Oh of course, because I do that all the time. Just the other day I asked my bank for the $100 I deposited three years ago. They told me they don't have that $100, but I insisted and the teller went to the back and after some hushed discussion, they came back with five twenties that looked just like what I deposited.
I think you just need to be stern and stick up for yourself in these situations.
What do you mean "where are they now?" In all likelihood, it got booked as revenue. If 30% of revenues went to the DoD, then 30% of the $19.6 billion went to the DoD.
So you're telling me that with decades of research in sharding databases, they couldn't come up with a simple way of hashing the topmost domain name that could not be resolved, then use the hash to resolve which root DNS server (group) has purview, and then apply that recursively?
Really? This is as embarrassingly parallel as they get.
Block level makes it possible for the server to not have to know anything about the data, so the client can host encrypted data on the SAN, or boot from the SAN, or both. Or use a filesystem the SAN has no idea how to inspect, etc.
Also, it's not extreme latency. It's a few tens of microsecond latency in a small network with OK switches and 1GbE, which iSCSI targets as a market. Tens of microseconds in still two orders of magnitude less than the latency of a disk seek, so for spinning disks, you're not going to notice a difference. For good SSDs, they'll have twice the response time, but still the same overall throughput (unless you're doing a lot of synchronous IO that has to wait for those responses.)
Better switches and higher throughput connections with iSCSI offloading will get you closer to the single digit microsecond and nanosecond territory, at which point you're more likely to notice that you've saturated the bandwidth to your SAN than notice latency.
There are a lot of great libraries at CodePlex, which of course you would be unlikely to hear about in "success stories". Of SourceForge projects, I can probably think of 10 off the top of my head, and maybe, with some serious thought, come up with a list of 25 SourceForge projects that I've had contact with and are still active.
I also think the SourceForge list of "active" projects is misleading and inflated.
Of which, your only valid example is VB6, which had a syntax that they broke to allow it to interface with.NET.
Did you ever write anything in Cobol? Any other "dead" language? That's natural. The problem companies have is that they think that once their software is written, their responsibility to do anything with it is over. But owning software is sort of like owning a car, eventually compared to all the other cars, it's going to look rusty and antiquated, eventually the shops will run out of parts for it, and you'll be stuck with a car that doesn't work with anything that's still made. Well, don't let your software get into that state. Continual maintenance, upgrades, and always looking for a better way of doing things costs less in the long wrong.
There is, simply put, no such thing as software that you write once, and it's perfect and you never have to go back and rewrite any of it, or retarget it for a new and better supported platform, or whatever.
You're right, I did round or use inexact statistics. The actual wealth and income statistics are however, publicly available. The United States is as bad as China in terms of the Gini coefficient, a measure of income disparity. We're lagging far behind most "social democracies" in the West and our economic situation has more in common with the statist economies in South America, Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia.
So, let me amend my wealth disparity in the US figures to something based off figures from the Survey of Consumer Finances:
In 2004, the 0-25th percentile had a net worth of -$1400 on average. The 25-50th percentile had $47,100 on average, the 50-75th percentile had $185,400 on average, the 75-90th percentile had $526,700 on average, and the top tenth of the nation had $3,114,200 on average. That's net worth, mind you.
So the bottom 50% of the country had, on average, $22,850. The top 50% of the country had $873,550, for a mean net worth of the whole nation of $896,400. So the bottom quartile contributed to that negatively, the next quartile had around 5% of the wealth. The bottom 50% held around 5.2%, and the top 50% had 94.8% of the total net worth.
So yeah, the bottom 40% were screwed, the top 40% were living it up, and the middle 20% were making ends meet.
I like how you specifically chose the CLR language that doesn't work on Mono, and then said implied it's part of Microsoft's grand plan.
Hint: The vast majority of code on Codeplex, the code sharing site, is in C#. And Codeplex Foundation is an open source outreach program that will do work behind the scenes like invest in projects, form partnerships, whatever, but not write code.
A lot of Microsoft's open source projects, including projects like MEF, build on Mono and were subtly patched but not announced to be fixed as such. So they aren't "announcing to the world" that it works on Mono, but their developers are making sure it's compatible.
Besides, what does it matter which platform your software layer resides on? If you think it's absurd to build OSS on proprietary software, then I suppose you only write software and packages for the most free distro, depending on your definition of free?
Err? I didn't recall seeing anything even close to what you describe.
As far as I can tell, they're just trying to foster open source development on Windows because it's a developer issue. Some developers prefer and only engage in open source development, causing them to gravitate to Linux, BSD, etc. Microsoft hates losing developers, because users, slowly but surely, follow them and where the good applications are.
It's not a grand "Tet offensive". And it was anything but massively funded.
The point is that Google doesn't host the content, just links to it, and that asking Google to take down the links doesn't actually remove access to the content. Send the request to the infringer, and it doesn't matter what the link points to.
If you seriously think the people most benefited by social programs are the driving force in politics, you must have missed the memo that shows that the top ~20% of people in the US have 99% of the wealth. The bottom 40% have less than 1% of the wealth.
They are most definitely not voting themselves free stuff. Or if they are, they aren't asking for the right stuff.
I've reason to believe Fox News is hosting something illegal, I should be able to submit a DMCA request to Google then in the same manner I would specifically request to a hosting provider regarding a specific video or web page, and Google would then remove all links to foxnews.com?
Because the government realizes that each item didn't proportionally increase in price, etc, etc. It's just a dumb accounting thing. That's all. Accounting for large projects like this is always prone to issue, because of things like I said where, well, how finely grained do you sell the items and labor? Do you go down to the toilet seat level, or do you go up to the jet engine (or whole plane) level?
I think part of the equation is accessibility. If the resources are close enough to the ground that you can get villagers to dig them out for you by pointing a gun at them, you might end up with some of the worser situations in Africa.
If the resources require a significant investment of technology and infrastructure, well, large companies will come in and employ locals and bring in a lot of money, which may bring in other businesses to serve them.
I'm hoping these huge deposits are deep, deep under the ground. Just barely within range of our instruments, and that the dollar figure to get to them is as large as possible. Because if all it takes is a shovel, Afghanistan is in for a ride.
IE, or rather, the HTML rendering component and modules, was pushed to a central place, just like it's been pushed to a central place in every other major OS, distribution, and UI framework right now.
Sounds like Microsoft was just ahead of the curve?
Calling something Obamacare, Hillarycare, etc, is a method of critiquing it and assigning a name.
No one wants to fight "Universal Health Care". That sounds amazing! (That's not what we got in the bill, but sort of close enough.)
But hey, call something Obamacare, when your constituents and supporters already dislike Obama, and the transitive property of dislike transfers over. Of course, to people who support the health care reform, they don't know why it's called Obamacare, because so many different pieces of the passed bill came from different representatives and senators. But even so, they typically like Obama, so they don't see it as a negative, they're just confused.
But its purpose is exactly that, to polarize and split the population. Your position on federal health care proposals might be mixed and complex. Your position on any individual idea in any one of those proposals might differ from the next guy. But call a massive health care overhaul "Obamacare" and suddenly you've turned it into an "us versus them." It's purely a tool of dumbing down the debate.
If you don't believe me, watch Fox News coverage of "Obamacare" on youtube and the way in which they use the term to obfuscate and blur what it actually consists of, and the use of Obama's name to immediately turn republican and conservative opinion against it.
The problem with the $500 toilet seat argument is that occasionally a contract over-runs cost, and they approach the government and say, "We ran over cost by $X, and behind schedule by Y days." The government and the supplier have to amend the contract's line items. But let's say your contract is to remodel an entire facility, including toilet seats. Any one component of that whole contract could have cost a $49,000 over-run. Maybe the whole contract was over $1,000,000 and $49,000 ain't that much (respectively), but they put the way it was itemized was a bit strange and they included a very specific item with a bunch of general or complex items. Like, they put in line items for the cost to remodel the entire cafeteria as "dining facility, $100,000", but they itemized the bathroom more specifically, with items like "toilet seat: $10" and "sink: $150" or whatever. And due to this weird use of line items, there are only 100 line items for the whole contract.
The government will ask the supplier for their total expenses in labor and items, which they have to provide per the contract, and then the government will apply the $490 over-run to every item on the contract.
Voila: $500 toilet set, $640 sink, and yet the cost of the whole dining facility only increased by $490 as well, or.49%.
Snopes has explained this in detail in the past. The government applies a straight increase to every item on the contract, because the many-to-many relationship between a supplier's costs and the items on a contract make it difficult or impossible to assign proportional increases. Result: $100 ballpoint pens, $500 hammers, and $1000 toilet seats. Yet on the same contract, vastly more expensive items were increased by the same amount.
Windows XP is released in dozens of languages with support contracts for all of them, and has two supported service packs, and a third 64-bit edition based off Windows Server 2003.
Each of those has to be regression tested and the fix needs to be guaranteed to not break anything for all of those customers with support contracts.
Even Red Hat won't release a patch in 5 days without regression testing all the affected builds. Not only that, but he decided that during the weekend before patch Tuesday.
No excuse for what this guy did. It was just spiteful, and he then went on to release a hotfix which didn't actually fix the bug. Way to go.
If your mission critical infrastructure suddenly stops working, are you seriously suggesting the best answer is to post a message to a mailing list and hope for a prompt response?
With ZFS, your old and stale data is mixed in one volume, and a defragmentation operation would have the opportunity to move the stale data out and move the current data in to make a directory contiguous again.
The problem is, LVM's complete abstraction of the block devices with no means for inter-allocating volumes or making requests to the filesystem to un-allocate small blocks within a volume to assign to snapshots means that performant snapshots on Linux will have to wait until ZFS, BTRFS, NILFS, whatever.
Windows does it in precisely the way uncoordinated open source projects will never be able to do it. They told the NTFS team, a new team in charge of the volume snapshot service, and the team in charge of the logical disk management to work together, create and perform regression tests against each others code on every check-in and patch, and likely set up team liaisons whose sole purpose was to ensure interoperability.
If you told me a third party open source organization, without having full control of the developers and direction of both the ext filesystems and the LVM system, was going to write a service that performed the same function as the volume snapshot service, I would laugh at you. I would laugh and laugh. Open source, because of its nature, tends to attract developers who want to do something, and they want it to be the best at that something. At the same time, they don't want to tie themselves down to stable APIs because, well, it can be limiting and slow development. I totally understand why. So telling me that some third party is going to extend LVM with one API, EXT with another API, and then write a service to coordinate the two is mind-boggling. Those people would have to constantly commit code to match changes in either of the two rapidly changing projects, they'd have to fully understand the inner workings of both ext and LVM, and then they'd have to make it all work without corrupting anyone's data and ruining their reputation beyond repair.
On the other hand, you have projects like ZFS or BTRFS, which are just as monolithic, but more ambitious, and powered by the same developers I mentioned above. They want their solution to be the best. It takes a long time though because they essentially have to start from scratch and incorporate all the things that appear to be within arm's reach. But the people who start projects like BTRFS realize that it's a fool's errand to try and create interoperability between massive, disparately managed open source projects. GNOME and KDE only survive because they threw everything else out and decided to simply come with their own full suite of stuff. X is its own long story.
I don't want to diss open source, like I said, it creates magnificent pieces of software, and the developers really, truly tend to care about their projects. (Even if they can be a little defensive, sometimes.) But without a dictator forcing cooperation between different teams, you often see open source reinventing the wheel. Sure, LVM and EXT3 could theoretically work together to provide sane, fast, performant snapshots. But I'd like to meet the person who thinks they can pull that project off.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh of course, because I do that all the time. Just the other day I asked my bank for the $100 I deposited three years ago. They told me they don't have that $100, but I insisted and the teller went to the back and after some hushed discussion, they came back with five twenties that looked just like what I deposited.
I think you just need to be stern and stick up for yourself in these situations.
Thanks for explaining!
Because there's still room for improvement?
If X does Y so Z, then why does Corporation consider it a priority for improvement?! MADNESS!
What do you mean "where are they now?" In all likelihood, it got booked as revenue. If 30% of revenues went to the DoD, then 30% of the $19.6 billion went to the DoD.
Next question?
So you're telling me that with decades of research in sharding databases, they couldn't come up with a simple way of hashing the topmost domain name that could not be resolved, then use the hash to resolve which root DNS server (group) has purview, and then apply that recursively?
Really? This is as embarrassingly parallel as they get.
You should be careful though, because renaming or cleaning a system file can leave the machine unbootable or prone to strange BSODs.
Block level makes it possible for the server to not have to know anything about the data, so the client can host encrypted data on the SAN, or boot from the SAN, or both. Or use a filesystem the SAN has no idea how to inspect, etc.
Also, it's not extreme latency. It's a few tens of microsecond latency in a small network with OK switches and 1GbE, which iSCSI targets as a market. Tens of microseconds in still two orders of magnitude less than the latency of a disk seek, so for spinning disks, you're not going to notice a difference. For good SSDs, they'll have twice the response time, but still the same overall throughput (unless you're doing a lot of synchronous IO that has to wait for those responses.)
Better switches and higher throughput connections with iSCSI offloading will get you closer to the single digit microsecond and nanosecond territory, at which point you're more likely to notice that you've saturated the bandwidth to your SAN than notice latency.
There are a lot of great libraries at CodePlex, which of course you would be unlikely to hear about in "success stories". Of SourceForge projects, I can probably think of 10 off the top of my head, and maybe, with some serious thought, come up with a list of 25 SourceForge projects that I've had contact with and are still active.
I also think the SourceForge list of "active" projects is misleading and inflated.
Of which, your only valid example is VB6, which had a syntax that they broke to allow it to interface with .NET.
Did you ever write anything in Cobol? Any other "dead" language? That's natural. The problem companies have is that they think that once their software is written, their responsibility to do anything with it is over. But owning software is sort of like owning a car, eventually compared to all the other cars, it's going to look rusty and antiquated, eventually the shops will run out of parts for it, and you'll be stuck with a car that doesn't work with anything that's still made. Well, don't let your software get into that state. Continual maintenance, upgrades, and always looking for a better way of doing things costs less in the long wrong.
There is, simply put, no such thing as software that you write once, and it's perfect and you never have to go back and rewrite any of it, or retarget it for a new and better supported platform, or whatever.
You're right, I did round or use inexact statistics. The actual wealth and income statistics are however, publicly available. The United States is as bad as China in terms of the Gini coefficient, a measure of income disparity. We're lagging far behind most "social democracies" in the West and our economic situation has more in common with the statist economies in South America, Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia.
So, let me amend my wealth disparity in the US figures to something based off figures from the Survey of Consumer Finances:
In 2004, the 0-25th percentile had a net worth of -$1400 on average. The 25-50th percentile had $47,100 on average, the 50-75th percentile had $185,400 on average, the 75-90th percentile had $526,700 on average, and the top tenth of the nation had $3,114,200 on average. That's net worth, mind you.
So the bottom 50% of the country had, on average, $22,850. The top 50% of the country had $873,550, for a mean net worth of the whole nation of $896,400. So the bottom quartile contributed to that negatively, the next quartile had around 5% of the wealth. The bottom 50% held around 5.2%, and the top 50% had 94.8% of the total net worth.
So yeah, the bottom 40% were screwed, the top 40% were living it up, and the middle 20% were making ends meet.
I like how you specifically chose the CLR language that doesn't work on Mono, and then said implied it's part of Microsoft's grand plan.
Hint: The vast majority of code on Codeplex, the code sharing site, is in C#. And Codeplex Foundation is an open source outreach program that will do work behind the scenes like invest in projects, form partnerships, whatever, but not write code.
A lot of Microsoft's open source projects, including projects like MEF, build on Mono and were subtly patched but not announced to be fixed as such. So they aren't "announcing to the world" that it works on Mono, but their developers are making sure it's compatible.
Besides, what does it matter which platform your software layer resides on? If you think it's absurd to build OSS on proprietary software, then I suppose you only write software and packages for the most free distro, depending on your definition of free?
Err? I didn't recall seeing anything even close to what you describe.
As far as I can tell, they're just trying to foster open source development on Windows because it's a developer issue. Some developers prefer and only engage in open source development, causing them to gravitate to Linux, BSD, etc. Microsoft hates losing developers, because users, slowly but surely, follow them and where the good applications are.
It's not a grand "Tet offensive". And it was anything but massively funded.
The point is that Google doesn't host the content, just links to it, and that asking Google to take down the links doesn't actually remove access to the content. Send the request to the infringer, and it doesn't matter what the link points to.
If you seriously think the people most benefited by social programs are the driving force in politics, you must have missed the memo that shows that the top ~20% of people in the US have 99% of the wealth. The bottom 40% have less than 1% of the wealth.
They are most definitely not voting themselves free stuff. Or if they are, they aren't asking for the right stuff.
I've reason to believe Fox News is hosting something illegal, I should be able to submit a DMCA request to Google then in the same manner I would specifically request to a hosting provider regarding a specific video or web page, and Google would then remove all links to foxnews.com?
This is fantastic news.
Because the government realizes that each item didn't proportionally increase in price, etc, etc. It's just a dumb accounting thing. That's all. Accounting for large projects like this is always prone to issue, because of things like I said where, well, how finely grained do you sell the items and labor? Do you go down to the toilet seat level, or do you go up to the jet engine (or whole plane) level?
For recent programming languages, 5 years is a lifetime. Compare Java now to Java five years ago, or Javascript now to Javascript five years ago.
I think part of the equation is accessibility. If the resources are close enough to the ground that you can get villagers to dig them out for you by pointing a gun at them, you might end up with some of the worser situations in Africa.
If the resources require a significant investment of technology and infrastructure, well, large companies will come in and employ locals and bring in a lot of money, which may bring in other businesses to serve them.
I'm hoping these huge deposits are deep, deep under the ground. Just barely within range of our instruments, and that the dollar figure to get to them is as large as possible. Because if all it takes is a shovel, Afghanistan is in for a ride.
IE, or rather, the HTML rendering component and modules, was pushed to a central place, just like it's been pushed to a central place in every other major OS, distribution, and UI framework right now.
Sounds like Microsoft was just ahead of the curve?
Calling something Obamacare, Hillarycare, etc, is a method of critiquing it and assigning a name.
No one wants to fight "Universal Health Care". That sounds amazing! (That's not what we got in the bill, but sort of close enough.)
But hey, call something Obamacare, when your constituents and supporters already dislike Obama, and the transitive property of dislike transfers over. Of course, to people who support the health care reform, they don't know why it's called Obamacare, because so many different pieces of the passed bill came from different representatives and senators. But even so, they typically like Obama, so they don't see it as a negative, they're just confused.
But its purpose is exactly that, to polarize and split the population. Your position on federal health care proposals might be mixed and complex. Your position on any individual idea in any one of those proposals might differ from the next guy. But call a massive health care overhaul "Obamacare" and suddenly you've turned it into an "us versus them." It's purely a tool of dumbing down the debate.
If you don't believe me, watch Fox News coverage of "Obamacare" on youtube and the way in which they use the term to obfuscate and blur what it actually consists of, and the use of Obama's name to immediately turn republican and conservative opinion against it.
The problem with the $500 toilet seat argument is that occasionally a contract over-runs cost, and they approach the government and say, "We ran over cost by $X, and behind schedule by Y days." The government and the supplier have to amend the contract's line items. But let's say your contract is to remodel an entire facility, including toilet seats. Any one component of that whole contract could have cost a $49,000 over-run. Maybe the whole contract was over $1,000,000 and $49,000 ain't that much (respectively), but they put the way it was itemized was a bit strange and they included a very specific item with a bunch of general or complex items. Like, they put in line items for the cost to remodel the entire cafeteria as "dining facility, $100,000", but they itemized the bathroom more specifically, with items like "toilet seat: $10" and "sink: $150" or whatever. And due to this weird use of line items, there are only 100 line items for the whole contract.
The government will ask the supplier for their total expenses in labor and items, which they have to provide per the contract, and then the government will apply the $490 over-run to every item on the contract.
Voila: $500 toilet set, $640 sink, and yet the cost of the whole dining facility only increased by $490 as well, or .49%.
Snopes has explained this in detail in the past. The government applies a straight increase to every item on the contract, because the many-to-many relationship between a supplier's costs and the items on a contract make it difficult or impossible to assign proportional increases. Result: $100 ballpoint pens, $500 hammers, and $1000 toilet seats. Yet on the same contract, vastly more expensive items were increased by the same amount.
Windows XP is released in dozens of languages with support contracts for all of them, and has two supported service packs, and a third 64-bit edition based off Windows Server 2003.
Each of those has to be regression tested and the fix needs to be guaranteed to not break anything for all of those customers with support contracts.
Even Red Hat won't release a patch in 5 days without regression testing all the affected builds. Not only that, but he decided that during the weekend before patch Tuesday.
No excuse for what this guy did. It was just spiteful, and he then went on to release a hotfix which didn't actually fix the bug. Way to go.
If your mission critical infrastructure suddenly stops working, are you seriously suggesting the best answer is to post a message to a mailing list and hope for a prompt response?
Like I said, run a production system with more than a few dozen LVM snapshots and tell me you're getting good performance.
The abstraction away in one hand is a plus, it makes many things simpler, the problem though is that your disks look like this:
| ext3 volume | ... | ext3 copy on write snapshot volume 1 | ... | ext3 copy on write snapshot volume 2 | ...
With ZFS, your old and stale data is mixed in one volume, and a defragmentation operation would have the opportunity to move the stale data out and move the current data in to make a directory contiguous again.
The problem is, LVM's complete abstraction of the block devices with no means for inter-allocating volumes or making requests to the filesystem to un-allocate small blocks within a volume to assign to snapshots means that performant snapshots on Linux will have to wait until ZFS, BTRFS, NILFS, whatever.
Windows does it in precisely the way uncoordinated open source projects will never be able to do it. They told the NTFS team, a new team in charge of the volume snapshot service, and the team in charge of the logical disk management to work together, create and perform regression tests against each others code on every check-in and patch, and likely set up team liaisons whose sole purpose was to ensure interoperability.
If you told me a third party open source organization, without having full control of the developers and direction of both the ext filesystems and the LVM system, was going to write a service that performed the same function as the volume snapshot service, I would laugh at you. I would laugh and laugh. Open source, because of its nature, tends to attract developers who want to do something, and they want it to be the best at that something. At the same time, they don't want to tie themselves down to stable APIs because, well, it can be limiting and slow development. I totally understand why. So telling me that some third party is going to extend LVM with one API, EXT with another API, and then write a service to coordinate the two is mind-boggling. Those people would have to constantly commit code to match changes in either of the two rapidly changing projects, they'd have to fully understand the inner workings of both ext and LVM, and then they'd have to make it all work without corrupting anyone's data and ruining their reputation beyond repair.
On the other hand, you have projects like ZFS or BTRFS, which are just as monolithic, but more ambitious, and powered by the same developers I mentioned above. They want their solution to be the best. It takes a long time though because they essentially have to start from scratch and incorporate all the things that appear to be within arm's reach. But the people who start projects like BTRFS realize that it's a fool's errand to try and create interoperability between massive, disparately managed open source projects. GNOME and KDE only survive because they threw everything else out and decided to simply come with their own full suite of stuff. X is its own long story.
I don't want to diss open source, like I said, it creates magnificent pieces of software, and the developers really, truly tend to care about their projects. (Even if they can be a little defensive, sometimes.) But without a dictator forcing cooperation between different teams, you often see open source reinventing the wheel. Sure, LVM and EXT3 could theoretically work together to provide sane, fast, performant snapshots. But I'd like to meet the person who thinks they can pull that project off.