Are you switching to BSD just for ZFS?

Learning BSD is probably a good investment, but ZFS on Linux is production/stable and is excellent. I've been using on CENTOS 6 for over a year and it has been even more stable than EXT4 in a production environment.

I bought a Dell laptop (Precision M3800) last week from the Dell business laptop dept. The sales guys assumed I'd want Win7 and the laptop (by default) comes with Win7 installed. When I asked about that, they said that it "technically included Windows 8 media" but that everybody wants one running Win7.

I find this quit interesting as Win7 has officially gone EOL. Personally, I plan on running Fedora Linux, but still....

I found this one on a trip down memory lane. Runs in a DOSBox and works great on my Win7 laptop! Yes, it's ENTIRELY LEGAL. you can get the download here.

The curated app store only carries "modern" apps. Desktop applications need not apply. A case of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory...

Get off my lawn, blah blah...

Meanwhile, flash has revolutionized storage. We saw at least a 95% reduction in query times on our DB servers when we switched from RAID5 15K SAS drives to RAID1 flash SSDs. Floppies are history, and 32 GB thumb drives cost $5. SSDs have been catching up to their HDD brethren, now just 2-4 years behind the cost/capacity curve, and spinning rust has just about reached EOL, with Shingled Hard drives that make you choose between write speeds and write capacity being a necessary compromise for increased capacity.

I have no idea why you'd be so dismissive.

FWIW: RAIDZ can offer 1, 2, or 3 levels of redundancy.

I don't see why these are mutually exclusive. The trick is to set aside the math for the ballots themselves with the math for verifying the ballots.

Let's say you take 100 ballots, and randomize their order. You make hashes of the ballots and hash the sum of hashes. Keep the hash of hashes and you can easily verify that the numbers add up, while simultaneously anonymizing the ballots on a per-voter basis, making it instead 1% likely that any vote can be attributed to one person.

he doesn't give a single example of any of that. He just makes the unsubstantiated claim.

Because the point of the blog post wasn't to prove that this was the case, but to offer an opinion on how bad it's gotten and why it may be happening. His audience is very familiar with Apple gear, spelling everything out from first principles is unnecessary and a distraction from the meat of the article. Know your audience.

Gigaom's Carmel DeAmicis reports that brands pay Twitter to falsely appear in your following list

This isn't true. This was a bug that has already been fixed.

... or you could set up ZFS with a mirrored vdev and keep snapshots. All the benefits of RAID1, combined with all the benefits of keeping any number of sync'ed disks laying around. If you have many disks, go with RAIDZ and get the reliability of RAID5 too.

If you store lots of data, once you ZFS you'll never want to go back.

I'm not complaining that you aren't being charitable. I'm pointing out that you misspoke then blamed me for it. If you misspoke, then own your words and just say "whoops, I didn't mean those guys" instead of looking for somebody else to shift blame to.

I'm talking about Facebook and Google, two of the companies explicitly listed in the article. You did RTFA right? Or are you one of those tards who manufactures the least charitable interpretation of what someone says and goes to town on them with a straw man?

The title of this submission: Google and Apple. The summary: Google and Apple. The article: Adobe, Apple, Facebook, Google and Yahoo. You said "both companies". Only two companies were singled out, Google and Apple. So yeah, to a reasonable person, it looks very much like you started off talking about Google and Apple, then expanded your point by talking about Facebook, and then to the other companies. Don't call me a "tard" because you fucked up what you were saying and I interpreted it in the most reasonable manner.

They are like google

The two companies have entirely different business models. Analytics is central to Google's business model. It's barely a blip on Apple's radar, and is insignificant compared with the way they use it as a differentiator.

Sure, Apple has business lines that generate income from hardware sales

That's so understated it's downright misrepresentative. They make billions of dollars a quarter from hardware sales. Even the amount of money they could theoretically make from analytics would be a drop in the bucket compared with that, let alone any earnings they might actually have. The potential chilling effect on their real business is far more relevant than any theoretical profits there. And you mention it like "oh yeah, they make money from hardware too"? Come on.

Both company's entire business models are 100% predicated on tracking people.

What are you talking about? Apple's business model revolves around selling people hardware. They've just launched a digital payment scheme with privacy being a major differentiator. If you think that Apple's business model is "100% predicated on tracking people", you don't know the first thing about their business model.

There is simply no way these companies will ever agree to not track anyone when there is that kind of money on the line.

Apple are positioning themselves to use privacy as a selling point. Their business model is entirely different to Google's and they can make more money by going in the opposite direction.

Actually, those $0.02 make all the difference in the world.

1) Sold for $0.01 means that the new owner can do whatever they want with it, including sell it to North Korea for $5, hoping that the NKs have enough to make the check clear.

2) Paid $0.01 means that it's a demolitions contract, and the recipient has obligations to perform a service under specific terms. While many commercial contracts limit liability to the size of the contract, (in this case, $0.01 damages) my guess is that this wouldn't be the case for a DOD contract.