Massively-Parallel Computing: the elusive goal (so far....)

One can only hope that this new generation of ultra-low-cost computers will keep resulting in the design and construction of more and more massively-parallel (MP) computers.

Why? Because what is and has been missing from the MP scene in order to realize the full potential of MP computers is the SOFTWARE to fully make use of the hardware. As the cost of the hardware approaches zero--relatively speaking--we self-important computer engineers are going to have to stop kidding ourselves that we are doing something REALLY IMPORTANT by designing and building the MP machinery; we've got to finally 'fess up to the fact that all along, that's been the easy part. Now we've got do the really HARD work: design the assemblers, compilers, and high-level languages to make it all really, REALLY WORK.

And one more nice feature of low, low cost MP computers: don't bet against a ten- or twelve-year old boy OR girl--or a group of them--doing the seminal work on the MP critical software (their advantage over us? They, unlike us, don't know that it can't be done).

Regards...

Finally!

The world is going to get an Ubuntu which really works, and will work fabulously. So much so, that the Chinese will teach us all a lesson in capitalism: it will sell ITS version of Ubuntu to the rest of the world for $4.99, and make bazeelions of dollars.

Oh, and in the process, it will tell Mark Shuttleworth to go take a hike; that they've gotten all they need from that lame organization. Yes, Mark, the Chinese are going to show you how correct you've been all along: there IS a way to 'monetize' Ubuntu. Just sit back and watch. And don't even THINK about legal matters--you're now dealing with the world's largest software pirate, and THE entity which started the crumbling of the Microsoft empire, when they told Microsoft to take a hike.

Good-bye, Mark. I'm looking forward, finally, to a really, REALLY good version of Ubuntu.

UBUNTU is NOT LINUX; no carbon-based life-form thinks it is.

"I give ubuntu another 2 or 3 years before they'll vanish completely."--I did that last year. Take a number and get in line.

"loving the fanboi down votes :)"--read this comment's title.

" Having been burned by Ubuntu, I won't be looking at Linux again, except maybe in 5 to 8 years time..."--so how do you feel these days about your Lord High Everything Else, Ubuntu cretins? And DO factor into your reply Shuttleworth's latest LINUX-KILLER (READ THE QUOTE AGAIN, BRAIN-DEADs), version 13.04.

"At the moment, if somebody asks me to install Linux for them, I use Mint..."--@Rambler88: UBUNTU IS NOT LINUX!

-

-

-

...and on and on and...

...this is too easy; there's no sport involved.

All you folks considering REAL LINUX, read all these comments, and more: start with the articles in PC GAMER for a real eye-opener regarding a real pro's real-life experience with Ubuntu. If anyone ever suggests you jump into LINUX by using ubuntu, tell them you said LINUX, and walk away. Then get Mint LINUX.

Yeah, yeah, yeah Shuttleworth. Where've we heard THAT before? Oh! Now I know...

"But Canonical's Shuttleworth disagreed, telling ZDNet that although Ubuntu for devices is a work in progress, the vision for the platform is clear."

Before Shuttleworth introduced his beloved Unity interface, his puffery regarding his savior of all Linuxdom was that it was "...so simple that even your Mum could use it...".

AFTER its introduction, and it bombed big time because it was executed so poorly, Shuttleworth's circumlocution was at its worst (He probably thinks he was at his best): he never actually SAID it would be READY when introduced, and that all us boobs and nincompoops should have KNOWN that it was--here it comes:--a WORK IN PROGRESS!

"I never said all them things I said!" --Casey Stengel (stolen by Yogi Berra)

"No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar." --Abraham Lincoln

By the way, has anyone noticed that "Ubuntu For Devices"--UFD--is an anagram for "FUD"?

And THE Linux problem IS...

...that there is no organization [sic] (your woord prosessor don't spiel chek good) or entity which has an interest in giving coverage to testimonials such as appeared above, to wit:

"I have no background in linux but have enjoyed setting up a home multimedia server using a Mint and an old laptop."

Please understand that this is not an indictment; merely a statement of fact. It is a fact that the best model for generating robust software must find a way, and reason, to generate revenue, which would lead to "honking its own horn."

"When setting out to explain something, make the explanation as simple as possible. ..but no simpler".

[paraphrase]

--A. Einstein

From a

(1) Microsoft user--DOS 2.11 through Win7, but not Bob, ME, or Vista

(2) Linux/Unix user since 2009: BSD, Ubuntu, SuSE, Mint, Knoppix, Debian

I've taught college for over twenty years, from Boolean logic to assembly-language programming to Operating System Design, and I've always ascribed to the philosophy that the best way to teach a new subject is introduce it gently. If the 'gentle' tool(s) used turn out to be elegant, powerful tools--they most always do--then so much the better.

To use a topical example, I would never use LibreOffice or Office to teach a begiining course in word processing; even if the goal of the course was proficiency in a 'powerful' WP, using AbiWord as an introduction to the subject would be most beneficial to basic and lasting knowledge of the subject. And, as it so happenst , Abiword seems to be able to do almost all that one would want from a word processor while not being intimidating.

In a similar vein, considering power, lack of intimidation, and lack of ego-inspired "capabilities"--which only add to the new-Linux-user's burden--the best choice, and the one I suggest to those who are interested in switching from Windows to Linux with the least effort and highest productivity is Linux Mint.

"On Selling Out of an Empty Cart"

.

"Mr Jones, I see your lamb chops are $4.69 per pound. Mr. Wasser, down the street, has lamb chops for only $4.25 per pound."

"I suggest, my dear lady, that you go and buy lamb chops from Mr. Wasser."

"Oh, but he sold all he had before noon."

"Madam, let me tell you a butcher's dirty little secret: when I don't have lamb chops, I sell them for $3.99 per pound."

Poor choice of name...

I find it a shame that our National Weather Service didn't name the storm 'Ahab'.

That would have provided fodder for all manner of comments based on 'The Great White Whale' vs 'The Irrelevant White Elephant'. As, for example: "The tale of The Great White Whale and The Irrelephant White Elephant." OOOoooooooohhhhhhh! See how easy it is? Now it's your turn!

Fedora/Red Hat; you are an absolute HOOT!

Red Hat, my hat (I just may start wearing a red one) is off to you. You have, hopefully not unwittingly (but it doesn't matter, the joke is still there, and a really great one), pulled off one of the better zingers of a competitor that the software world has seen in a long, long time.

We all know that--some--Linux Distribution organizations seem to place more effort and importance on generating snappy nicknames for their products rather than in generating a high-quality product which is an evolutionary improvement of their existing line.

You have a long history of producing outstanding product, and have not been one to put much emphasis on naming your products (someone has suggested Incontinent Ibex to a competitor; my suggestion would be Randy Rhinoceros), so why now, and why "Lovelock"?

Could this just possibly be a reference to the minions--that's spelled "millions"--for whom love has been lost for Ubuntu vis-a-vis their upcoming whatever-it-is?

Is "Lovelock" a play on the words "Love Lost"?

Canonical lost me at 9.04, when the results of their "improvements" to that fine piece of work resulted in a disaster called 9.10 (and no, Canonical, I don't remember their cutesy names. I have never cared, and seriously doubt that most do). I immediately "upgraded" back to the future to 9.04, started reading and hearing good things about Linux Mint which has--in the past--seemed to take a few months to do the latest release of Ubuntu correctly, and then release their own, high-quality distribution. I've been using Mint in one or the other of its many variations ever since.

You notice the use of the word "has". M. Clement LeFebvre, the low-key, high-class force behind Mint has been, in his inimitable fashion, slowly and quietly distancing himself from any dependence on Ubuntu. Check out what M. LeFebvre has to say about his upcoming Mint 11 release, AND note that Mint now has another card to play: they have developed a rolling-release version of Mint based on Debian.

I love humor mixed with great technical expertise. There is absolutely no doubt about the latter in your case, and the only reason for my not having tried Red Hat before now is inertia. I have two computers on which I've scheduled replacement of the operating system. Have no doubt that at least one will be "Lovelost" (sorry about that; everything about that name and what it implies has such a great ring to it!).

Warmest regards...

Anybody remember Fred Brooks?

Fred Brooks: the (still) best-selling author of "the Mythical Man-Month" (Essays on Software Engineering) became an icon when he was put in charge of the development of IBM's OS-360, the operating system which was to power the highly evolutionary IBM 360/370 series of mainframe computers. The development was in shambles when he took over. It was in shambles because of situations in the OS-360 development process similar to what we're seeing happening at Canonical re Ubuntu "development", for lack of a better, more politic, more descriptive, politically correct word. (read the book and his bio, paying-passenger Shuttleworth...uh, I forgot: ASTRONAUT Shuttleworth (by-the-by, my friends are happy to know that precedent qualifies me to be referred to as an Aerospace Engineer due to all the airplane flights I make). Canonical's problem is that it has no knowledge of either the history of software engineering nor of the software engineering process itself, and therefore doesn't understand what it takes to do it correctly.

We, the users of good, robust, intuitive, sanely evolutionary Linux OSs are not under the same illusions that you are, Admiral: Canonical is not a designer of Operating Systems. It is an operating system CHANGER; the real, true operating system was designed by someone else long years ago. There it is: I'd lay odds that you really believe that you are an Operating System designer (Wm. F. Buckley once stated, "I'm not going to insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said").

Ring a bell?

Now, with all the current changes: frivolous, sometimes useless, changes made on a whim, some good changes, changes made to fit a personal agenda; and particularly when, as a point of honor (sic), Canonical must get all this done on a sacrosanct six-month schedule, how to cope? Easy!: Do it the way the Big Boy, Big Bucks, for-profit guys do it. CHANGE THE RULES! Re-define 'release candidate'; 'beta'; drop perfectly good programs and forks; let ego and pique get in the way of good decisions; and--most of all--excuses, excuses, excuses, PARTICULARLY starting on 28 April. Shuttleworth, it's obvious to one and all that Canonical is (sic) becoming the Microsoft of the Linux world. I'll bet your momma's really proud!

Back to Fred Brooks: I'm only going to give you a small part; you'll have to do something which has obviously and sadly become foreign to Canonical: hard work and (now) really heavy lifting on your own to learn what you need to know (you knew all along that there was a catch, didn't you?).

From one fiasco after another (no inferences or analogies implied) in the OS-360 design, IBM let Fred Brooks take over the development. The first thing Mr. Brooks did was to let EVERYONE--both inside and outside IBM--i.e., management, sales, and PARTICULARLY customers--know that all preceding schedules and promises were summarily cancelled, and that he was starting the program over correctly; and furthermore, that when OS-360 was finished, it would work correctly and be what the customers wanted.

Ring a bell?

Your latest attempts are the epitome of a saying (paraphrased to fit your company) we had at a company at which I worked for all too long (two agonizing months): why do you always have time to do it over, but never time to do it right the first time?

One last suggestion: I remember reading, a few years ago, an article by someone high in one of the UNIX/Linux world-wide organizations in which was stated that there were perhaps thirty or forty people in the world who were considered to truly be REAL operating system designers. Perhaps you need to consider hiring one of those people. This suggestion carries with it some real problems: (1) convincing someone of that caliber (sic) to consider the offer, and (2) following their advice.

____________________________________________________

Unfinished business:

Mr. Clarke: you obviously have a penchant for circumlocution--or just plain niceness, which is NOT a positive in your line of work--which was not displayed by Mr. Gilbertson (ABSOLUTELY no offense (sic), Mr. Gilbertson; you get an A+ for honesty and an A++ for objectvity and for 'calling it like it is') in his "Operating Systems" article of 1 April, wherein he (Mr. Gilbertson) described 11.04 as the ""worst Ubuntu beta ever."

You did not, Mr. Clarke, answer the question: is this still "the worst Ubuntu beta ever"? Did it even make it to "barely adequate"? Higher? Please remember that your answer, should you choose to provide us with one, will be proven in thirteen days.

Warmest regards...

Did Einstein say that?

@alwarming:

Looks as though you've created some hard work for yourSELF.

Since this is obviously a matter of serious concern to you, YOU will have to be the one to find whatever or whomever you consider to be a "real" source.

As I tell everyone, when the situation merits the response, "Don't bring problems unless you can also bring the solutions."

Warmest regards...

p.s.: I REALLY don't know, and would, therefore, like to know (quotations being an avocation of mine) the "real" source of Sir Winston's supposed statement concerning Americans always seeming to do the right thing. While you're about doing all this research, you might find it enlightening to discover what Sir Winston had to say about quotations.

Looking forward to hearing of your discoveries of--remember--the "real" sources...

Perhaps Canonical sees handwriting on the wall?

I sent this to Xandros the other day, after being made to jump through hoops to communicate with them ( the only way is through tech support, and they generate a "ticket"). Needless to say, I haven't heard from anyone at Xandros; I thought you might be interested in my reaction to the tactics of the Redmond Trolls:

"(c) 2010, Jon Colt

Dear Customer Service:

Please ensure that this message is sent to your upper management, as it will get there, one way or another.

****************************************

Dear Xandros Upper Management:

I would like to thank you for making my job so much easier: by caving in to Microsoft's spurious and specious claims and entering into a "collaboration" (aren't euphemisms simply WONDERFUL?) in order to protect yourself against implied litigation due to implied patent infringement on implied AND unspecified intellectual property, you have reduced--by one--the number of options with which I provide my customers when I design and provide support for a Linux system.

Of course (upon further consideration) there is one condition under which I will still consider using Xandros: you provide me with all those patents which Microsoft told you your Linux distribution were infringing, and I'll make my own decisions (Microsoft DID specify what patents of theirs that your Linux was infringing upon, didn't they?). You just simply pass that information along to the rest of us, and I'm more than certain that you'll be rewarded with all Linux consumers flocking to you as their distro of choice,

Until then, best of luck in your efforts against all your competitors who have the guts to have told, and will tell, Microsoft to stuff it.

Warmest regards,

Jon Colt."

******************************************************************************************

I can, somewhat, understand a small fish like Xandros doing this, but what absolutely amazes me is that what I considered--up until now--a high-quality organization (Amazon) giving in to Microsoft's blatant patent-trolling, blackmail techniques.

Vote with your feet, your dollars/pounds/euros, and communication.