Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Last revolutionary M$ product (Score 1) 213

WTF ?! - a kludgy OS that was outdated at its launch - it had been preceded by better OS's in Windows NT and OS/2. MS should have been producing a Lite version of NT in 1995, but someone in MS was still in love with DOS and wanted to keep building OSs on its ricketty foundation - as they did with Win95/98/ME for 5 wasted years.
It wasn't Microsoft that kept DOS alive (with the possible exception of ME), it was customers.
The kind of compatibility customers wanted, couldn't be provided without a hybrid like Windows 9x.

Comment Re:Lesson One (Score 1) 213

It's just as sound as it was, the day Dave Cutler's team built an experimental port of VMS to CMU Mach. [sympatico.ca] It's just as sound a kernel, as the day Microsoft ripped-off VMS from DEC.
And by "ripped off" you mean "hired the team responsible for building it and employed them to build an OS", right ?

Comment Re:20x faster (Score 1) 172

At the moment SSD's are excellent when you need high I/O from a few disks up to say a few TB however if you look at enterprise storage solutions of 10's or even 1000's of TBytes you are still looking at spinning media with large cache front ends (BTW I am talking about $20k up to many millions of dollars storage area networks).
Well, what you're usually looking at is a storage system with multiple types and speeds of disks that automatically moves data through the tiers depending on the frequency and type of access. SSDs will form one of these tiers. If the storage system is any good, it will also let you manually pin or hint specific subsets of your data so that they are always held on the fastest tier (ie: SSDs).
Since the _active_ subset of data even in quite large organisations is generally relatively small, a few hundred GB or a few TB of flash will often give 90%+ of the real-life performance that a pure flash array would.

Comment Re:Observation: (Score 1) 434

I never said constraining free will was negative, I suggested that removing the bad consequences of bad choices negates the purpose of being able to make that choice in the first place.
A somewhat reasonable position to take for people whose bad choices impact only them.
Your implicit argument, however, is that there's no such thing as an innocent victim. This position is untenable.
I hold a person who has the ability to save someone from harm but refuses to do so in the highest contempt. I fail to see why a god should be held to a lower one.

Slashdot Top Deals

Old programmers never die, they just hit account block limit.

Working...