Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Hyrbid? What's Intel's production problem? (Score 1) 39

32 GB of Optane for $77 is $2.40 per GB, Samsung 850 Pro 1 TB is $0.50 per GB. Intel is nearly 5x more expensive.

Hybrid storage systems are common in the enterprise SAN market, but generally to be useful they need something like 20% of capacity to be flash. At ratios of 1-3% of HDD capacity, I don't see the Intel use case as being especially useful.

I had a Seagate 2.5" years ago that was 32 GB flash plus 512GB and it only felt marginally faster than a standard disk drive. You didn't notice serious performance boosts until you went completely flash.

So does Intel have a yield problem or are they still ramping up production facilities to make these in quantity? It's hard to see a system more convoluted than straight SATA or NVMe flash disk being that big of a deal. I think in order to make this product competitive it has to be offered at $/GB competitive with ordinary flash disks or only a small premium.

Comment Re:Vigorous debate? Surely you jest (Score 1) 360

I've found the IT world (since I've worked full-time in it, about 1990) has always veered slightly libertarian, but not usually hard-core, more freedom oriented than dystopian libertarian.

Slashdot comments have degraded, but it's been years in the making, not a particularly recent phenomenon. IMHO there's too many politically oriented stories and maybe not enough real technology, but on the other hand I also think that real technology has been kind of idling over the last few years, too.

Comment Re: Time to switch (Score 1) 214

Bahaha, what's this full time Exchange admin you speak of? It's not 1998 and we're not struggling to keep a Exchange 5,5 box running on dedicated hardware anymore.

There is no Exchange admin anymore, at least not at any company under 1000 users or with fewer than a couple of servers. That work is done by the same admin team that manages AD, file sharing, etc, and is mostly part time.

If Exchange was your sample company's only server, then I totally agree O365 is ideal. But in most medium sized companies Exchange server isn't even a drop in the bucket anymore unless you're doing something really stupid with journaling. In the era of virtualization, the data center space, power, hardware, and nearly all the expertise is already purchased.

The marginal cost to run Exchange is trivial if you already have this infrastructure in place. The O365 math is based on these false ideas about "dedicated admins" and a bunch of dedicated hardware that went away years ago. In any organization not run by retards, running Exchange competently shouldn't be a major burden.

If you're running enough mailboxes/servers for Exchange that you can justify a dedicated admin (which I assume would be dozens of servers, many DAGs, a real complex mess) I'm not sure if O365 is a "fix" at that point, either, because now you're talking such a large userbase that the O365 licensing gets into real serious money.

Comment Re:Confirmation Bias (Score 1) 280

I would always have ignored screaming lunatics.

I think it's more of a subtle (and not so subtle) condescending attitude to "the other side". Pick your adjectives -- dishonest, cruel, stupid, immoral, and so on. Even when it's not explicitly stated.

I think those kinds tones are much harder to pull off in face-face encounters. People are forced to be more accommodating in person.

Comment Re:Cultural ethics won't allow work-free life (Score 1) 241

I agree with your logic, but the problem is that automation won't arrive all at once and the taxation burden isn't shifting to capital.

As long as the capital class continues to manipulate the tax code to fund government on the backs of wage earners, they will be able to continue to demonize people who aren't working as "stealing from working people." Capital will be successful at maintaining this Potemkin Village political economy because of lobbying and low political participation by the poor and unemployed.

The jobs will disappear slowly until there's a large, unemployed underclass, a for-display-only middle class, mostly made up of the police forces necessary to keep the underclass in line and defend capital's wealth.

Comment Cultural ethics won't allow work-free life (Score 3, Interesting) 241

Look at how bought into the "work ethic" we are and how many people justify what amounts to luck (if not outright criminality) as "hard work" and thus entitlement to moral superiority (up to and including control of others).

We already treat people who can't work for various reasons as worthless and disposable, I just can't see any transition to robotic work that requires fewer workers resulting in the people who own the robots willing giving away their added profit from automation to displaced workers.

"Surely they can pull themselves up by their bootstraps, just as I pulled myself up by the straps on my hand-made Italian leather boots bought with my family inheritance money."

Comment Re:CEO needs to go (Score 1) 112

The Uber CEO needs to go. He's what's keeping Uber from being great.

From what I hear about Uber, it seems they in so many ways act and think like criminals, but manage to keep just on the legal side of the law. Mostly. That said, though, they are just an extreme example of all the worst aspects of capitalism: the underhandedness, the ethos that says 'if we can get away with it, it must be OK', the lack of genuine care and consideration for their employees, customers and society, the sense of entitlement take what they want no matter what.

It is really sad, I think - there is a good kind of capitalism, where a clever, hardworking man or woman can grow a business from little more than their own abilities and determination, but the whole concept gets a grubby taint from the likes of Uber.

Well said.

And in future people may more often look to work for their sense of purpose in life, the place where they can build their character and compassion along with building their career. So "play fair" will be all the more important.

Comment Re:Could climate science be affected, too? (Score 1) 140

I think these are general talking points and they don't prove anything either way.

But I don't understand the claim that it is basic physics. Yes, a part of it is basic physics. But the rest of it is not. I gather many skeptics accept that CO2 on its own gives you about a degree of warming. Everything after that is largely modelled feedbacks.

How any why any particular scientific field and speciality might have gotten the theory wrong is a matter for sociologists and philosophers. We KNOW that particular fields can and do sometimes get it spectacularly wrong, like 100% the wrong way round, and that if those big errors could be prevented, people would prevent them, but shit happens. A big one has been, which has come to light recently, is nutrition and the theory that people should eat low-fat and eat mostly healthy grains. A view is spreading now amongst some scientists and doctors that that "low fat" public health advice wasn't just a bit off, it actually caused the obesity and diabetes epidemic. Sure it was supposed to be basic physics like, "energy in = energy out". Yet it was wrong and it is now costing the health services billions in people's poor health, all because a group of researchers back in the day, led their field down a particular path, where they were including evidence which supported their theory, and ignoring evidence which didn't. These were the top people in their field. The most influential and respected.

So sometimes shit happens. The problem is knowing whether it is happening now. There just are no guarantees.

Calling it "basic physics" is just a way to gloss over the fact that scientific truth is never easy to obtain. I totally accepted climate change (back when it was called global warming) because it is "science", until people started claiming it was all "settled" and "trust the authorities" and started calling critics "deniers". That's not science that's a public relations strategy, and a very bad one if the facts are really on your side.

And besides if one wants to judge trustworthiness based on vested interests, then why not nuclear and say they have an interest in quietly promoting climate change as that will, inevitably, lead to the need to renew nuclear? It isn't like we a are going to turn the lights off. And I have no qualms about nuclear, maybe it is the best idea, but it would be maybe naive to think that the nuclear industry is incapable of quietly promoting climate change over a 38 year period since Three Mile Island, due to the massive public rejection they were facing?

I'm not claiming that has happened, just that the vested interests argument is moot when everyone has a vested interest. What matters is whether the science is open to scrutiny and calling everyone "deniers" is not a good sign. And it is not "basic physics". That's just more public relations spin.

Comment Re:Confirmation Bias (Score 2) 280

I can think of two people I know on social media. One is very academic/intelligent (specialty pediatrician) and very left wing, one is very practical/intelligent but extremely right wing.

But I find myself turned off by both. Despite the former's reasonableness, they come off snide and elitist. The latter just comes off dumbed-down, parroting a lot of right wing nonsense.

What's kind of fascinating to me is that it's less their *ideas* that bother me. I agree with the pediatrician some of the time. I agree (conceptually, at least) with some of the right wing ideas.

It's the *presentation* and tone of both that turn me off, and neither person comes off that way in person. I think that's what contributes to the corrosiveness of social media, it's less about the ideas than their presentation and tone.

Comment Re: Patriot (Score 1) 196

I am really puzzled why publicly they would say one thing, while privately they believe something else.

In the last election, Republicans were orders of magnitude quieter (and less violent) than Democrats. Because they didn't fancy their cars being keyed, etc.

The control systems are maintained not because people don't understand them, but because they are afraid to speak out against them.

Comment Re:We ran the same calculus (Score 1) 214

However....backup, anti-virus, spam filtering, and a DR solution drives up the cost very quickly.

The marginal cost of backup and DR when you're *already* doing those things for an on-prem server environment is pretty close to zero, and if you're already virtualized and have a virtual-oriented backup software you probably already have DR integrated into your backup. AV and anti-spam are almost always done best these days by a third party service and the good ones do both anyway.

From the numbers I've run, it usually is cheaper to do it on prem above about 50 users with a 3 year benchmark. If you time the upgrade right, you can probably get 5 years out of it without falling more than a rev behind and cut the 50 user number way down.

It's pretty obvious Microsoft is heading subscription-only for everything. Since 2013, Exchange has lost much of its GUI which I think has been a way to scare on-prem admins away. They will ultimately either price on prem high enough that only a few compliance/security focused large organizations will consider it or support hybrid only (meaning you're paying for O365, used or not).

Cloud is about permanent vendor-lock in and rent-seeking, not economics. The marginal cost of a 5-9s commercial data center for hosting cloud services is greater than the marginal savings to users, which is why hosted systems always end up being so expensive unless you're doing something really trivial like a static web site.

Comment Re:Examples (Score 1) 214

OwnCloud is almost there. IMHO, the devs should have a team which focuses on packaging a complete "appliance" images like pfSense capable of managing the storage subsytem from a web gui.

When I last looked at it, someone had done this themselves but it took some shell work to manage the OS storage side of things, certificates, etc.

There are canned EC2 instances, but for storage intensive versions the cost is approaching or over $1/hr.

Comment Re: Time to switch (Score 2) 214

I'm curious how big companies justify anything over $5 a month.

Most companies of any size have virtualization which almost always means that running Exchange amounts to software licensing and a fairly thin amount of admin time.

A single Exchange server should scale to 500 users pretty easily -- at $35 month, you're making a $175,000 commitment or $525,000 over 3 years. The office and Exchange licensing for on-prem isn't $525,000.

I know some organizations have struggled with Exchange reliability, but I've worked in the managed services and consulting space and the vast majority of on-prem installs I've worked with have been extremely reliable and problems have usually been the result of some really bad admin decisions.

I've laid the costs out side by side for customers who have run on-prem, including admin costs, and almost none have chosen 365.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you think the system is working, ask someone who's waiting for a prompt.