I have no idea why ATT is against it...it is another feature they can charge for, and it takes the load off their cellular towers and makes you pay for the back end...seems like a winner to me.
Have you ever tried to have a voip conversation over a cellular internet connection? The audio quality is no where near the quality of a normal cellular conversation...at least in my experience, you have to connect to wifi before it becomes viable. This means you would still need the voice plan from the carrier. I think TMobile has it right with their hotspot at home. They have the conversations go VOIP over your WIFI when you are at home, then hand off to the GSM tower when you are out of range of your hotspot
The OS could do the following:
1. Find all files required for startup, and put them in the same region on the disk.
2. Put these files in order of when they are needed for the startup process
3. At startup, the OS loads all files marked as required for startup into memory, in order.
The hard disk is now able to load everything into memory in one big motion, and at it 's maximum speed without having to do any seeking. The computer could run a scheduled task to optimize startup files...this process would be part of that.
After following the process above, all the files would be in memory, which should be a lot faster than the hard drive, and hopefully reduce bootup times dramatically. As files are no longer needed they could be flushed from memory.
This process would require a lot of memory, but that shouldn't be a problem, especially if you are running 64 bit. I just picked up 8 GB of memory at fry's for $70 2 weeks ago.
You could also have an algorithm which calculates the values you specify ahead of time, and caches them to eliminate some of these concurrency problems. When you tell the computer to shut down the computer could verify all these cached values, and recalculate/recache if needed.
Have you heard of the distrubtion called Damn Small Linux? Abbreviated DSL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damn_Small_Linux
The entire distribution is 50 MB and it includes network, Gui, etc... Based on your numbers above we should be able to load this entire distro into Memory within a second or two, maybe another 2-3 additional seconds if you want to add a 3d desktop like Compiz. Other services could potentially be loaded in the background after the login screen and/or desktop are available.
I see little reason why an OS like Ubuntu can't reduce boot times down to the sub 10 second range with a little work. It's all about scheduling.
I do think that 1-2 second boot time is a bit unrealistic at this time without a faster hard drive, but I would not say impossible.
when the computer comes back from hibernate it can be faster, or slower, depending on the situation. This is because it does not have to do all the initializations during startup. If the OS has to do a bunch of initializations every time it start up, why cant it just do a memory dump after those initializations, then only load the ones that change every time the computer starts?
If the user makes a change that would cause a change to one of these cached values, the computer could modify these start up files at that time the result would be a hybrid between suspend and shutdown where your computer does not have to do a complete memory dump when you shut down, only a partial one, and boot times would be significantly reduced.
The same goes for applications running on the machine, no reason you couldn't accelerate the startup of applications the same way...but that would have to be on a per application basis.
Perhaps a partnership with someone like you tube for hosting the video content. That way Wikipedia can stick to their core technology, which they are good at, and someone else, for example:You Tube, can stick to their core market. As long as the contract is written correctly is should work fine.
The partnership would not have to be done with You Tube necessarily, but a similar entity.
project.
I went on the website last night as the commercial was running, and after signing up it said that it was out of money and it would contact me if/when they got more funding....ridiculous they are still running the commercials when they are out of money.
I agree with this completely. Just keep raising gas taxes every year to make up for the increases in fuel efficiency.
This both promotes fuel efficiency and ensures the government has the funds they need. This doesn't work as well when people start using alternative fuels, but I'm sure they can come up with a scheme to tax alternative fuels as well.
An alternative to using the GPS tracking would be to check the mileage of your car every year or two, then you pay your taxes based on the mileage you have driven in the last year....that takes care of the privacy concerns.
Under this plan, they could charge different rates based on the class of vehicle. Large vehicles such as semi-trucks would pay higher taxes because they do more damage to the road, whereas a Geo Metro would pay very little since it has less of an impact on the road.
The reason I like the taxation based on the odometer is as follows:
1. There are fewer privacy implications than using GPS tracking.
2. It would exclude things such as chains saws as mentioned as a concern in other comments.
3. It would account for vehicles that use alternative fuels, but still use the roads.
Some might be concerned that you pay taxes even for mileage you drove while out of state...when you are out of state you pay taxes when you buy the gas in the neighboring state, then pay taxes based on your mileage in your home state. My response to that would be save your receipts and use the tax you paid on the gas in the other state as a tax deduction.
If windows fits your needs for an OS, there is no reason to switch anyway...but, if all your software will run on either OS, then you can use whichever OS better fits your needs.
And, if a company can release a single package that will run on all systems, they will be more likely to move in that direction, increasing compatibility between OS's.
I use both windows and Linux because I have a lot of applications that only run on one or the other; by run, I mean run well.
If Linux is going to be a good competitor to Windows on the desktop, it needs to be useful to the end user. If someone has to relearn everything (OS and applications) that is a much bigger barrier to entry. But, if they can switch OS's without relearning any of the software that runs on the OS, then it is relatively painless.
In the past it seems that everyone has always focused on getting the Windows software to run on Linux, or coming up with alternative software that only runs on Linux. But, why not take our existing Linux software base and make it run on windows. This could increase the install base for the Linux software dramatically (Linux has less than 1% market share, windows as a little more than that on the desktop).
Perhaps another way to go would be to make something like wine for windows....You make it so all the popular Linux apps run on windows natively.
This would allow users to try all the applications written for Linux before switching to Linux. It would be a lot easier to get Linux apps to run on windows than the other way around. This would also allow Linux developers to release one binary (RPM, DEB, etc...) that would run on anything, freeing up more time for innovation rather than recompiling binaries for various other systems.
Once a user is able to use the same apps on both windows and Linux, they would be able to switch from Windows to Linux rather Painlessly.
What are your thoughts?
In windows 2003 R2/Windows Server 2008 they really improved DFS. It lets you set up throttling in 15 minute increments, and with Full Mesh replication, it decentralizes your replication..kind of like bit torrent.
However, you have to make sure you don't accidentally use FRS, because it sucks.
Where I work we have 5 branches that pull data from our data center. I have DFS replication setup so I can have all our software distribution at the local site. I need to keep the install points at all the sites the same, so I use DFS to replicate all the data, then to get to it I type \\mydomain.com\DFSSharename
Active Directory determines what site I am in, then points me to the local share. If the local share is not available, it points me to the remote share, or to a secondary share in the same site...so it gives you failover for your file servers.
If you don't have any windows boxes, this wont work, and this really locks you into Microsoft, but it won't cost you anything more than what you have already paid.
Below is a link to Microsoft's page with more information, including how to set it up:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/technologies/storage/dfs/default.mspx
My major Beef with IE8 right now is speed....very slow on my P4 3.2 Ghz with 2 GB of Ram. I know it is not yet a final release, but I hope the performance improves.
Other than that, I think it is a major improvement over IE6/7.
For now I think I will stick with Firefox.
Slashdot Mirror
I have no idea why ATT is against it...it is another feature they can charge for, and it takes the load off their cellular towers and makes you pay for the back end...seems like a winner to me.
Have you ever tried to have a voip conversation over a cellular internet connection? The audio quality is no where near the quality of a normal cellular conversation...at least in my experience, you have to connect to wifi before it becomes viable. This means you would still need the voice plan from the carrier. I think TMobile has it right with their hotspot at home. They have the conversations go VOIP over your WIFI when you are at home, then hand off to the GSM tower when you are out of range of your hotspot
I prefer 7 Billion out of 10 Billion
Does vista support quad processors? My guess is they had to run server 2008 for the 4 CPU support. Windows XP only supports 2 processors.
There is a patch for XP if you want to use the new GPO features without going to vista
I think this sounds like a replacement for parasailing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasailing
You could get the Steel reinforced cables...it is made to deal with things like rodents: http://www.hubersuhner.com/mozilla/products/hs-p-fo/hs-p-fo-cab/hs-p-fo-cab-out/hs-p-fo-cab-out-steel
get some liquid nano-plubmer
I would say being able to differentiate between penny's and dollars is probably the thing they do best :)
I just showed this movie to my wife for the first time yesterday.
The OS could do the following:
1. Find all files required for startup, and put them in the same region on the disk.
2. Put these files in order of when they are needed for the startup process
3. At startup, the OS loads all files marked as required for startup into memory, in order.
The hard disk is now able to load everything into memory in one big motion, and at it 's maximum speed without having to do any seeking. The computer could run a scheduled task to optimize startup files...this process would be part of that.
After following the process above, all the files would be in memory, which should be a lot faster than the hard drive, and hopefully reduce bootup times dramatically. As files are no longer needed they could be flushed from memory.
This process would require a lot of memory, but that shouldn't be a problem, especially if you are running 64 bit. I just picked up 8 GB of memory at fry's for $70 2 weeks ago.
You could also have an algorithm which calculates the values you specify ahead of time, and caches them to eliminate some of these concurrency problems. When you tell the computer to shut down the computer could verify all these cached values, and recalculate/recache if needed.
Have you heard of the distrubtion called Damn Small Linux? Abbreviated DSL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damn_Small_Linux
The entire distribution is 50 MB and it includes network, Gui, etc... Based on your numbers above we should be able to load this entire distro into Memory within a second or two, maybe another 2-3 additional seconds if you want to add a 3d desktop like Compiz. Other services could potentially be loaded in the background after the login screen and/or desktop are available.
I see little reason why an OS like Ubuntu can't reduce boot times down to the sub 10 second range with a little work. It's all about scheduling.
I do think that 1-2 second boot time is a bit unrealistic at this time without a faster hard drive, but I would not say impossible.
when the computer comes back from hibernate it can be faster, or slower, depending on the situation. This is because it does not have to do all the initializations during startup. If the OS has to do a bunch of initializations every time it start up, why cant it just do a memory dump after those initializations, then only load the ones that change every time the computer starts?
If the user makes a change that would cause a change to one of these cached values, the computer could modify these start up files at that time the result would be a hybrid between suspend and shutdown where your computer does not have to do a complete memory dump when you shut down, only a partial one, and boot times would be significantly reduced.
The same goes for applications running on the machine, no reason you couldn't accelerate the startup of applications the same way...but that would have to be on a per application basis.
Some people say it's not real server unless it takes at least 5 minutes to boot :)
Perhaps a partnership with someone like you tube for hosting the video content. That way Wikipedia can stick to their core technology, which they are good at, and someone else, for example:You Tube, can stick to their core market. As long as the contract is written correctly is should work fine. The partnership would not have to be done with You Tube necessarily, but a similar entity. project.
I went on the website last night as the commercial was running, and after signing up it said that it was out of money and it would contact me if/when they got more funding....ridiculous they are still running the commercials when they are out of money.
Are you saying he is going to hang out with people with no arms/legs and floating out in the bay?
I don't think that Oil Liberation has proven to be all that economical
I agree with this completely. Just keep raising gas taxes every year to make up for the increases in fuel efficiency. This both promotes fuel efficiency and ensures the government has the funds they need. This doesn't work as well when people start using alternative fuels, but I'm sure they can come up with a scheme to tax alternative fuels as well.
An alternative to using the GPS tracking would be to check the mileage of your car every year or two, then you pay your taxes based on the mileage you have driven in the last year....that takes care of the privacy concerns.
Under this plan, they could charge different rates based on the class of vehicle. Large vehicles such as semi-trucks would pay higher taxes because they do more damage to the road, whereas a Geo Metro would pay very little since it has less of an impact on the road.
The reason I like the taxation based on the odometer is as follows:
1. There are fewer privacy implications than using GPS tracking.
2. It would exclude things such as chains saws as mentioned as a concern in other comments.
3. It would account for vehicles that use alternative fuels, but still use the roads.
Some might be concerned that you pay taxes even for mileage you drove while out of state...when you are out of state you pay taxes when you buy the gas in the neighboring state, then pay taxes based on your mileage in your home state. My response to that would be save your receipts and use the tax you paid on the gas in the other state as a tax deduction.
What about all those people with the telephone number 8675309
In case you don't the significance of that number: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/867-5309/Jenny
If windows fits your needs for an OS, there is no reason to switch anyway...but, if all your software will run on either OS, then you can use whichever OS better fits your needs.
And, if a company can release a single package that will run on all systems, they will be more likely to move in that direction, increasing compatibility between OS's.
I use both windows and Linux because I have a lot of applications that only run on one or the other; by run, I mean run well.
If Linux is going to be a good competitor to Windows on the desktop, it needs to be useful to the end user. If someone has to relearn everything (OS and applications) that is a much bigger barrier to entry. But, if they can switch OS's without relearning any of the software that runs on the OS, then it is relatively painless.
In the past it seems that everyone has always focused on getting the Windows software to run on Linux, or coming up with alternative software that only runs on Linux. But, why not take our existing Linux software base and make it run on windows. This could increase the install base for the Linux software dramatically (Linux has less than 1% market share, windows as a little more than that on the desktop).
Never mind, I guess it already exists: http://librenix.com/?inode=634
Perhaps another way to go would be to make something like wine for windows....You make it so all the popular Linux apps run on windows natively. This would allow users to try all the applications written for Linux before switching to Linux. It would be a lot easier to get Linux apps to run on windows than the other way around. This would also allow Linux developers to release one binary (RPM, DEB, etc...) that would run on anything, freeing up more time for innovation rather than recompiling binaries for various other systems. Once a user is able to use the same apps on both windows and Linux, they would be able to switch from Windows to Linux rather Painlessly. What are your thoughts?
I would suggest looking through the repository after installing Ubuntu, There are quite a few games.
In windows 2003 R2/Windows Server 2008 they really improved DFS. It lets you set up throttling in 15 minute increments, and with Full Mesh replication, it decentralizes your replication..kind of like bit torrent. However, you have to make sure you don't accidentally use FRS, because it sucks. Where I work we have 5 branches that pull data from our data center. I have DFS replication setup so I can have all our software distribution at the local site. I need to keep the install points at all the sites the same, so I use DFS to replicate all the data, then to get to it I type \\mydomain.com\DFSSharename Active Directory determines what site I am in, then points me to the local share. If the local share is not available, it points me to the remote share, or to a secondary share in the same site...so it gives you failover for your file servers. If you don't have any windows boxes, this wont work, and this really locks you into Microsoft, but it won't cost you anything more than what you have already paid. Below is a link to Microsoft's page with more information, including how to set it up: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/technologies/storage/dfs/default.mspx
My major Beef with IE8 right now is speed....very slow on my P4 3.2 Ghz with 2 GB of Ram. I know it is not yet a final release, but I hope the performance improves. Other than that, I think it is a major improvement over IE6/7. For now I think I will stick with Firefox.