2085 posts • joined 26 Jan 2009
The n00b mating call...
...you kid but in all likelihood I can probably attach a floppy drive to my phone.
That's the difference between a platform that enables the end user and one that just puts up pointles barriers.
...except this is a DVD jukebox. It's not some mission critical Oracle database. The "enterprise" requirements just aren't there. RAID is a means to exploit low cost disks. A 3TB disk pack simply doesn't need to be $1400 for what a Kscape system is doing with it.
I can build 2 arrays capable of doing the job of the overpriced kscape one (due to compression) and still come out ahead by an order of magnitude.
I can also avoid the "packages" that average $28 per DVD too.
That markup likely has nothing to do with the actual hardware and is likely just a means to pay for the "wipe your arse" level of service that you get with a device like this.
Re: Disc vault?
$30K buys a lot of NAS. That's getting into Netapp territory. Kscape fans even like drawing that kind of comparison to make their kit seem less absurdly priced (I kid you not).
The OP is probably talking about something that is an open solution that doesn't keep you paid for media trapped and in the exact same format as it came on (from the physical media).
For $600 I could have a bespoke tower PC ready to accept a SATA RAID cage more than capable of doing the same job as a $30K Kscape array. It's like Macs. You don't fixate on the specs. You concentrate on what you need to get the job done.
Such a server would allow ANY device to partake. I would not need a $3000 thin client decoder.
Plus I could take anything with me wherever I go.
I call bullsh*t on the 42TB storage.
I tried pricing out my own setup based on what little information I could tease from support forums online. A mere 30K is not going to get you 42TB of Kaledescape storage.
I already have a 2000 disk jukebox setup.
You can build an entire commodity based multi-room system for what Kscape will try to charge you for one thin client decoder.
Mush for brains...
To top it all off, this article includes a device that has has been declared illegal.
The Kaledescape is in a bit of legal limbo right now.
The whole lot seemed to be a total fantasy completely divorced from reality or requirements of any sort beyond being really expensive.
Re: @JEDIDIAH - and M. Gale, and Marty etc
> Who really fucking cares about you and your missus?
Every fanboy like you foaming at the mouth that criticism is not allowed because we haven't even owned or used the product.
I need to grow up? I'm not the one that needs to conflate my phone with a Ferrari. I'm not the one that needs to validate my choices with the crowd. I'm not the one that needs to impress random strangers.
I am more demanding. I'm probably about 5 or 10 years ahead of the average Apple user. This is epecially true for the ones that like to fixate on music when the question of DRM comes up.
Re: but I thought I just read that Samsung sells more phones than Apple.
Oh great... the "resale value" argument.
Just about the most worthless thing that an Apple fanboy can say.
If you have to drone on about that kind of camel trader stupidity then you've already run off the rails and lost the point of owning things (tech or otherwise) in general.
You should realy concentrate on the reason why YOU would want to want something rather than coming up with lame reasons to try and impress total strangers just to convince yourself you make the right choice. You must have a really low opinion of your own decision making ability.
Re: Some people
They guy with the Ferrari is trapped in traffic like the rest of us.
You on the other hand are just some loser that thinks that overpaying for a cheap trinket makes you like that Ferrari driver or that he or you are any better than the rest of us. You are a stupid annoying moron. THAT is what tends to get people riled.
An Apple product is nothing to envy. Especially not heavily subidized mobile devices.
Been there,done that...
Me and the missus both ditched our iPhones for Androids.
A 7 inch Android tablet was what really pushed her away from Apple.
Re: but I thought I just read that Samsung sells more phones than Apple.
Apple is no Bentley.
You would think that this "satisfaction" thing would drive market share. This is certainly true considering that there are few barriers to either enter or exit a mobile platform. These phones are all equally well subsidized.
Perhaps non-Apple users are just more demanding.
It's easier to be disappointed if you set your standards higher.
Re: The curse of the free
Things don't "just work" on Windows. People buy Windows because it's been the dominant platform since you had to do your own memory management by hand. Technological considerations aren't really a factor at all. DOS or Windows is what got bundled with PCs. IBM had trouble coping and Be couldn't even give their OS away.
It's idiotic to try and lump in Macs with Windows. Macs have always been an also-ran. They are this now and they were this when they were unable to compete against MS-DOS.
By the time Linux came around, MS-DOS was already deeply entrenched.
Apple hasn't had nearly the same amount of lead time. Their advantage is much smaller and apps are generally cheap. The gap between Android and PhoneOS is much smaller than it ever was for WinDOS and any of it's rivals. Android as a successful phone platform will ensure that this gap only shrinks.
Re: This is for several reasons
"I can hold it in my hand" is a pretty compelling USP.
I originally got a 7" Samsung tablet to give to my kid but the wife took it instead. She replaced her iPad with it. It's big enough for her requirements plus it is more portable. It's good enough while being small and cheap.
She dumped her iPhone for an S3 too. Got tired of waiting for the iPhone 5.
A 7" tablet is cheap enough to be an impulse buy, an Apple tablet not so much.
Re: Both Apple and Amazon want to control the contents....
Are you living in 1996?
There's more to multimedia than music files.
Re: Oh I dunno.
The Tivo approach is no different from the original TV approach from the 50s. The only thing that has changed is that what you choose is watched on your own terms. People were avoiding things like Hee-Haw and Lawrence Welk long before time shifting technology existed.
Re: Too expensive and too slow
If "specs really don't mean a whole lot" then why bother? So you can boot faster? So Exploder can load faster. Once you've done both, the reason for bothering at all quickly dissapates.
What you describe as a benchmark sounds suspiciously like a bulk copy or a backup. Some people do actually load, manipulate, and copy significant amounts of data.
If a non-trivial copy operation isn't going to be any faster than what you get wtih a cheap spinny disk, then why bother at all? Why buy into the hype?
Re: Scratch your own itch
My main problem is "helpful" types that make clueless "suggestions" based on bad information and faulty assumptions. There's a lot of mythology to go around. There's some about Linux and there are equal amounts for Windows and MacOS.
I really wonder if the ones infatuated with Macs have actually used them.
Stealing ideas is great. That's how progress in general work. However, you have to understand what you are copying in the context you find it and how it relates to where you want to transplant it to.
> # apt-get install bugzilla
Like I said: YOU choose your level of involvement with Project Mayhem.
You can use the App Store approach or you can build from source. It's entirely up to you. Admittedly, this leaves the whole thing vulnerable to criticism by idiots that will find the hard way to do something even in MacOS.
Re: A bit off topic but...
Your post is outdated nonsense. It's FUD from another century.
You don't need to forge your own tools to use it. You can chose your own level of involvement. That can be as little as possible or as much as possible. This nonsense that you have to be a coder in order to use it is just assinine. It really wasn't even true in the 90s. Never mind now.
It just gets repeated over and over again by idiots.
Re: my $0.02 worth
"commercial point of view" is nonsense. The platform continues to grow and thrive independent of this.
That is the whole point of Free Software to begin with. Everything is independent of a "commercial point of view". You don't have to worry about Atari and Commodore failing or Netscape having it's air supply cut off. Free Software exists outside and despite of the market.
It's like MS-DOS and Windows but without the bling.
Re: RTFM attitude hasn't helped
> a) People should know how to do stuff through the shell
Nonsense. Being a Unix user doesn't mean being a masochist. It means being lazy.
If I ever even touch the shell it is to be lazy.
Something is faster or more automated than the drudge work of doing some visual thing n+ times.
Beyond that, the "burden of the shell" is gravely overrated/
Re: What prevents Linux from conquering the consumer PC market?
No. You are not likely to look at your friends with their Macs and start to get jealous. If anything, those Mac users will likely have the same exact problems as you do.
A Mac is nothing to lord over Linux. It doesn't matter how overhyped and trendy it is. It still has the same "but it's not the monopoly platform" problems that Linux does.
Short of games, if you aren't brand fixated to the exclusion of what you actually want to do then none of the platforms are at much of a disadvantage to the others. Although Macs have an NIH and group think problem.
Re: What prevents Linux from conquering the consumer PC market?
> But when the user wants to watch some youtube flicks it might get frustrated. Put in a film on DVD: frustration again.
Nope. Both are pretty simple and actually rather stupid things to try to criticize Linux for.
These idiots whine about inconsistency and confusion and churn and completely ignore this kind of thing when it happens in Windows. Windows game development is the essence of churn and this is where you're going to get your most severe problems.
Who cares about the init system really? Miguel is just on crack when it comes to that sort of thing.
I laugh when I hear cries about Linux being tough for (presumably commercial) software vendors when I see serious Unix vendors dealing with even wider variations between different Unixen.
Re: Torvalds is turning out to be --@boltar
Stallman doesn't go out of his way to be disliked.
What he actually does is to NOT go out of his way to be liked.
He has his position and his reasons and he sticks to that.
A certain type of herd follower misinterprets this as being anti-social.
Re: Torvalds is turning out to be
If Linus had never been born, the GNU tools would still be very useful on other commercial Unixen.
Free Software doesn't begin and end with Linux.
The kernel is a key bit but it doesn't make the rest of the OS irrelevant.
> You may want to actually get some facts, or better still experience
Been there. Done that. Know better than to trust hysterical nonsense posted to the web.
Beyond any but the most trivial deployments, Apple products suffer from the simple problem that Apple is not a business vendor and it isn't an enterprise vendor. Their idea of support isn't even suitable for a discriminating consumer. If you're talking about a business, then forget about it.
Re: Enterprises expensive loss? Posted Thursday 30th August 2012 10:55 GMT Anonymous Coward
> Your comments about AD are just clueless. It goes way beyond LDAP.
All of the Microsoft marketing materials make AD sound just like LDAP.
If there's more to it than that then you certainly helping clear anything up.
Although the main problem here is "fitting in". So it really doesn't matter how good AD is supposed to be if you are supporting a bunch of Windows machine. It's like how msoffice will always be best at reading a word document.
Re: possibly the first Apple product that I really want to try out
A Mini under the stairs would be a big sprawling mess compared to any comparable PC option.
The biggest problem by far with running any MacOS server (or just MacOS in general) is being forced to deal with Apple hardware. MacOS server could sorely use the ability to be run virtualized.
Of course Apple would never allow this.
Nonsense. Macs are more expensive and they aren't cheaper to operate. The support options for Macs also gravely lag behind the options available from PC vendors. A PC can quietly do it's job until it's costs have been amortized and you are ready to discard them.
"Support costs" if any are driven by helpless types that are going to be bothersome regardless of what OS you're using.
Re: Come on people! @AC
I think someone said something about Mac Server being for 1-10 person offices.
You're unlikely to outgrow a NAS appliance with such a puny office.
No. Laymen just like to pretend they're helpless rather than taking responsibility for themselves.
A lot of this stuff is pretty trivial. The boundary between what is and what is not a server is pretty arbitrary. That's especially true when your own "server product" offers very little and is just an extra app.
Stuff like file sharing is something that any Windows user from 1994 should be able to handle. The GUI for setting this up is terribly trivial and always has been.
If this product doesn't offer serious Mac-only services then you've really got to wonder what the point is.
While GigE doesn't matter much for "Internet" type stuff, it can certainly be handy for home networking. It's nice to be able to throw things around the home network at 100MB/s and to do it with cheap commodity parts and industry standard interfaces. If they can figure out how to bump that up to 100GB/s then all the better.
The really interesting bits of Thunderbolt minus the hype.
Blast from the past...
This dock concept goes back to the 80s. You remember that company that Steve founded after he left Apple?
This stuff is old enough that any relevant patents should be expired by now.
I used a dock on my Linux desktop in the 90s.
Re: Market stratification makes me sad
Nonsense. Even 30 and 40 years ago Lego sets were still kits intended to build a particular thing like a space ship or police station. The only thing that has really changed over the years is that major movies are now being licensed by Lego and it's competitors.
The whole "bucket of bricks" versus a kit is as it has always been: up to the person.
Besides, Legos have always been too expensive for a "bucket of bricks" approach.
Even now your "bucket of bricks" is likely heavily augmented by competitors that can now finally make compatible bricks. Talk about the long reach of patents...
Re: "The company itself got its start from copying the GUI system developed at Xerox PARC."
It doesn't matter if they "stole it" or they "paid for it".
They took someone else's work and used it as the basis as their own. It's exactly what they are accusing Samsung of. They just had the benefit of a less well developed legal framework around computing technology.
Otherwise Apple might not even exist today.
You might be luck to get to use MS-DOS.
> That's not long after they produced the first GUI based computers outside of a research lab.
So? That research lab is prior art.
The fact that something is hidden from you laymen doens't mean it hasn't been invented yet.
Also, anything from 1987 should be well expired by now patent-wise.
Re: Kudos to the author
It's all about stock valuation.
That's the new yardstick: How absurd is your PE ratio?
Re: Apple do innovate
> You're not doing yourself any favours using terms like "iFans". It makes you come across as a teenage kid.
Don't get your pretensious tight ass panties in a buch. It's certainly not the worse thing people could come up with. It's no worse than net.this and net.that and is very much in line with Apple's own naming conventions.
If anyone has some growing up to do, it's you.
Re: A friend of mine works for Samsung
New IOS on an older iPhone might be a big part of why my local iFan defected to Android. New PhoneOS on an old phone was definitely bogging down and making her pine for a newer device. The delay on iPhone 5 just helped things along.
Re: I think that I should....
Many of these commentards are THOSE PEOPLE that "do a job for a living". They are the relevant experts. This is the site that "bites the hand that feeds IT". You can't swing a dead cat around here without hitting someone that can probably replicate a lot of these nonsense patents with a couple lines of Perl.
It's the "legal experts" that have run off the rails and are ignoring the relevant technical details.
Patent examiners leave it up to the courts. Courts assume that the patent examiners "know what they're doing" and the whole mess blows up in everyones faces.
Re: The Fanbois
It is very likely that NEITHER side should have "won".
The American patent office has been running amok for quite some time now. Chances are that out of 100 patents, only one of them is anywhere near reasonable.
Re: @ turtle
In short: "Apple is entitled to abuse the system".
This has nothing to do with Android. Some of us have been ranting about the broken patent system for a long time. This is just the latest episode. Calling us "competing fanboys" won't alter the fact that we're arguing based on principle and you're just a corporate shill.
Re: Well what do you know!
My local former iFan now uses (Samsung) Android devices for how they are NOT like Apple products.
The same goes for me.
It's nice to have choices. Not everyone agrees with your fascist vision for technology.
Resistance is futile.
The local iFan that was seduced by the 7 inch Galaxy Tab 2 was so impressed by it that she broke down and go herself a G3. She was tired of waiting for an iPhone 5 and didn't see the 4s as enough of an upgrade.
Now she's been fully assimilated.
Early to arrive. Early to leave...
Re: Is it really though?
> Really? Did you not think that Android phones are much cheapers than the iPhone's?
I have never thought of this. On the other hand, I actually have an informed opinion that has come from actually looking at the facts and not just being content to spread someone else's propaganda talking points.
Android phones are no more or less subsidized than any Apple product.
"Cheap" simply isn't the issue.
Get medieval on his arse...
He's just lucky that there wasn't anything in the statute about boiling in oil.
Clearly this judge is asleep at the switch and is just rubber stamping any crazy penalty that they come up with.
"It could be worse" is not a suitable response to the question of "is it just" or "is it even legal"?
Just so long as it isn't 8088 assembler, they should be fine.
Inherently sillly article.
It's an inherently silly article based on a flawed premise and confused terminology.
It's FREE SOFTWARE. The moment you start talking about this "open source" stuff you've already compromised your ideals and have started pandering to guys with money and expensive suits. That's kind of the whole point of the thing.
if you are just realizing this now then you haven't really been paying attention.
"open source" is watered down for corporate consumption by it's very nature.
- Product round-up Too 4K-ing expensive? Five full HD laptops for work and play
- Review We have a winner! Fresh Linux Mint 17.1 – hands down the best
- Vid Antarctic ice THICKER than first feared – penguin-bot boffins
- 'Regin': The 'New Stuxnet' spook-grade SOFTWARE WEAPON described
- You stupid BRICK! PCs running Avast AV can't handle Windows fixes