 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Ubuntu Desktop comes with all sorts of graphical programs that you may or
>> may not need. It's better to install yourself what you know you will
>> need.
>
> I don't mind that. But a scanner program? I don't own a scanner, why
> would I want a fancy GUI for controlling one?
That is a graphical program; as opposed to the command-line 'scanimage'
tool.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I don't mind that. But a scanner program? I don't own a scanner, why
>> would I want a fancy GUI for controlling one?
>
> That is a graphical program; as opposed to the command-line 'scanimage'
> tool.
Sure, but if I don't own a scanner, why would I want all the image
capture libraries, CLI infrastructure and GUI front-end? Why can't I
just skip downloading and installing all that stuff?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> There was one point in history when I had the opinion that if a game takes
> more than 4 floppy disks (that would be about 5.5 MB), it's way too large.
Rise of the Robots AGA for the Amiga.
14 disks. And such a sophisticated level of data caching that each time
you get to the next level, you have to swap disks multiple times.
This is made up for my the game's delicious graphics. All of which is
little consolation for the fact that the game itself SUCKS. It's like
they spent so much time making lush graphics that they forgot to write a
GAME...
> Nowadays I'm wondering why there aren't multi-DVD games yet in the market.
Faster processors = more compression? ;-)
> Rather curiously, we are nowadays in the same situation with respect to
> 64-bit computers. Hard drives are about 500 GB, RAMs are about 2-4 GB on
> average, which is about the same ratio as above. And again, a file of
> 2^64 bytes feels basically unthinkable (although slightly less so due to
> the past experience).
>
> I'm wondering if 15 years from now we will be using files of that size.
2^10 = 1 KB
2^20 = 1 MB
2^30 = 1 GB
2^40 = 1 TB (we are here already)
2^50 = 1 PB (never yet heard of anybody except huge corporations
reaching this)
2^60 = 1 EB (unthinkably vast)
From MB to GB is "only" 1000x (or 1024x or whatever). From the GB or TB
figures we're at today up to exabytes is a million times. But, sure, I
guess we'll reach it eventually.
I wonder how much data you can physically store in a given volume using
purely magnetic technologies?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> what protects Linux is more that it isn't
> popular enough to be valuable to the current virus writers that do it
> for money.
That, and the fact that currently the only people who run Linux are
geeky people with long beards who eat lentil burgers. These people
probably know a thing or two about how to manage a computer securely. ;-)
(Although this is less true today than it was, say, 10 years ago...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> When your machine has 5x the power it would need to do the job with
> dedicated software from the ground up, it's easy to load a 3x overhead
> factor in the form of a general purpose OS and still get it working OK.
The idea is that for an RTOS, too soon is as bad (or maybe even worse)
than too late. You need precise timing.
That said, if you have a machine under minimal load, it's less difficult
to guarantee exact timing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>> I'm wondering if 15 years from now we will be using files of that size.
> 2^40 = 1 TB (we are here already)
I don't think in one *file*. One file system, perhaps.
> 2^50 = 1 PB (never yet heard of anybody except huge corporations
> reaching this)
Amazon has special rates if you're storing more than 5 PB, so it seems
someone is.
> I wonder how much data you can physically store in a given volume using
> purely magnetic technologies?
Depends how you define "volume". Think of the Google File System, spread
over lots and lots of disks.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> I'm wondering if 15 years from now we will be using files of that
>>> size.
>> 2^40 = 1 TB (we are here already)
>
> I don't think in one *file*. One file system, perhaps.
I was thinking in terms of available storage capacity. You can buy
multi-TB drives now for half-sane prices.
>> 2^50 = 1 PB (never yet heard of anybody except huge corporations
>> reaching this)
>
> Amazon has special rates if you're storing more than 5 PB, so it seems
> someone is.
Sure. Large comporations have reached here. Hell, if you put all the
servers in my company together, it might total almost 1 TB. What I'm
saying is that individual users typically don't store this kind of
volume. (Yet.)
>> I wonder how much data you can physically store in a given volume
>> using purely magnetic technologies?
>
> Depends how you define "volume". Think of the Google File System,
> spread over lots and lots of disks.
I was more wondering if magnetic spinning disks are soon going to lose
the ability to increase any further in capacity, much like the way
processors can't go faster any more.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:51:44 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> Sure. Large comporations have reached here. Hell, if you put all the
> servers in my company together, it might total almost 1 TB. What I'm
> saying is that individual users typically don't store this kind of
> volume. (Yet.)
I know several people who do - I've got over 2 TB of storage here at
home, in fact - more than we had in network storage in a building serving
1700 employees.
(A fair amount of it is really old data that I just haven't gone through,
and multiple copies for backup purposes of some other data, mostly
downloaded software for my Linux installs).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Sure. Large comporations have reached here. Hell, if you put all the
>> servers in my company together, it might total almost 1 TB. What I'm
>> saying is that individual users typically don't store this kind of
>> volume. (Yet.)
>
> I know several people who do - I've got over 2 TB of storage here at
> home, in fact - more than we had in network storage in a building serving
> 1700 employees.
>
> (A fair amount of it is really old data that I just haven't gone through,
> and multiple copies for backup purposes of some other data, mostly
> downloaded software for my Linux installs).
...at some point I seem to have mixed up TB and PB. o_O
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:24:17 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Sure. Large comporations have reached here. Hell, if you put all the
>>> servers in my company together, it might total almost 1 TB. What I'm
>>> saying is that individual users typically don't store this kind of
>>> volume. (Yet.)
>>
>> I know several people who do - I've got over 2 TB of storage here at
>> home, in fact - more than we had in network storage in a building
>> serving 1700 employees.
>>
>> (A fair amount of it is really old data that I just haven't gone
>> through, and multiple copies for backup purposes of some other data,
>> mostly downloaded software for my Linux installs).
>
> ...at some point I seem to have mixed up TB and PB. o_O
;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
