Is that still true for cloud computing? Because you don't just "get a new server" when your code is a bit bloated. Instead, you pay too much every single day your service is online. This could really add up over time.
I wonder if programming for cloud services will bring back the need for code that is optimized for speed (or using as little resources as possible), since you pay for the actual usage of these resources.
I always though "software as a service" as a design principle for software development and "cloud computing" as a form of hosting.
So you could, for example, create software as a service by using cloud computing. You could also choose another form of hosting for your SaaS. Or provide something else using cloud computing.
Be that as it may, I actually quite like the repository on my Linux box. And I also quite like the App Store on my iPhone. I think it would be very nice if something like this was also available for Windows and Mac OS X.
If I'm reading you correctly, what you're saying is that because the source is available, it's perfectly acceptable to expect the end user to compile everything?
No, I'm saying that because the source is available for most applications in Linux, there hasn't been a need for a 'fat binary' option, like there was when Mac OS X switched from PPC to Intel. So it makes sense it took some time before this feature was developed, since it's not exactly a priority.
People need to get that silly idea out of their heads if they ever want Linux to become a relevant desktop operating system.
I'm not an advocate of Linux on the desktop, I'm just stating my observations.
I've compiled several tools for Mac OS X, Linux and FreeBSD using nothing but "./configure && make". I'm sure there are some exceptions and of course, sometimes you have to get some dependencies first (but you can compile those using exactly the same procedure)... but editting files or setting flags in order to get stuff to work has not been something I've encountered on a large scale.
I know my experience is not significant for the population as a whole, but I still feel no kittens should be killed when I or someone else says compiling sotware on a Unix-like box is pretty easy.
It's quite a sad state of affairs when moving to one of the most common and widely used back-ends for a website is considered "a significant step forward".
Yeah, having one word with two different meanings is just awesome. Every language should eventually evolve into having only one word meaning everything.
No, my example wasn't a Linux one. Who cares. The main point is that it's not just that easy to build from source.
Well, since TFA is about a fat binary system for Linux, it is kinda relevant to narrow your scope to just Linux. How stuff in Windows or any other operating system work has nothing to do with this new Linux-specific feature.
That said, Windows is probably the worst platform for consumers wanting to compile their own applications. It doesn't provide any tools to do so by itself and if the source you want to compile doesn't include something like a Visual Studio project file, you're in for a very hard time. Linux doesn't suffer this fate at all. Compiling an application is in most cases nothing more complex than typing "./configure && make" and you're good to go.
Besides, what is so horrible about having fat binaries on Linux?
Nothing. I'm not saying it is. In fact, I'm saying it isn't. It just doesn't surprise me that it took a long time before someone started to develop something like this, while other platforms had this feature for quite a few years, because the need for this on Linux isn't on the same level as it was for Mac OS X back when Universal Binaries made their entry.
Furthermore, I think you mean to say that it's "only useful for non-open source applications" as there are tons of free software applications out there that are not open source but are free (like Microsoft's Express editions of Visual Studio).
I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. I mean free as in freedom. MS Visual Studio Express isn't free, it just doesn't cost any money to purchase.
If you have access to the source, you can always compile a version for your platform. The 'fat binary' principle is only useful for non-free applications, where the end-user can't compile the application himself and has to use the binary provided by the vendor.
Since most apps for Linux are free and the source is available, this feature isn't as useful as it is on the Mac. Not that it shouldn't be created, but it makes sense to me why it took a while before someone started developing this for Linux.
Again it comes down to: is broadband internet an essential service? I don't think so... at least not yet. Rural businesses don't need to serve pages from the office - that's what co-location is for.
It's true, this is what it comes down too. You say broadband internet is not an essential service, I disagree (as does the nation of Finland). I think in the current time broadband internet is as essential as running water or electricity. There is not a single business that doesn't benefit from a fast, stable and cheap internet connection. Having a computer without having an internet connection has become completely useless.
I agree that colocation offers a lot of benefits for hosting your services. But a decent enough bandwith for smalltime use isn't one of 'em.
That sure is harsh language in reply to cold facts. Why do you feel this justified?
The fact of the matter is, you can't just go around and call everything that is POSIX-compliant UNIX. Especially not "true UNIX" as I am quoting from the summary. I really don't see what is so wrong about pointing this out, so please enlighten me.
Are you saying Snow Leopard doesn't differ from Leopard, so the certification is still valid? Do you not recognize the Open Group's certification? What?
Slashdot Mirror
Is that still true for cloud computing? Because you don't just "get a new server" when your code is a bit bloated. Instead, you pay too much every single day your service is online. This could really add up over time.
My question for you is, why don't you just give up and use what the entire world is using
Mr Ballmer? Is that you?
Flickr, Facebook, Wikipedia, Google, Nokia and YouTube seem to disagree.
The smallest instance is 11 cents an hour or ~$80 a month.
That's assuming the database is used every hour of every day. For a website that is only accessed occassionally, you pay a lot less of course.
Are you taking into account what the 8core xeon server with 16 GB RAM costed you and what it will cost in the future to replace it?
I wonder if programming for cloud services will bring back the need for code that is optimized for speed (or using as little resources as possible), since you pay for the actual usage of these resources.
I always though "software as a service" as a design principle for software development and "cloud computing" as a form of hosting.
So you could, for example, create software as a service by using cloud computing. You could also choose another form of hosting for your SaaS. Or provide something else using cloud computing.
well i am not IT pro or something, but what exactly is "new" on this cloud?
The fact that you pay only for what you actually use and the services scales automatically to fit your needs.
I bet the guys behind this aren't too happy to hear this.
Be that as it may, I actually quite like the repository on my Linux box. And I also quite like the App Store on my iPhone. I think it would be very nice if something like this was also available for Windows and Mac OS X.
If I'm reading you correctly, what you're saying is that because the source is available, it's perfectly acceptable to expect the end user to compile everything?
No, I'm saying that because the source is available for most applications in Linux, there hasn't been a need for a 'fat binary' option, like there was when Mac OS X switched from PPC to Intel. So it makes sense it took some time before this feature was developed, since it's not exactly a priority.
People need to get that silly idea out of their heads if they ever want Linux to become a relevant desktop operating system.
I'm not an advocate of Linux on the desktop, I'm just stating my observations.
I've compiled several tools for Mac OS X, Linux and FreeBSD using nothing but "./configure && make". I'm sure there are some exceptions and of course, sometimes you have to get some dependencies first (but you can compile those using exactly the same procedure)... but editting files or setting flags in order to get stuff to work has not been something I've encountered on a large scale.
I know my experience is not significant for the population as a whole, but I still feel no kittens should be killed when I or someone else says compiling sotware on a Unix-like box is pretty easy.
Who or what the free is Carlin?
It's a significant step forward
It's quite a sad state of affairs when moving to one of the most common and widely used back-ends for a website is considered "a significant step forward".
Yeah, having one word with two different meanings is just awesome. Every language should eventually evolve into having only one word meaning everything.
No, my example wasn't a Linux one. Who cares. The main point is that it's not just that easy to build from source.
Well, since TFA is about a fat binary system for Linux, it is kinda relevant to narrow your scope to just Linux. How stuff in Windows or any other operating system work has nothing to do with this new Linux-specific feature.
That said, Windows is probably the worst platform for consumers wanting to compile their own applications. It doesn't provide any tools to do so by itself and if the source you want to compile doesn't include something like a Visual Studio project file, you're in for a very hard time. Linux doesn't suffer this fate at all. Compiling an application is in most cases nothing more complex than typing "./configure && make" and you're good to go.
Besides, what is so horrible about having fat binaries on Linux?
Nothing. I'm not saying it is. In fact, I'm saying it isn't. It just doesn't surprise me that it took a long time before someone started to develop something like this, while other platforms had this feature for quite a few years, because the need for this on Linux isn't on the same level as it was for Mac OS X back when Universal Binaries made their entry.
Furthermore, I think you mean to say that it's "only useful for non-open source applications" as there are tons of free software applications out there that are not open source but are free (like Microsoft's Express editions of Visual Studio).
I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. I mean free as in freedom. MS Visual Studio Express isn't free, it just doesn't cost any money to purchase.
If you have access to the source, you can always compile a version for your platform. The 'fat binary' principle is only useful for non-free applications, where the end-user can't compile the application himself and has to use the binary provided by the vendor.
Since most apps for Linux are free and the source is available, this feature isn't as useful as it is on the Mac. Not that it shouldn't be created, but it makes sense to me why it took a while before someone started developing this for Linux.
For putting the Netherlands on the world map. I suppose bad publicity is publicity nonetheless.
Again it comes down to: is broadband internet an essential service? I don't think so... at least not yet. Rural businesses don't need to serve pages from the office - that's what co-location is for.
It's true, this is what it comes down too. You say broadband internet is not an essential service, I disagree (as does the nation of Finland). I think in the current time broadband internet is as essential as running water or electricity. There is not a single business that doesn't benefit from a fast, stable and cheap internet connection. Having a computer without having an internet connection has become completely useless.
I agree that colocation offers a lot of benefits for hosting your services. But a decent enough bandwith for smalltime use isn't one of 'em.
If the citizens cannot get the service they require for an acceptable fee then yes, there's quite a good reason to denigrate that country.
Then chances are that either tax money has gone to building your infrastructure or less-rural subscribers are subsidizing rural subscribers.
Exactly. And this is great, because it leads to cheaper and faster internet for everyone.
The Android Market has around 25000 apps, I believe, so I certainly don't feel left out in the cold as an Android user.
It's actually about half that number. Not saying there's nothing out there for Android, but let's stick to the facts.
Gigabit ethernet isn't so bad, now is it?
That sure is harsh language in reply to cold facts. Why do you feel this justified?
The fact of the matter is, you can't just go around and call everything that is POSIX-compliant UNIX. Especially not "true UNIX" as I am quoting from the summary. I really don't see what is so wrong about pointing this out, so please enlighten me.
Are you saying Snow Leopard doesn't differ from Leopard, so the certification is still valid? Do you not recognize the Open Group's certification? What?