I get it... since ZFS and AdvAFS are "journaled" and not "journaling" they can restore your data before you even write it. They should port this technology to their inkjets.
I've seen more and more of this "provisioning" talk lately, and when you really get down to it people mean they want one image (same kernel/config files, etc) on all machines. My first question is "Whatever happened to net booting?
I completely agree with that statement. I can't believe people think it's ok for any search engine to provide censored information. First of all, it's not clear what "censored means". We're assuming it means that some results simply are not included. What happens when they (Chinese Gov't) say, "ok, when someone searches for 'civil liberties', we want them to be returned the results from www.foo.cn/bullshit-rsponse.
Let's assume it is simply don't this, that, and the other thing. What happens when I ask about historical facts, and some dont' appear? Knowingly providing people with partial information is not a "good thing".
I think Google's "Do no evil" will always and forever be their "Mission Accomplished" statement.
So I'm just about 180 from you. I'm make a living as a software developer and use the command line almost exclusively (except for browsing the web). I made the "switch" about two years ago (at home) from Linux to Mac OS and was really happy. I had the best of both worlds. I recently decided to buy a new PC (big mistake) and installed windows vista on it. I did this because I wanted to learn more about win32 development. About a month ago, I decided to try Unbuntu. Everyone is always talking about this new linux distro that is so wonderful. At first I was very impressed. It actually resized my NTFS partition and setup dual boot without a flaw. Then I started fielding questions from my wife about manging pictures and transferring music with our ipod and realized that it's nowhere near ready for mainstream use. I had to rebuild my favorite game (bzflag) from source to get sound working properly, which is my biggest complaint. The core sound system on linux seems to be re-architected once a year.
The reason Linux will fail on the desktop and succeed as a server platform is (in my mind) due to fragmentation and duplicate effort. If you look at the development of the kernel itself, it's IBM, novell, redhat, and a relatively small set of individuals. The changes they are submitting are being filtered through an even smaller set of gatekeepers. This prevents random features from just popping up inside the kernel and it ensures that things that people don't want to work on that should be actually get fixed. Remember if a customer complains about a kernel bug, then IBM or someone who's getting paid will probably have to work on it. You can also look at device drivers. How man drivers do you have for a device? Probably one.
Now look at the UI/Desktop. We have a half-dozen or more media players, window managers, widget sets, etc. And now with Mono everything is being done again but in C#. It's more of a playground than a stable platform. We (as the Linux community) never finished the first 5 media players and now we're building another one. This leads to fragmentation of development effort and to people abandoning projects before they're complete. Sure it's choice, but I'd rather have a choice between 2 good media players rather than 10 unfinished ones. I'm using the media player here as an example, but this pretty much applies to all things on the desktop. Too many people doing the same thing over and over.
I'm not saying it's bad, Linux is a nice environment to simply learn a new language or API, but as far as bringing it up to commercial grade level... probably never.
The real value (shareholder value) with businesses like amazon are they they have an enormous customer base with much less overhead than a traditional retailer. They don't have the employee count, real estate requirements, etc. This makes them a much more efficient business. Taxing the shit out their products is going to cut into their revenue. Ultimately with sales tax and shipping costs, which are increasing as another poster pointer out, will make shopping at the local walmart a better option. So now you throw in a bunch of states and a federal goverment that can't stop spending OUR money and a bunch of walmart lobbyists and what do you get. Well, they stymie companies like amazon so they can spend more of OUR money on god knows what, and throw a bone to companies like walmart. This causes companies like amazon to let go of some of those well-paid programmers, admins, etc, and guess what??? Walmart's hiring.
I've seen a bunch of very interesting comments revolving around politics and law. What I'd like to see is people on slashdot spending more of their intellectual energy challenging our local political system. I think collectively we can have an affect.
Yes, suprisingly, I read the blog post. I'm just a little ambivalent with the strategy that they used. It seems by the wording of the article that they really didn't care whether they won or not, actually suggesting they didn't even want to win. They simply wanted to "manipulate" a market.
Let's say you and I are at the Toyota dealer and you want the last car on the lot. Instead of letting you get it for the fair value (whatever that is), I decide to bid over the fair value just so you have to pay more. Why? Well maybe I think the Toyota salesman will look favorable at me the next time I'm shopping for a Toyota. Or maybe I just have so much money that I don't care if I have to pay over fair value. I just want the chance to make you pay more for it.
Define "parrallel programing". Behind "realtime", I think "parallel programming" is the most overloaded term in the computing industry.
For me, I consider "parallel progamming", pvm, mpi and other similar technologies. I think others will consider plaing old multi-threaded programming parallel programming. When these guys talk about the new new thing, I'm not sure if they're talking about the HPC market sort of opening up to the consumer (albeit packed up nicely) or are they just suggesting that new apps use the multi-core processors better?
It's not as much made up as it is blown out of proportion.
I "switched" to vista a few months back after buying a new PC. I made an inverse switch from Macs which I migrated to from Linux. I've been threating my wife that I'm gonna just put linux on our PC, but I keep hearing "How do I get the red-eye out again ?" in my sleep. I installed sp1 last night and no problems thus far. My "COM surrogate" -- whatever that is -- crashes pretty much every day. Hopefully windows doesn't need it for anything too important. The system seems to work regardless. I was actually hoping the SP1 install would fail miserably so that I that I'd have an excuse (mostly for myself) to install fedora.
I completely disagree. What you're talking about is a variation on vendor lock-in. This is the business model Microsoft uses and presumably no one likes. It your compnay is strategically engineering products that are hard to use or maintain so that you can continue to tap your customers for additioanl revenue then you're in a trouble in the long term. Eventaully another vendor will replace you with a more efficient system. Efficient in terms of cheaper to own. My product does what yours does but it doesn't take expensive consultation to run it. All else event, my product will win. I do agree with a lot of what you're saying. Having a long term relationship with a vendor is much better than bouncing around. But when I see something like "aligned interests", I can only think that some business guy is really putting a favorable spin on hidden fees -- like bug fixes and integration work.
But let's drop the theoretical software business model discussion and get back to what we're really talkining about, which is replacing a point-of-sale system at a comic shop. The consumer of the system, as you pointed out, almost certainly wants to invest nothing for a big return. He's alreay got something as close to that as he's going to get. He's got a working system. My doubtfulness of the whole situation comes down to the question as to whether a new system -- based on any technology -- is going to provide any additional value to his business. If I'm the comic shop owner, I'm going to ask, "What is a new system going to cost (in dollars) and what's it going to do that my current system doesn't do?"
How many comic books are you going to have to sell to pay for a new point-of-sale system?
I'm sorry to say I too feel as though slashdot has deteriorated into a Microsoft bashing frenzy. Looking at this post being moded to "Insightful" (at the moment) is silly. It should be "Obvious"
Disk space is cheap is a the biggest misunderstood cliche people always use. Yes, 500 gig sata drives a are cheap on newegg. But once you put a bunch of disks together and make a giant filesytem, managing it becomes very clostly. What most people fail to realize is that most high-performance NAS systems don't use cheap drives. They use reliable expensive drives that are front-ended by high-performance expensive hardware with high-performance expensive software running on them. Yes disks are cheap, but no large filesystems are not. The other thing to remember is that both cheap and big are relative terms. FOr a home user a couple hundred bucks for 1TB of SATA space might seem cheap. But a couple hundred grand or a couple million for real NAS that has failover and reliability isn't cheap.
Don't forget... Music lovers listen to music. Audiophiles listen to stereos. (Sorry can't site origin)
They're always going to claim whatever is most expensive and least mainstream is the best.
1. The enemy of my enemy is my friend - Not necessarily
2. Linux will get cool stores, too - Never.
3. OOO is just as good as MS Office - Not really, but let's leave it at that.
4. KDE 5 will look just like Aqua - It'll probably look more like Vista's new GUI
5. Gimp and Adobe work alike. - That's not saying much
I have one question. As long as there's enough interest in the community to continue to further develop and maintain Linux and the desktop environments and vi too, why does anyone care what the "Market Share" is?
well the next time I hear someone complain about microsoft not "innovating", I'm going to point out all the UI stuff in linux that is clearly lifted from mac osx and windows. I'm referring to that youtube video of compviz that's linked from the wiki.
it's sort of interesting, all I ever hear is about the linux desktop movement. it's still all about playing catch-up with windows and mac.
The difference is that the contents of your mail is either treated as an arbitrary string of characters or it's treated as something that they can mine for interesting keywords. I sometimes send my friends, who have gmail accounts some extra text in their emails to see if I can alter their ad banners. I never really follow up on it much to confirm whether it works or not, but when they begin mining your email contents with the idea that you may be interested in what you receive, then what happens when I people think I'm intereste in some product just because I got spam? In this day when things like your credit report can be tied to your lifestyle, there's no telling what the long term affects are with this type of technology. And as I mentioned, my interests aren't necesarrily in line with the keywords that may or may not be in the contents of the email that I send/receive. I personally just don't like being profiled. Especially from a shoot-from-your-hip style communication medium like email.
Your argument is a crock. By "read" he means that they actually process the contents, not libc read(2). There's a big difference between transforming your mail into html and sending it through an AD engine. Isn't the use of "read" obvious in this context?
I think it's all a major let down. When I first read about nanotechnology it kind of went something like this: You start with two teeny tiny robots who would go off on their own and build a third. The three then collaborate and build a fourth, and so on. Eventually you have a countless number of nano-sized robots who all then arrange themselves into whatever shape they set out to create (say a bridge) simply by holding hands. Now how did we get from that to super saran wrap?
Slashdot Mirror
I get it... since ZFS and AdvAFS are "journaled" and not "journaling" they can restore your data before you even write it. They should port this technology to their inkjets.
I've seen more and more of this "provisioning" talk lately, and when you really get down to it people mean they want one image (same kernel/config files, etc) on all machines. My first question is "Whatever happened to net booting?
I completely agree with that statement. I can't believe people think it's ok for any search engine to provide censored information. First of all, it's not clear what "censored means". We're assuming it means that some results simply are not included. What happens when they (Chinese Gov't) say, "ok, when someone searches for 'civil liberties', we want them to be returned the results from www.foo.cn/bullshit-rsponse.
Let's assume it is simply don't this, that, and the other thing. What happens when I ask about historical facts, and some dont' appear? Knowingly providing people with partial information is not a "good thing".
I think Google's "Do no evil" will always and forever be their "Mission Accomplished" statement.
So I'm just about 180 from you. I'm make a living as a software developer and use the command line almost exclusively (except for browsing the web). I made the "switch" about two years ago (at home) from Linux to Mac OS and was really happy. I had the best of both worlds. I recently decided to buy a new PC (big mistake) and installed windows vista on it. I did this because I wanted to learn more about win32 development. About a month ago, I decided to try Unbuntu. Everyone is always talking about this new linux distro that is so wonderful. At first I was very impressed. It actually resized my NTFS partition and setup dual boot without a flaw. Then I started fielding questions from my wife about manging pictures and transferring music with our ipod and realized that it's nowhere near ready for mainstream use. I had to rebuild my favorite game (bzflag) from source to get sound working properly, which is my biggest complaint. The core sound system on linux seems to be re-architected once a year.
The reason Linux will fail on the desktop and succeed as a server platform is (in my mind) due to fragmentation and duplicate effort. If you look at the development of the kernel itself, it's IBM, novell, redhat, and a relatively small set of individuals. The changes they are submitting are being filtered through an even smaller set of gatekeepers. This prevents random features from just popping up inside the kernel and it ensures that things that people don't want to work on that should be actually get fixed. Remember if a customer complains about a kernel bug, then IBM or someone who's getting paid will probably have to work on it. You can also look at device drivers. How man drivers do you have for a device? Probably one.
Now look at the UI/Desktop. We have a half-dozen or more media players, window managers, widget sets, etc. And now with Mono everything is being done again but in C#. It's more of a playground than a stable platform. We (as the Linux community) never finished the first 5 media players and now we're building another one. This leads to fragmentation of development effort and to people abandoning projects before they're complete. Sure it's choice, but I'd rather have a choice between 2 good media players rather than 10 unfinished ones. I'm using the media player here as an example, but this pretty much applies to all things on the desktop. Too many people doing the same thing over and over.
I'm not saying it's bad, Linux is a nice environment to simply learn a new language or API, but as far as bringing it up to commercial grade level... probably never.
The real value (shareholder value) with businesses like amazon are they they have an enormous customer base with much less overhead than a traditional retailer. They don't have the employee count, real estate requirements, etc. This makes them a much more efficient business. Taxing the shit out their products is going to cut into their revenue. Ultimately with sales tax and shipping costs, which are increasing as another poster pointer out, will make shopping at the local walmart a better option. So now you throw in a bunch of states and a federal goverment that can't stop spending OUR money and a bunch of walmart lobbyists and what do you get. Well, they stymie companies like amazon so they can spend more of OUR money on god knows what, and throw a bone to companies like walmart. This causes companies like amazon to let go of some of those well-paid programmers, admins, etc, and guess what??? Walmart's hiring.
I've seen a bunch of very interesting comments revolving around politics and law. What I'd like to see is people on slashdot spending more of their intellectual energy challenging our local political system. I think collectively we can have an affect.
Yes, suprisingly, I read the blog post. I'm just a little ambivalent with the strategy that they used. It seems by the wording of the article that they really didn't care whether they won or not, actually suggesting they didn't even want to win. They simply wanted to "manipulate" a market. Let's say you and I are at the Toyota dealer and you want the last car on the lot. Instead of letting you get it for the fair value (whatever that is), I decide to bid over the fair value just so you have to pay more. Why? Well maybe I think the Toyota salesman will look favorable at me the next time I'm shopping for a Toyota. Or maybe I just have so much money that I don't care if I have to pay over fair value. I just want the chance to make you pay more for it.
What it sounds like they are saying is that they had no real interest in purchasing anything, just manipulating the pricing.
Define "parrallel programing". Behind "realtime", I think "parallel programming" is the most overloaded term in the computing industry. For me, I consider "parallel progamming", pvm, mpi and other similar technologies. I think others will consider plaing old multi-threaded programming parallel programming. When these guys talk about the new new thing, I'm not sure if they're talking about the HPC market sort of opening up to the consumer (albeit packed up nicely) or are they just suggesting that new apps use the multi-core processors better?
It's not as much made up as it is blown out of proportion. I "switched" to vista a few months back after buying a new PC. I made an inverse switch from Macs which I migrated to from Linux. I've been threating my wife that I'm gonna just put linux on our PC, but I keep hearing "How do I get the red-eye out again ?" in my sleep. I installed sp1 last night and no problems thus far. My "COM surrogate" -- whatever that is -- crashes pretty much every day. Hopefully windows doesn't need it for anything too important. The system seems to work regardless. I was actually hoping the SP1 install would fail miserably so that I that I'd have an excuse (mostly for myself) to install fedora.
note: really http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/offdocs/940224.htm
Well...By seraching for "something" aren't you implicitly avoiding everything else?
Charlie Airmen: "Our website is getting DOS'd" General Lord: "No, my comments got posted on slashdot"
I completely disagree. What you're talking about is a variation on vendor lock-in. This is the business model Microsoft uses and presumably no one likes. It your compnay is strategically engineering products that are hard to use or maintain so that you can continue to tap your customers for additioanl revenue then you're in a trouble in the long term. Eventaully another vendor will replace you with a more efficient system. Efficient in terms of cheaper to own. My product does what yours does but it doesn't take expensive consultation to run it. All else event, my product will win. I do agree with a lot of what you're saying. Having a long term relationship with a vendor is much better than bouncing around. But when I see something like "aligned interests", I can only think that some business guy is really putting a favorable spin on hidden fees -- like bug fixes and integration work. But let's drop the theoretical software business model discussion and get back to what we're really talkining about, which is replacing a point-of-sale system at a comic shop. The consumer of the system, as you pointed out, almost certainly wants to invest nothing for a big return. He's alreay got something as close to that as he's going to get. He's got a working system. My doubtfulness of the whole situation comes down to the question as to whether a new system -- based on any technology -- is going to provide any additional value to his business. If I'm the comic shop owner, I'm going to ask, "What is a new system going to cost (in dollars) and what's it going to do that my current system doesn't do?" How many comic books are you going to have to sell to pay for a new point-of-sale system?
Or "Why?" Why should someone agree to replace an existing, presumably working, system with something that you aren't sure is going to work.
I'm sorry to say I too feel as though slashdot has deteriorated into a Microsoft bashing frenzy. Looking at this post being moded to "Insightful" (at the moment) is silly. It should be "Obvious"
Disk space is cheap is a the biggest misunderstood cliche people always use. Yes, 500 gig sata drives a are cheap on newegg. But once you put a bunch of disks together and make a giant filesytem, managing it becomes very clostly. What most people fail to realize is that most high-performance NAS systems don't use cheap drives. They use reliable expensive drives that are front-ended by high-performance expensive hardware with high-performance expensive software running on them. Yes disks are cheap, but no large filesystems are not. The other thing to remember is that both cheap and big are relative terms. FOr a home user a couple hundred bucks for 1TB of SATA space might seem cheap. But a couple hundred grand or a couple million for real NAS that has failover and reliability isn't cheap.
Don't forget... Music lovers listen to music. Audiophiles listen to stereos. (Sorry can't site origin) They're always going to claim whatever is most expensive and least mainstream is the best.
I have one question. As long as there's enough interest in the community to continue to further develop and maintain Linux and the desktop environments and vi too, why does anyone care what the "Market Share" is?
Not to mention the solution. Don't use your brakes.
not for the slashdot crowd.
well the next time I hear someone complain about microsoft not "innovating", I'm going to point out all the UI stuff in linux that is clearly lifted from mac osx and windows. I'm referring to that youtube video of compviz that's linked from the wiki. it's sort of interesting, all I ever hear is about the linux desktop movement. it's still all about playing catch-up with windows and mac.
The difference is that the contents of your mail is either treated as an arbitrary string of characters or it's treated as something that they can mine for interesting keywords. I sometimes send my friends, who have gmail accounts some extra text in their emails to see if I can alter their ad banners. I never really follow up on it much to confirm whether it works or not, but when they begin mining your email contents with the idea that you may be interested in what you receive, then what happens when I people think I'm intereste in some product just because I got spam? In this day when things like your credit report can be tied to your lifestyle, there's no telling what the long term affects are with this type of technology. And as I mentioned, my interests aren't necesarrily in line with the keywords that may or may not be in the contents of the email that I send/receive. I personally just don't like being profiled. Especially from a shoot-from-your-hip style communication medium like email.
What if I sent it over a private VPN? Is it plain text? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Sockets_Layer
Your argument is a crock. By "read" he means that they actually process the contents, not libc read(2). There's a big difference between transforming your mail into html and sending it through an AD engine. Isn't the use of "read" obvious in this context?
I think it's all a major let down. When I first read about nanotechnology it kind of went something like this: You start with two teeny tiny robots who would go off on their own and build a third. The three then collaborate and build a fourth, and so on. Eventually you have a countless number of nano-sized robots who all then arrange themselves into whatever shape they set out to create (say a bridge) simply by holding hands. Now how did we get from that to super saran wrap?