Yes, the Intel Mac mini is by far the most exciting piece in this lineup!
But 8500 swedish Kronor? That is more than 50% more expensive than the old version! =[
Still, comparing it to other ultra-small-and-sexy PCs, it's not that excruciating. And it runs MacOS!
I'm a lamer end-user in all regards - still, the most exciting thing I found in that article was the kernel improvements. =]
Will Linux keep up the pace?
If it burns, then you can make a fuel out of it.
If it grows, you can make a fuel out of it.
We're not dependant on one single solution or plant for our needs, we can make ethanol out of almost any carbohydrate to replace gasoline and oil out of any crop rich in fat to replace diesel. The current fleet of engines can be converted to drive well on either mixture of gasoline/ethanol or diesel/vegetable oil with little effort and cheap components.
As for the economy - biofuel is essentially solar power that takes the route via plants. The process of converting that into a liquid fuel is not as efficient as drilling a hole in the ground and letting oil spurt into a barrell, but as the cost is essentially energy and the energy is by definition growing in the fields and concentrated in your biofuel plant - then all it means is that it takes a certain amount of area to farm up a certain amount of fuel, and that cost will vary dependant on the type of crop and fuel and weather and soil and what have you.
So don't buy the typical oil propaganda that says that it's pointless to produce biofuel because it takes more energy to produce a unit of biofuel than the unit itself holds, because that is only saying that the efficiency of the entire manufacturing process is less than 50%. What's interesting is ONLY how much a gallon will cost in the end.
It's akin to claiming that Otto engines can't possibly work because their efficiency is about 25%, meaning that they consume three units of energy for every one unit performed...
I'd guess the only fair way to pit one platform against another would be to offer a scenario - client company X has a list of specific needs and requirements - and let teams of experts of either party deploy their solution. Mano an mano.
Then when the smoke has settled, they are compared with regards to cost for things such as licenses, staff, etc.
It would also be important to note the differences in the solutions to the client.
Will the MS solution be simpler to manage, to update? Will the Linux solution require less tweaking a year later? Will there be hacks beknownst only to the people who set up the solution.
And to make it all worth while - these contests should be arranged regularly and have different levels of difficulty and scope.
Call it "OS Deathmatch" or something silly like that and offer prices. Host it at sports arenas. Set up a fair with computer gear for sale at the entrance.
Invite thousands of low- and high-profile geeks. Invite crackers to attempt to find vulnerabilities with the solutions.
Invite companies with real-world cases to get the contestants to work on their requirements. Let them sponsor the show and in return get the elite solutions.
Not only would this generate tremendous media coverage and potential income for entrepreneurs, it will also make for much more fair scrutinizing of the software than the current crop of shady "independant experts".
My c0d1ng sk1llz are not 1337, but I do know why there are such a thing as shared libraries.
They seem to bring problems though. They are failure sources as you cannot ascertain that every recipient of a software package has the required library installed. In fact, my failure rate in compiling bleeding-edge Linux software is staggering. I can count a few successes and a metric shitload of failures due to missing libraries. Talk about DLL hell!
And as it seems, libraries are filled to the brim with features that are certainly not used at every given time.
Thus, what is the point with loading the whole nine yards if all you need is a simple function? Need one JOptionPane? Import the whole freaking javax.swing.*; !
Wouldn't it be reasonable to be able to statically link to [i]only the feature you are using[/i]? To only "check out" that piece of the library as you compile?
Perhaps this is already a well-known capability of coding languages, but I haven't heard of it.
Well, thermodynamics only let you go so far. And contemporary engines sacrifice mileage in favour of emissions. You could probably improve your mileage with 10-20% or so by running very lean mixtures, but you'd release a whole lot of NOx. Causing smog amongst others.
Even electric cars don't have that great an efficiency as the combustion process is just deferred to a power station instead. If you replace a high-efficiency biodiesel engine with a coal plant you shoot yourself in the foot badly.
Personally, I think biofuel is the key. You can use the entire fleet of vehicles that exist today with a little tweaking of their injection and ignition systems, and it is essentially solar power that takes the route via carbohydrates.
But the oil companies don't like this because they live off petroleum.
And the academic researchers don't like it because they prefer gigantic infrastructure-changing projects that will require billions of dollars in reseach indefinately.
And the car companies don't like it because they want to sell you an entire new car. Not just put a $50 gizmo in your present one.
And governments don't like it because they bow to companies and academic institutes.
Which leaves it to you to start demanding ethanol and biodiesel and pour it in your Buick, today. I do.
PS: The T-Ford had good mileage because it weighted 1200 lb and topped out at 45 mph. You could also get good mileage with such a light car and only 20 BHP. A very big part of fuel consumption come from accelerating the car. Keep a steady speed and have a light car and you can get away rather well even if you have a big strong engine.
I have noticed that even a "turned off" ATX-based PC still draws 15-25 W continuosly. For no reason at all, it seems.
I have this cheap and simple Watt-meter that plugs between the wall and my gear that I use to check things out. Everyone should get one.
The material is aluminium oxynitride, a ceramic compound as it says clearly in the text. It is not a transparent metal we are talking about here!
Metals commonly make compounds with non-metals creating ceramics, such as for example porcelain (aluminium oxide) or table salt (sodium chloride), not to forget almost every pebble benetah your shoe. Some are transparent, some are opaque.
That aluminium oxynitrate is transparent doesn't in itself make it more exotic than the vast array of other ceramics out there. It's about as fantastic as stating that silicon componds can be transparent.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the Intel Mac mini is by far the most exciting piece in this lineup! But 8500 swedish Kronor? That is more than 50% more expensive than the old version! =[ Still, comparing it to other ultra-small-and-sexy PCs, it's not that excruciating. And it runs MacOS!
I'm a lamer end-user in all regards - still, the most exciting thing I found in that article was the kernel improvements. =] Will Linux keep up the pace?
I think you should read the article.
If it burns, then you can make a fuel out of it. If it grows, you can make a fuel out of it. We're not dependant on one single solution or plant for our needs, we can make ethanol out of almost any carbohydrate to replace gasoline and oil out of any crop rich in fat to replace diesel. The current fleet of engines can be converted to drive well on either mixture of gasoline/ethanol or diesel/vegetable oil with little effort and cheap components. As for the economy - biofuel is essentially solar power that takes the route via plants. The process of converting that into a liquid fuel is not as efficient as drilling a hole in the ground and letting oil spurt into a barrell, but as the cost is essentially energy and the energy is by definition growing in the fields and concentrated in your biofuel plant - then all it means is that it takes a certain amount of area to farm up a certain amount of fuel, and that cost will vary dependant on the type of crop and fuel and weather and soil and what have you. So don't buy the typical oil propaganda that says that it's pointless to produce biofuel because it takes more energy to produce a unit of biofuel than the unit itself holds, because that is only saying that the efficiency of the entire manufacturing process is less than 50%. What's interesting is ONLY how much a gallon will cost in the end. It's akin to claiming that Otto engines can't possibly work because their efficiency is about 25%, meaning that they consume three units of energy for every one unit performed...
I'd guess the only fair way to pit one platform against another would be to offer a scenario - client company X has a list of specific needs and requirements - and let teams of experts of either party deploy their solution. Mano an mano.
Then when the smoke has settled, they are compared with regards to cost for things such as licenses, staff, etc.
It would also be important to note the differences in the solutions to the client.
Will the MS solution be simpler to manage, to update? Will the Linux solution require less tweaking a year later? Will there be hacks beknownst only to the people who set up the solution.
And to make it all worth while - these contests should be arranged regularly and have different levels of difficulty and scope.
Call it "OS Deathmatch" or something silly like that and offer prices. Host it at sports arenas. Set up a fair with computer gear for sale at the entrance.
Invite thousands of low- and high-profile geeks. Invite crackers to attempt to find vulnerabilities with the solutions.
Invite companies with real-world cases to get the contestants to work on their requirements. Let them sponsor the show and in return get the elite solutions.
Not only would this generate tremendous media coverage and potential income for entrepreneurs, it will also make for much more fair scrutinizing of the software than the current crop of shady "independant experts".
My c0d1ng sk1llz are not 1337, but I do know why there are such a thing as shared libraries. They seem to bring problems though. They are failure sources as you cannot ascertain that every recipient of a software package has the required library installed. In fact, my failure rate in compiling bleeding-edge Linux software is staggering. I can count a few successes and a metric shitload of failures due to missing libraries. Talk about DLL hell! And as it seems, libraries are filled to the brim with features that are certainly not used at every given time. Thus, what is the point with loading the whole nine yards if all you need is a simple function? Need one JOptionPane? Import the whole freaking javax.swing.*; ! Wouldn't it be reasonable to be able to statically link to [i]only the feature you are using[/i]? To only "check out" that piece of the library as you compile? Perhaps this is already a well-known capability of coding languages, but I haven't heard of it.
Well, thermodynamics only let you go so far. And contemporary engines sacrifice mileage in favour of emissions. You could probably improve your mileage with 10-20% or so by running very lean mixtures, but you'd release a whole lot of NOx. Causing smog amongst others.
Even electric cars don't have that great an efficiency as the combustion process is just deferred to a power station instead. If you replace a high-efficiency biodiesel engine with a coal plant you shoot yourself in the foot badly.
Personally, I think biofuel is the key. You can use the entire fleet of vehicles that exist today with a little tweaking of their injection and ignition systems, and it is essentially solar power that takes the route via carbohydrates.
But the oil companies don't like this because they live off petroleum.
And the academic researchers don't like it because they prefer gigantic infrastructure-changing projects that will require billions of dollars in reseach indefinately.
And the car companies don't like it because they want to sell you an entire new car. Not just put a $50 gizmo in your present one.
And governments don't like it because they bow to companies and academic institutes.
Which leaves it to you to start demanding ethanol and biodiesel and pour it in your Buick, today. I do.
PS: The T-Ford had good mileage because it weighted 1200 lb and topped out at 45 mph. You could also get good mileage with such a light car and only 20 BHP. A very big part of fuel consumption come from accelerating the car. Keep a steady speed and have a light car and you can get away rather well even if you have a big strong engine.
I have noticed that even a "turned off" ATX-based PC still draws 15-25 W continuosly. For no reason at all, it seems. I have this cheap and simple Watt-meter that plugs between the wall and my gear that I use to check things out. Everyone should get one.
The material is aluminium oxynitride, a ceramic compound as it says clearly in the text. It is not a transparent metal we are talking about here!
Metals commonly make compounds with non-metals creating ceramics, such as for example porcelain (aluminium oxide) or table salt (sodium chloride), not to forget almost every pebble benetah your shoe. Some are transparent, some are opaque.
That aluminium oxynitrate is transparent doesn't in itself make it more exotic than the vast array of other ceramics out there. It's about as fantastic as stating that silicon componds can be transparent.
Sorry for unmaking your day.