added a bit of 1984 salt to the equation: we've been always at war with Eastasia (so we never gave weapons to Al-Qaeda, and Donald Rumsfeld never shaked his hand with Saddam Hussein); it's obvious what a fine Emmanuel Goldstein Osama Bin Laden did (I was quite surprised when they killed him, but they are fast at finding substitutes); with regards of Newspeak and the Ministry of Truth, it's not only that, say, Julian Assange makes for an almost perfect Winston Smith -sex included, but that "political correctness" is pushed to absurd levels; countries like UK are not so far from the cameras everywhere distopia; and CIA doesn't even hide the fact that they play Brotherhood's O'Brian role as needed. Finally, just compare USA's current sociopolitical situation with the central 1984 motto and cry: "WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH".
But all this formal/tactical similitudes are just superficial because deeply is the Brave New World pilosophy. As such, is not that say, photographs of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein are forbidden and destroyed, or that the massive destruction weapons issue is not known to be fake, it is that it really doesn't matter; it is not that the Big Brother prosecutes critical thinking, it is that people, all by themselves, choose religious crooks for presidents; it is not that the national lotto is faked but that people really believe that working hard and adapting to the "true way", they'll reach to the 0.01% status.
In the end, I find Brave New World much more depressing than 1984 because for 1984 world to work, the stablishment is forced to always be on top of everything, always watching and the coertion is too visible and the obvious target to figth against. Brave New World, on the other hand, is self-stabilizing: people voluntarily choose it and the government doesn't need to search and destroy the outsiders, society itself does it.
Nope. We are living Brave New World much more than 1984.
"Arthur C. Clakes Childhood's End, that wasn't depressing, certainly not up there with the most obvious example 1984"
1984 is depressing just till you read Huxley' s Brave New World. And the fact that nobody has even mentioned it after well over 100 comments shows exactly why it's so depressing.
"Each voter in those elections wielded enormous power [...] The best that someone holding a gun has done lately is kill a few dozen people"
Therefore, killing a few dozen of those enormously powered voters *is* a lot of power, isn't it?
"That was the original story line for aÂmovie
, but I hear Vin Diesel preferred cars over code."
Yes. The one about coding was starred by Emacsn Gasoline instead.
"He still draws a check, sure but that's different than being a functional member of the organization."
I bet he isn't a true Scotsman either.
"A balanced vegetarian diet is good enough, if you know what to eat."
Which was exactly my point. I don't "need to know what to eat" to have a ballanced diet if I add meat to it.
"Don't fall for meat industry propaganda "
Don't fall in the fallacy of thinking everybody is from US of A. Hint: I'm not. There's no "meat industry propaganda" over here as there's no 35,7% obesity over here.
"Do you use Debian Stable?"
Yes. The desktop I'm using right now is a Debian Stable.
"And if you were able to brand your product in such a way that peopleÂidentifyÂwith it to the point of making it an extension of their personality."
You meant iDentify, don't you?
"The trick is that you have to be careful to make your choice complement each other or indeed you can go into some amino acid carrency. "
Which is exactly my point. Do you know why do you have to be extra-careful in order to go vegetarian? Because you are not designed to be vegetarian.
And it's not only aminoacids: read meat provides about 100x usable iron than any vegetable for the same weight.
"I don't know enough about Debian to comment."
But still you *do* comment. You said "I wish that Linux distros and various apps were developed like that" (adding just security updates to otherwise stable software), when it's obvious you didn't take the time to learn if that's already the case or not.
"I'm guessing a lot of people would do the same because, well, most Americans hate vegetables"
The sad point is that most Americans seem to hate meat too. Anything that is not properly "processed" so it doesn't look like it was a portion of a leaving being prior to reach the supermarket tends to look "ugly".
"The human body does not require meat."
Yes it does. At most I could accept that due to our technology we can (hardly) substitute meat with something else.
"For example, we could just be eating more carrots."
If you thing you can exchange the protein needs of a growing human being out of carrots, you are beyond salvation.
"If less meat gets consumed, there will be more food available to humans overall"
Fat American standard is not "humans overall". About 90% of human population eats meat in quite a reasonable proportion.
"I wish that Linux distros and various apps were developed like that."
Like Debian Stable, you mean?
"Wearable NTP enabled device, with WiFi, Bluetooth, 4g, and a display showing current time?"
Exactly: all of them require an external knowledgeable agent to pivot the information to a new object.
Well, where's the external entity for the soul? How can it be tested?