Actually, you are absolutely right. Still, I think it was a major loss for Linux overall that this was done as a default upgrade to Gnome 2 - and not simply offered as an additional alternative (which even could have been the default for new installs).
"The biggest thing any program can do is not the technical details of the program itself; it’s how useful the program is to users. So any time any program (like the kernel or any other project), breaks the user experience, to me, that’s the absolute worst failure that a software project can make." (Linus Torvalds)
Yeah right because the kernel doesn't break its ABI/API on each release...
I am not sure what you mean... I can't remember that I ever had a single problem with compatibility related to the kernel. Nor did I ever have a problem at the libc level. Everything above which was UI related, lots of regular breakage.
I can't agree more. It is not that they are not free to develop whatever they want or that they are not free to stop working on Gnome 2.. The issue is that they misused the trust people put into Gnome 2 to switch people over to their completely incompatible and different Gnome 3 - breaking user experience.
Compare that with the philosophy of the Linux kernel:
"The biggest thing any program can do is not the technical details of the program itself; it’s how useful the program is to users. So any time any program (like the kernel or any other project), breaks the user experience, to me, that’s the absolute worst failure that a software project can make." (Linus Torvalds)
Seems I misunderstood what you wanted to say with "underutilized". If you want to say: we have more storage and more power from pumped storage then we actually use, yes. That is exactly the point of it, otherwise it would be risky to run the grid.
The sources you gave are irrelevant.
Your refusal to look at actual data or provide sources for your statements is annoying and makes all discussion with you pointless.
Linux with something as gnome3 as UI (and yes I tried), binary log files, and no network transparency (I use it every day and it works perfectly) and - even worse - broken backwards compatibility, indeed as no appeal to me anymore.
Now, I am not complaining that people develop such stuff - they are - of course - free to develop whatever they want. The problem I people have is that it is forced down on us on a regular upgrade path - instead of offered as an option. I also hate the lying and FUD (e.g. the network transparency is broken already bullshit).
In the end, this will just cause a split in the Linux community. The dumbed-down version with binary-logiles, fancy mobile-inspired UI, and no network transparency for people who just want a free alternative to windows and a version with backwards compatibility, and powerful command-line tools, and network transparency. And yes, I think this split might be a good thing.
Ofc power of pumped storage does not come close to 10GW, that is precisely the reason, we "only" have slightly under 10GW installed, more is not needed
Not coming close to the installed capacity is the definition of underutilized. My point is exactly that Germany currently has more than enough pumped storage, so what are you trying to tell me?
Pumped-storage definitely is also not profitable at the moment because solar reduced peak power prices
That is nonsense in several dimensions.
Hey, I gave a source. Although I admit I should have said: building more pumped storage is currently not profitable. Maybe the old ones can still be operated in a profitable way, but considering the low utilization I somehow doubt it.
'Peak' power prices are high, and solar profits from that, there is no real decrease in prices around peak times due to solar power.
Peak power prices in Germany are *not* high anymore:
"The spread in Day-Ahead prices between peak and baseload hours reached an all time low of 4.36 €/MWh in 2013, the maximum spread was
2006 with 13.85 €/MWh (inflation adjusted in prices of 2010)." (fraunhofer)
Next is: "peak" does not mean what you think it does. That is why I put it in quotes.
You are not making sense. What is you definition of peak?
Third, pumped storage is not used for 'power production', it is a storage, hence the name.
Yes - again - I know this - why are you telling me this?
Finally: pumped storage plants are the most profitable plants in germany.
Interesting, that is why most projects have been put on hold?
“Currently, such systems are not economical to operate, but we expect a realisation for our project in the next ten years, this means not before 2023-2024,” said a Stadtwerke Mainz spokesman." (From the link I posted.)
They buy energy for negative prices, they not only get it 'for free' but get 'profit' on top of it.
Negative prices exist occasionally and only for short amount of time. They can make a profit at that time but not much because it does not last long. In the past they could make a lot of profit by buying cheap electricity in the night and selling it at peak time. This is much less profitable now because the difference between peak and base prices is much less.
Their comtribution to the grid is huge.
No.
They are the primary contributors to 'primary reserve energy' (seconds reserve, seconds as in time) and also important for 'secundary reserve energy' (minute reserve, minute as in time).
I don't doubt that pumped storage can be useful in providing balancing power. But the market for balancing power is not big enough to make them profitable right now.
The actual numbers (a bit outsated) about how much pumped storage germany has installed, you can find on wikipedia.
I know how much there is installed, thank you. This discussion is not about how much is installed, but how much is actually used.
And: pumped storage plants work both ways: they artificially increase demand to fit the current power production _and_ they are the prime contributor to fix sudden surges in demand and keep the grid frequency stable.
Power companies call demand shaping 'peak'? I don't know what you are trying to say....
Could we use more of them? Yes in 10 to 30 years when we are primarily renewable, but right now we have - 'typicaly german' - more than twice the amount we need to keep the grid(s) stable.
Thank you. This was exactly my point: There is more than enough pumped storage right now in Germany - despite the already high amount of intermittent power sources such as wind and solar. For 80% or 100% renewables more could be useful.
Pumped storage is certainly not underutilized in Germany.
You can look up the actual use of pumped storage here:
http://www.agora-energiewende....
Power from pump storage never even comes close to 10GW. Does look pretty underutilized to me. But if you have better data, please share.
Pumped-storage definitely is also not profitable at the moment because solar reduced peak power prices:
http://www.icis.com/resources/...
Pumped storage does not show up on 'renewable' charts as it is a zero sum game, you get the same energy out of it you pumped up first.
Ofcourse, why are you telling me this?
If you had a clue how power grids work you would not make such brain dead comments.
Well, if you would be able to present actual numbers, you would not have to resort to insults.
Germany has roughly 10GW pumped storage power and roughly 50GWh storage as work/energy.
This sounds about right, but this is installed capacity, not what is actually used.
Afaik in percentage of daily power production we are world leader.
This. Solar nicely produces at peak times. Pumped storage is currently under-utilized in Germany.
On the other hand, it might equally well be price discrimination where they turn off perfectly working features just to be able to sell the same product to different people for a different price. Who knows?
Does it matter? The product is different, whether the inaccessible bits are working or not is irrelevant. It isn't price discrimination because the product is different.
The real questions are: Should the consumer (or some reselller?) be allowed to turn the working features back on? Is it OK if NVIDIA tries to prevent this with code signing? If the features are actually broken, than these questions are of less relevance.
On the other hand, it might equally well be price discrimination
So what you're saying is, if you sold a computer on ebay and said "This computers CPU fan is bad - you MUST replace the CPU fan before use!!!" you are admitting to criminal fraud simply because I should somehow expect a working CPU fan?!
How on earth does that even make sense?
How does you reply even make sense? This has nothing to do with what I wrote.
They could be open and sell each chip at its fair market price for its level of functionality. Chips sold at the wrong price level can only happen if they *do* price discrimination. On the other hand, if product binning were the only reason as claimed by some posters this could not happen - there would be no chips sold at the wrong price.
Mod parent up.
There also better solutions than code signing if it were only about preventing people from getting silicon with broken cores sold as fully functional: Just publish the test result with the serial number.
On the other hand, it might equally well be price discrimination where they turn off perfectly working features just to be able to sell the same product to different people for a different price. Who knows?
In the context about dhcp, there was a very similar problem before and people added some sanitation:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/c...
So yes, people are aware that having an attacker control parts of the environment is a bad idea and this needs to be restriced. But for some reason this fix to dhcp does not cover all possibilties..
No, it seems that any command is run using the user's shell which might be bash.
Work without a vision is slavery, Vision without work is a pipe dream, But vision with work is the hope of the world.
