[News] Financial 'Analysts' Still Can't Understand Linux, Virtualisation - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] Financial 'Analysts' Still Can't Understand Linux, Virtualisation - Linux ; Is Virtualization Just Another Buzzword? ,----[ Quote ] | The other problem is that given that virtualization is such a hot buzzword, | it is being thrown into the IT investment research mix in ways that make | entirely no ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: [News] Financial 'Analysts' Still Can't Understand Linux, Virtualisation

  1. [News] Financial 'Analysts' Still Can't Understand Linux, Virtualisation

    Is Virtualization Just Another Buzzword?

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | The other problem is that given that virtualization is such a hot buzzword,
    | it is being thrown into the IT investment research mix in ways that make
    | entirely no sense at all technically.
    `----

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/4855...d?source=yahoo

    You might as well guess that some people, who type away on their Windows XP PC,
    cannot grasp the fact that their CPU is idle most of the time and memory is
    unused. Virtualisation will reach the desktop too (thin-clients or meshed
    computing likely).


    Related:

    From the same guy...

    Red Hat Deserves A Pass For One Quarter

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | I was sorry to see Red Hat step into the government-sponsored issue, seeming
    | to be happy about government mandates worldwide that preclude competitors.
    | This attitude is from the school of thought that says “if you can’t beat
    | Microsoft in the marketplace (against whom Red Hat doesn’t really compete if
    | you study the rest of its statistics), hire a lobbyist, make a political
    | contribution, and ask for a government hand-out” in terms of a wired contract
    | or stifling regulation. Acceptance of that big-company attitude, something
    | you expect of IBM, is the biggest concern to come out of Red Hat’s latest
    | quarterly conference call. * * * *
    `----

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/4846...r?source=yahoo
    http://tinyurl.com/36txcf


  2. Re: [News] Financial 'Analysts' Still Can't Understand Linux, Virtualisation

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz

    wrote
    on Tue, 02 Oct 2007 00:31:28 +0100
    <2325665.smrH3yxI7e@schestowitz.com>:
    > Is Virtualization Just Another Buzzword?
    >
    > ,----[ Quote ]
    > | The other problem is that given that virtualization is such a hot buzzword,
    > | it is being thrown into the IT investment research mix in ways that make
    > | entirely no sense at all technically.
    > `----
    >
    > http://seekingalpha.com/article/4855...d?source=yahoo


    It makes not a whit of difference. *All processes* within
    a modern OS are virtual anyway; they can execute any
    instruction. (The illegal ones convert into kernel traps.)

    The modern "virtual environment" extends this a bit; a
    process can write into a display address area, and another
    process picks up these writes (or just the data therein)
    and displays it. The first process doesn't have a clue as
    to exactly where it's writing; it just thinks it's some
    sort of display. But even without such an environment,
    a process can still write into a virtual address and the
    framebuffer driver might pick it up for display.

    >
    > You might as well guess that some people, who type away on their
    > Windows XP PC, cannot grasp the fact that their CPU is idle most
    > of the time and memory is unused.


    Unused? Hah. XP isn't exactly efficient on that score. :-)

    > Virtualisation will reach the desktop too (thin-clients or meshed
    > computing likely).


    It already has; VmWare, QEMU, and Bochs come to mind.
    Of course the desktop was highly virtual to begin with
    anyway; an X window is an abstract token handled by the
    X server, for example.

    >
    >
    > Related:
    >
    > From the same guy...
    >
    > Red Hat Deserves A Pass For One Quarter
    >
    > ,----[ Quote ]
    > | I was sorry to see Red Hat step into the government-sponsored
    > | issue, seeming to be happy about government mandates worldwide
    > | that preclude competitors. This attitude is from the school
    > | of thought that says ?if you can?t beat Microsoft in the
    > | marketplace (against whom Red Hat doesn?t really compete if
    > | you study the rest of its statistics), hire a lobbyist, make
    > | a political contribution, and ask for a government hand-out?
    > | in terms of a wired contract or stifling regulation. Acceptance
    > | of that big-company attitude, something you expect of IBM,
    > | is the biggest concern to come out of Red Hat?s latest
    > | quarterly conference call. * * * *
    > `----
    >
    > http://seekingalpha.com/article/4846...r?source=yahoo
    > http://tinyurl.com/36txcf
    >



    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Linux. An OS which actually, unlike certain other offerings, works.

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  3. Re: [News] Financial 'Analysts' Still Can't Understand Linux, Virtualisation

    ____/ The Ghost In The Machine on Tuesday 02 October 2007 02:46 : \____

    > It already has; VmWare, QEMU, and Bochs come to mind.
    > Of course the desktop was highly virtual to begin with
    > anyway; an X window is an abstract token handled by the
    > X server, for example.


    Yes, it's already there, but rarely does one share load across different
    workstation. It would be nice to 'borrow' some cycles from a colleagues PC if
    s/he only read some document off the screen. Moving the load to the server or
    making all programs Web/server-based is one possibility, but there are other
    interesting options.

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Microsoft loves competition.
    "I’d be glad to help tilt lotus into into the death spiral. I could do it
    Friday afternoon but not Saturday. I could do it pretty much any time the
    following week."
    --bradsi, Microsoft

  4. Re: [News] Financial 'Analysts' Still Can't Understand Linux, Virtualisation

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz

    wrote
    on Tue, 02 Oct 2007 06:49:57 +0100
    <2669443.S8oSdvrrQ3@schestowitz.com>:
    > ____/ The Ghost In The Machine on Tuesday 02 October 2007 02:46 : \____
    >
    >> It already has; VmWare, QEMU, and Bochs come to mind.
    >> Of course the desktop was highly virtual to begin with
    >> anyway; an X window is an abstract token handled by the
    >> X server, for example.

    >
    > Yes, it's already there, but rarely does one share load
    > across different workstation. It would be nice to
    > 'borrow' some cycles from a colleagues PC if s/he only
    > read some document off the screen. Moving the load to
    > the server or making all programs Web/server-based is
    > one possibility, but there are other interesting options.
    >


    I'd have to research the matter, but a quick Google
    coughed up

    http://lcic.org/

    ("Linux Clustering Information Center")

    and

    http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/doc...ster-HOWTO.pdf

    ("Linux Cluster HOWTO" -- PDF required)

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #12398234:
    void f(char *p) {char *q = strdup(p); strcpy(p,q);}

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  5. Re: Financial 'Analysts' Still Can't Understand Linux, Virtualisation

    On Oct 1, 4:31 pm, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    > ,----[ Quote ]
    > | I was sorry to see Red Hat step into the government-sponsored issue, seeming
    > | to be happy about government mandates worldwide that preclude competitors.
    > | This attitude is from the school of thought that says "if you can't beat
    > | Microsoft in the marketplace (against whom Red Hat doesn't really compete if
    > | you study the rest of its statistics), hire a lobbyist, make a political
    > | contribution, and ask for a government hand-out" in terms of a wired contract
    > | or stifling regulation. Acceptance of that big-company attitude, something
    > | you expect of IBM, is the biggest concern to come out of Red Hat's latest
    > | quarterly conference call.
    > `----
    >
    > http://seekingalpha.com/article/4846...url.com/36txcf


    Richard Reich in his book tour lecture for "Supercapitalism" made some
    interesting comments about Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and lobbyists.
    The lecture and Q&A are on fora.tv

    http://fora.tv




  6. Re: [News] Financial 'Analysts' Still Can't Understand Linux, Virtualisation

    ____/ The Ghost In The Machine on Tuesday 02 October 2007 15:59 : \____

    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
    >
    > wrote
    > on Tue, 02 Oct 2007 06:49:57 +0100
    > <2669443.S8oSdvrrQ3@schestowitz.com>:
    >> ____/ The Ghost In The Machine on Tuesday 02 October 2007 02:46 : \____
    >>
    >>> It already has; VmWare, QEMU, and Bochs come to mind.
    >>> Of course the desktop was highly virtual to begin with
    >>> anyway; an X window is an abstract token handled by the
    >>> X server, for example.

    >>
    >> Yes, it's already there, but rarely does one share load
    >> across different workstation. It would be nice to
    >> 'borrow' some cycles from a colleagues PC if s/he only
    >> read some document off the screen. Moving the load to
    >> the server or making all programs Web/server-based is
    >> one possibility, but there are other interesting options.
    >>

    >
    > I'd have to research the matter, but a quick Google
    > coughed up
    >
    > http://lcic.org/
    >
    > ("Linux Clustering Information Center")
    >
    > and
    >
    >

    http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/doc...ster-HOWTO.pdf
    >
    > ("Linux Cluster HOWTO" -- PDF required)


    Along the lines of a network mesh (/a la/ OLPC), maybe you could pool RAM and
    CPU cycles. The only problem with that is the low throughput (wireless) and
    the possibility of losing connectivity. You can't recover from lost
    threads/memory buffer like you can recover from lost packets by
    retransmitting.

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | INQredible Hacktivism
    http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    Tasks: 156 total, 1 running, 154 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie
    http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine

  7. Re: Financial 'Analysts' Still Can't Understand Linux, Virtualisation

    ____/ John Bailo, Texeme.Construct on Tuesday 02 October 2007 16:04 : \____

    > On Oct 1, 4:31 pm, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >
    >> ,----[ Quote ]
    >> | I was sorry to see Red Hat step into the government-sponsored issue,
    >> | seeming to be happy about government mandates worldwide that preclude
    >> | competitors. This attitude is from the school of thought that says "if you
    >> | can't beat Microsoft in the marketplace (against whom Red Hat doesn't
    >> | really compete if you study the rest of its statistics), hire a lobbyist,
    >> | make a political contribution, and ask for a government hand-out" in terms
    >> | of a wired contract or stifling regulation. Acceptance of that big-company
    >> | attitude, something you expect of IBM, is the biggest concern to come out
    >> | of Red Hat's latest quarterly conference call.
    >> `----
    >>
    >>

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/4846...url.com/36txcf
    >
    > Richard Reich in his book tour lecture for "Supercapitalism" made some
    > interesting comments about Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and lobbyists.
    > The lecture and Q&A are on fora.tv
    >
    > http://fora.tv


    Is that the same thing some people call "extreme capitalism" (AKA
    corporate/puppet state)?

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | INQredible Hacktivism
    http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    Tasks: 156 total, 1 running, 154 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie
    http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine

  8. Re: [News] Financial 'Analysts' Still Can't Understand Linux, Virtualisation

    Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:

    > Along the lines of a network mesh (/a la/ OLPC), maybe you could pool
    > RAM and CPU cycles. The only problem with that is the low throughput
    > (wireless) and the possibility of losing connectivity. You can't
    > recover from lost threads/memory buffer like you can recover from
    > lost packets by retransmitting.


    No but you can split jobs into chunks across distributed clients, then
    periodically poll for results, or better yet just have a socket
    listening for announcements from other clients. That way even if the
    connection is temporarily lost, the worst case is that one or more of
    the clients may be idle for some of that period, after they run out of
    input data (e.g render farm).

    The bottleneck is network speed, of course. My gigabit network handles
    raw AV quite admirably, but I wouldn't fancy trying it over 802.11.

    But this is distributed computing rather than virtualisation though.
    Still, the distributed model might be applicable to a surprisingly
    diverse range of tasks, up (or is that down) to and including the OS
    itself, given the right approach.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | "OOXML is a superb standard"
    | - GNU/Linux traitor, Miguel de Icaza.
    `----

    Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.22.1-41.fc7
    23:12:36 up 54 days, 22:07, 2 users, load average: 0.03, 0.07, 0.08

  9. Re: Financial 'Analysts' Still Can't Understand Linux, Virtualisation

    Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
    > ____/ John Bailo, Texeme.Construct on Tuesday 02 October 2007 16:04 :
    > \____


    >> Richard Reich in his book tour lecture for "Supercapitalism" made
    >> some interesting comments about Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and
    >> lobbyists. The lecture and Q&A are on fora.tv
    >>
    >> http://fora.tv


    Good lecture. In summary, the overall conclusion is that greed has
    overwhelmed morality, and that corporate interests come before the
    interests of citizens.

    I especially enjoyed his method of dealing with lobbyists.

    > Is that the same thing some people call "extreme capitalism" (AKA
    > corporate/puppet state)?


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

    It's what happens when capitalism replaces democracy.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | "OOXML is a superb standard"
    | - GNU/Linux traitor, Miguel de Icaza.
    `----

    Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.22.1-41.fc7
    00:02:38 up 54 days, 22:57, 2 users, load average: 0.02, 0.04, 0.00

  10. Re: Financial 'Analysts' Still Can't Understand Linux, Virtualisation

    ____/ [H]omer on Wednesday 03 October 2007 00:04 : \____

    > Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
    >> ____/ John Bailo, Texeme.Construct on Tuesday 02 October 2007 16:04 :
    >> \____

    >
    >>> Richard Reich in his book tour lecture for "Supercapitalism" made
    >>> some interesting comments about Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and
    >>> lobbyists. The lecture and Q&A are on fora.tv
    >>>
    >>> http://fora.tv

    >
    > Good lecture. In summary, the overall conclusion is that greed has
    > overwhelmed morality, and that corporate interests come before the
    > interests of citizens.
    >
    > I especially enjoyed his method of dealing with lobbyists.
    >
    >> Is that the same thing some people call "extreme capitalism" (AKA
    >> corporate/puppet state)?

    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
    >
    > It's what happens when capitalism replaces democracy.


    s/capitalism/warmonger/

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | Every beginning must start somewhere
    http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine

  11. Re: Financial 'Analysts' Still Can't Understand Linux, Virtualisation

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    >> It's what happens when capitalism replaces democracy.

    >
    > s/capitalism/warmonger/


    Illegitamus non tattum carborundum, Roy.

    --
    Tux rox!

+ Reply to Thread