Wait, Microsoft + Accenture built a piss-poor platform. As you may recall, Accenture is a giant in the consulting business. Their combined efforts failed miserably.
Accenture and the other big consulting companies have a horrendous track record for building failed projects at a very high cost. The moment someone says "let's hire Accenture to build this" is the moment the costs go up dramatically.
MilleniumIT has a proven product in deployment in several exchanges. Their product is not pie-in-the-sky. It works. They've had several big wins in the past decade. They've been collaborating with Intel on optimizing their platform. Their transaction processing times are an order of magnitude better than LSE's current system.
LSE isn't going to run setup.exe (sorry./setup.so), they're going to have to do some large-scale integration work and customization to make it work with their system, and the "pie in the sky" element is that one of the reasons they decided to acquire this company is because now they have stars in their eyes about the great things they are going to do.
And as far as the trading time, again: Wait until its integrated. Lets revisit this in 6 months.
So, I'm not sure what your angle is... are you trolling? Astroturfing? Or just spouting knee-jerk reactionism without any kind of basis in reality?
Gosh, you got it all covered there. I guess you provided a savage indictment of my post. Or maybe I'm actually a realist, and see a lot of people doing a hilarious happy dance far too prematurely. That's what she said!
As one other note, while OSS fanatics (I'm quite keen about OSS, but not quite a fanatic) go apeshit about this - This was more "switched from Accenture to running it `in house' in the form of a large team of low-paid talent in Sri Lanka" way more than it was "abandoned.NET for Linux! Rah rah rah!". The fact that people are hilariously so focused on the latter while missing the former speaks to how incredibly myopic people can be.
did Microsoft take down their triumphant "case report" on the original design-in?
While I'm not sure if.NET / Windows is the appropriate platform for a stock exchange, I find it humorous how quickly so many want to bask in the glow of this, using it as proof of something, when I'm fairly certain that it was discarded as proof of nothing when the LSE first went the.NET route. Now we have some completely and utterly unproven vapourware, supported by some fictitious numbers, and people are using it conclusively, when really it should be more along the lines of "yeah...we'll see...".
The LSE sounds like it has very incompetent technical leadership, and this sounds very pie-in-the-sky-ish. So now in return for selecting this Sri Lankan company, they get 100% ownership (???) of some speculative wish. Great..NET is a fantastic development environment, and it is fantastic for virtually any size websites. Probably not so great for real-time trading, though throw enough specialization at it and you can get whatever you want out of it.
Or hey, you could use it on your own server. If you're willing to pay TWO AND A HALF THOUSAND DOLLARS A MONTH...
Joel talked about this strategy once before. The idea was something like "we aren't ready to support that model, however let's post a ridiculous price just in case someone is really motivated". Not only does it add credibility to the "StackOverflow is super valuable" idea, but maybe one day someone will send in a yearly check for $30,000 and they can pay an intern to make the install packages and documentation, etc.
Yeah, but just picture being able to put "100,000 StackOverflow points" on your resume!
I hope you're being sarcastic, but I'll answer as if it were serious given that Joel and others have tried to hold up StackOverflow points as some sort of hiring benchmark.
If someone sent me a resume saying that they 100,000 StackOverflow points, I would have to consider it a negative (not an instant "no hire", as Joel would put it, because it could just be an aberration), firstly that they thought it was wise to put it on the resume, and secondly that they actually spent so much time and energy accruing SO points.
The posters at Stack Overflow know what they're talking about.
I entirely disagree. The average Stack Overflow poster seems to have a low level of expertise and knowledge in the topics that they comment upon.
But it is far from useless. It's a very useful site when used and exploited correctly.
StackOverflow is essentially a mechanical turk, similar to various other attempts to "pay" people for spending their time doing your legwork. In this case the pay is ribbons and badges and points (similar to Slashdot points, only imagine that it has no limit and comes with a myriad of cute icons and designations).
I could go and waste valuable time searching all around to try to find out how to do X, or I could just post it to StackOverflow, letting hoardes of trying-to-get-acknowledged devs rabble to earn some reputation points. Until the crowd gets wise, the latter is a very efficient (for me) choice.
Well, they can still make fun of Joel, the software was written and implemented by Jeff Atwood
Purportedly there is a team of developers, since the inception. Given Jeff Atwood's very limited claim to SO, I suspect that his contribution was lower. At the time that Jeff and Joel grouped up, Joel's blog was on a steep decline of importance and readership, while Jeff was getting front-paged on a number of sites daily, so I also suspect that Jeff is a "front man", herding his readership to SO.
Because if Jeff actually developed StackOverflow, I doubt it would have ever worked.
USB2 max transfer speed is 33~35mb/s depending on the chipset on your motherboard, how is that "fast or faster" than 50-60mb/s range
Again, it's close enough that it's a non-issue for anyone who isn't already using eSATA, or at least firewire. This isn't that hard to understand.
or more realistically, sequential READ speeds of most HDD is >100mb/s
Few hard drives read that fast. Maybe you're confused by the "read from the cache" burst speed, but in reality that has little practical value given that if the HD has it cached, so does the OS.
USB 2 as fast or faster than most hard drives? What drugs are you on?
It is as fast as the shoddy drives that Maxtor and Seagate put in their external enclosures. It is not a limiter for them (and the CPU usage *is* high, and that won't change much with USB 3).
People who have faster drives use eSATA or SAS, which was exactly what I said. For people who don't use them -- well they probably won't notice a difference with 3.0 then.
I'm not going to ignore the blatantly wrong assertion that USB2 can transfer data at a 480Mbit/sec (60MB/sec), because it can't.
Clap clap clap.
Only the majority of external hard drives that you can buy right now will give you similar performance whether you use USB 2, firewire, or eSATA. Making a faster interconnect won't do anything for these drives.
People who have performance drives *already* use eSATA (seriously, firewire? Is this 2002? Worse, you then go on to talk about CPU usage, where again the answer is "use eSATA") or SAS.
The submission is concerned with connecting a hard drive. As mentioned, anyone with a speed issue with transfer speeds could have been using the superior eSATA for some time now: It's inexpensively supported by lots of devices, and exposes the native capabilities of the storage device to the controller. Win/win, a no bleeding edge drivers or poor vendor support.
I'm not down on USB 3, I just think this is a gimmicky way to get some attention for a non-solution. It's cool when all connection technologies get better, so faster ethernet, wireless, bluetooth, USB, etc -- it's all good.
"We now can transfer a 5GB movie in just 38 seconds - it's unbelievably fast," said Freecom's managing director, Axel Lucassen. Assuming that USB 3.0 scales proportionately, USB 2.0 would have transferred the same file in six and a half minutes Ignoring the naive assumption, USB 2 is as fast or faster than the majority of hard drives (which average reads in the 50-60MB/s range). Buying a faster connection technology won't somehow make your hard drive faster.
Though if you really are concerned, we've had the excellent and widely support eSATA for some time, giving you a 1.5Gbps or 3.0Gbps connection, and if your MB supports SATA, then it supports eSATA. For a second hard drive I put it in an external enclosure supporting both USB 2 and eSATA, and normally use eSATA, sacrificing nothing (and all of the SCSI-like features of SATA are enabled and used).
The biggest reason it has been slow in adoption is the lack of support in IE, which is mostly due to Microsoft's former stagnation between the releases of IE 6.0 and IE 7.
Microsoft was one of the original working partners of the SVG specification. They were in a position to support it at the outset, and even published an article about SVG in their premiere magazine. I remember going to a Microsoft conference back around 2000 and, when asked about the long-term viability of ActiveX, the Microsoft reps (who were actual developers and not just talking heads) spoke enthusiastically about how they were working with Corel (another SVG author) on a fabulous new vector graphics technology....and then it got iced. If I had to guess at a reason, I would point to the ascension of internal "vector" technologies like XAML, and of course they already had VML.
Oh I entirely understand the absurd niche that it started through. However not only do most people use Twitter through mechanisms not at all bound by the SMS limit, are we to believe that someone posting a tweet from SMS first went to a URL shortener on their mobile device, got a shortened URL, and tweeted that? It doesn't happen.
It's yet another shortening service, among a field of hundreds, few of which have any legitimate reason for existing beyond shock-links. They cried like little children because Twitter (a dumb, artificially restricted service) had a "preferred" service, so after stomping their feet for a while, pulling a little tantrum (did they *really* think there was a business model behind this garbage?) they then came back with this "we'll show them!" response. Cheap.
In any case, an open source operating system currently supported by at least four major manufacturers (and it's growing) isn't quite the same, especially considering the growing platform of hardware. And have you not been paying attention regarding Apple lately?
Yes, but some guy used it to mass-convert a bunch of static TIFFs to static PDFs...so...
The cloud is grossly overhyped. People have some vague, fuzzy belief that it is the solution for everything in the same way that they thought XML and Web Services were before. It is a part of the puzzle, but it certainly isn't as profound as some think it is.
I think you're confusing concepts. Segmented memory was a hack, and protected nothing. Then they added protected mode, giving OS' the option of acting as the cop of memory. That has been on the x86 since the 286, and is of course widely used.
Everything that any process on your machine does in user-space has to be effectively "allowed" by the operating system. It is purely due to non-granular permission structures that modern OS' don't allow you to fine-tune every permission of even "native" executables.
Is it just me, or is this essentially a fundraising article?
Donate to us, because we got a patent revoked.
They're showing how they are fulfilling their mandate. What's the problem?
I would think that a lot of big companies would be filling the EFF's coffers, working together to take down the wolves that pray on those they can separate from the herd. Of course that won't happen, because many of those big companies occasionally become the target of the EFF.
You can't improve latency (seek) time with a RAID array; you can only improve throughput (sequential access).
Not entirely true. While you can't make any one drive go any faster, any decent RAID controller gangs requests (that sort of system usually has more than one on the go) and basically multitasks the array.
The effective I/Os are much higher on a large RAID array than on a single drive.
Landlines have always been unlimited. It's a single (cheap) flat rate and I could call my buddy with his landline and we could just leave the phones connected all month.
But of course you didn't just keep it off the hook all month long, did you? Because if you did, the phone company would have been calling (or rather mailing given that they couldn't get through) and forcing you to sign up for a dedicated line.
This was big news in the modem era, when more and more users started exceeding the infrastructure expectations, staying online all night downloading those low resolution TGA swimsuit pics.
And of course, all that was included in the "flat" rate was local calls within a very small radius. Once you started using more of the shared network, including the networks of other telcos, you go hit by massive long distance fees. Don't you remember paying like $0.60 / minute to make an out of state call?
Yeah, landlines are a terrible comparison, because telcos have been one of the most egregious abusers of the "utility" status.
As an aside, from years my telco was trying to get the CRTC to allow them to charge $0.25 per call.
Slashdot Mirror
Accenture and the other big consulting companies have a horrendous track record for building failed projects at a very high cost. The moment someone says "let's hire Accenture to build this" is the moment the costs go up dramatically.
LSE isn't going to run setup.exe (sorry ./setup.so), they're going to have to do some large-scale integration work and customization to make it work with their system, and the "pie in the sky" element is that one of the reasons they decided to acquire this company is because now they have stars in their eyes about the great things they are going to do.
And as far as the trading time, again: Wait until its integrated. Lets revisit this in 6 months.
Gosh, you got it all covered there. I guess you provided a savage indictment of my post. Or maybe I'm actually a realist, and see a lot of people doing a hilarious happy dance far too prematurely. That's what she said!
As one other note, while OSS fanatics (I'm quite keen about OSS, but not quite a fanatic) go apeshit about this - This was more "switched from Accenture to running it `in house' in the form of a large team of low-paid talent in Sri Lanka" way more than it was "abandoned .NET for Linux! Rah rah rah!". The fact that people are hilariously so focused on the latter while missing the former speaks to how incredibly myopic people can be.
While I'm not sure if .NET / Windows is the appropriate platform for a stock exchange, I find it humorous how quickly so many want to bask in the glow of this, using it as proof of something, when I'm fairly certain that it was discarded as proof of nothing when the LSE first went the .NET route. Now we have some completely and utterly unproven vapourware, supported by some fictitious numbers, and people are using it conclusively, when really it should be more along the lines of "yeah...we'll see...".
The LSE sounds like it has very incompetent technical leadership, and this sounds very pie-in-the-sky-ish. So now in return for selecting this Sri Lankan company, they get 100% ownership (???) of some speculative wish. Great. .NET is a fantastic development environment, and it is fantastic for virtually any size websites. Probably not so great for real-time trading, though throw enough specialization at it and you can get whatever you want out of it.
After re-reading what Miquel has said multiple times, both here and on his blog, under no rational interpretation can I derive what you claim he said.
So you take on that strawman and win -- congrats! -- but it has nothing to do with what is being discussed.
Joel talked about this strategy once before. The idea was something like "we aren't ready to support that model, however let's post a ridiculous price just in case someone is really motivated". Not only does it add credibility to the "StackOverflow is super valuable" idea, but maybe one day someone will send in a yearly check for $30,000 and they can pay an intern to make the install packages and documentation, etc.
I hope you're being sarcastic, but I'll answer as if it were serious given that Joel and others have tried to hold up StackOverflow points as some sort of hiring benchmark.
If someone sent me a resume saying that they 100,000 StackOverflow points, I would have to consider it a negative (not an instant "no hire", as Joel would put it, because it could just be an aberration), firstly that they thought it was wise to put it on the resume, and secondly that they actually spent so much time and energy accruing SO points.
I entirely disagree. The average Stack Overflow poster seems to have a low level of expertise and knowledge in the topics that they comment upon.
But it is far from useless. It's a very useful site when used and exploited correctly.
StackOverflow is essentially a mechanical turk, similar to various other attempts to "pay" people for spending their time doing your legwork. In this case the pay is ribbons and badges and points (similar to Slashdot points, only imagine that it has no limit and comes with a myriad of cute icons and designations).
I could go and waste valuable time searching all around to try to find out how to do X, or I could just post it to StackOverflow, letting hoardes of trying-to-get-acknowledged devs rabble to earn some reputation points. Until the crowd gets wise, the latter is a very efficient (for me) choice.
Purportedly there is a team of developers, since the inception. Given Jeff Atwood's very limited claim to SO, I suspect that his contribution was lower. At the time that Jeff and Joel grouped up, Joel's blog was on a steep decline of importance and readership, while Jeff was getting front-paged on a number of sites daily, so I also suspect that Jeff is a "front man", herding his readership to SO.
Because if Jeff actually developed StackOverflow, I doubt it would have ever worked.
Again, it's close enough that it's a non-issue for anyone who isn't already using eSATA, or at least firewire. This isn't that hard to understand.
Few hard drives read that fast. Maybe you're confused by the "read from the cache" burst speed, but in reality that has little practical value given that if the HD has it cached, so does the OS.
It is as fast as the shoddy drives that Maxtor and Seagate put in their external enclosures. It is not a limiter for them (and the CPU usage *is* high, and that won't change much with USB 3).
People who have faster drives use eSATA or SAS, which was exactly what I said. For people who don't use them -- well they probably won't notice a difference with 3.0 then.
Clap clap clap.
Only the majority of external hard drives that you can buy right now will give you similar performance whether you use USB 2, firewire, or eSATA. Making a faster interconnect won't do anything for these drives.
People who have performance drives *already* use eSATA (seriously, firewire? Is this 2002? Worse, you then go on to talk about CPU usage, where again the answer is "use eSATA") or SAS.
The submission is concerned with connecting a hard drive. As mentioned, anyone with a speed issue with transfer speeds could have been using the superior eSATA for some time now: It's inexpensively supported by lots of devices, and exposes the native capabilities of the storage device to the controller. Win/win, a no bleeding edge drivers or poor vendor support.
I'm not down on USB 3, I just think this is a gimmicky way to get some attention for a non-solution. It's cool when all connection technologies get better, so faster ethernet, wireless, bluetooth, USB, etc -- it's all good.
"We now can transfer a 5GB movie in just 38 seconds - it's unbelievably fast," said Freecom's managing director, Axel Lucassen. Assuming that USB 3.0 scales proportionately, USB 2.0 would have transferred the same file in six and a half minutes
Ignoring the naive assumption, USB 2 is as fast or faster than the majority of hard drives (which average reads in the 50-60MB/s range). Buying a faster connection technology won't somehow make your hard drive faster.
Though if you really are concerned, we've had the excellent and widely support eSATA for some time, giving you a 1.5Gbps or 3.0Gbps connection, and if your MB supports SATA, then it supports eSATA. For a second hard drive I put it in an external enclosure supporting both USB 2 and eSATA, and normally use eSATA, sacrificing nothing (and all of the SCSI-like features of SATA are enabled and used).
Microsoft was one of the original working partners of the SVG specification. They were in a position to support it at the outset, and even published an article about SVG in their premiere magazine. I remember going to a Microsoft conference back around 2000 and, when asked about the long-term viability of ActiveX, the Microsoft reps (who were actual developers and not just talking heads) spoke enthusiastically about how they were working with Corel (another SVG author) on a fabulous new vector graphics technology.. ..and then it got iced. If I had to guess at a reason, I would point to the ascension of internal "vector" technologies like XAML, and of course they already had VML.
Oh I entirely understand the absurd niche that it started through. However not only do most people use Twitter through mechanisms not at all bound by the SMS limit, are we to believe that someone posting a tweet from SMS first went to a URL shortener on their mobile device, got a shortened URL, and tweeted that? It doesn't happen.
URL shortening + SMS = a ridiculous combination.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Pier+5+94111
It's yet another shortening service, among a field of hundreds, few of which have any legitimate reason for existing beyond shock-links. They cried like little children because Twitter (a dumb, artificially restricted service) had a "preferred" service, so after stomping their feet for a while, pulling a little tantrum (did they *really* think there was a business model behind this garbage?) they then came back with this "we'll show them!" response. Cheap.
Why do they keep getting this attention?
>Some things you can't win I guess. Stick it in your media centre and forget about it.
Define "win". You realize that it's very likely different people you hear from each time, right?
Such uncalled for hostility.
In any case, an open source operating system currently supported by at least four major manufacturers (and it's growing) isn't quite the same, especially considering the growing platform of hardware. And have you not been paying attention regarding Apple lately?
Yes, but some guy used it to mass-convert a bunch of static TIFFs to static PDFs...so...
The cloud is grossly overhyped. People have some vague, fuzzy belief that it is the solution for everything in the same way that they thought XML and Web Services were before. It is a part of the puzzle, but it certainly isn't as profound as some think it is.
I think you're confusing concepts. Segmented memory was a hack, and protected nothing. Then they added protected mode, giving OS' the option of acting as the cop of memory. That has been on the x86 since the 286, and is of course widely used.
Everything that any process on your machine does in user-space has to be effectively "allowed" by the operating system. It is purely due to non-granular permission structures that modern OS' don't allow you to fine-tune every permission of even "native" executables.
You can make great photos with a low-end digital camera.
The hardware seldom contains creative potential. Yet digital allows you to experiment without blowing the bank.
They're showing how they are fulfilling their mandate. What's the problem?
I would think that a lot of big companies would be filling the EFF's coffers, working together to take down the wolves that pray on those they can separate from the herd. Of course that won't happen, because many of those big companies occasionally become the target of the EFF.
Not entirely true. While you can't make any one drive go any faster, any decent RAID controller gangs requests (that sort of system usually has more than one on the go) and basically multitasks the array.
The effective I/Os are much higher on a large RAID array than on a single drive.
But of course you didn't just keep it off the hook all month long, did you? Because if you did, the phone company would have been calling (or rather mailing given that they couldn't get through) and forcing you to sign up for a dedicated line.
This was big news in the modem era, when more and more users started exceeding the infrastructure expectations, staying online all night downloading those low resolution TGA swimsuit pics.
And of course, all that was included in the "flat" rate was local calls within a very small radius. Once you started using more of the shared network, including the networks of other telcos, you go hit by massive long distance fees. Don't you remember paying like $0.60 / minute to make an out of state call?
Yeah, landlines are a terrible comparison, because telcos have been one of the most egregious abusers of the "utility" status.
As an aside, from years my telco was trying to get the CRTC to allow them to charge $0.25 per call.