OK, fair enough. I thought you were just nitpicking. And after reading about his ordeal, I wasn't really open to nitpicking. As one human to another, I would suggest that when commenting on a highly-emotional blog post like this one, where the author has lived through a difficult experience, prefacing your criticism on their punctuation/grammar with a simple "wow, tough experience" or some other kind words would go a long way. Chances are high that this individual will read your words.
We can debate whether or not the ordeal was deserved or not, but I don't think many of us can honestly deny that he lived through a tough experience.
To those downvoting me, that's fine. But please realize that I was trying to uphold one of this community's core tenets, which is don't write things you wouldn't say to someone in real life (paraphrasing). I don't know groggles, but I'm guessing that he/she is an emotionally-mature adult, and so I can't imagine him/her saying to someone who just described being jailed and harassed by customs, "Please enunciate better when you talk -- I had a hard time understanding you". To me at least, this kind of attitude represents a major reason for the decline of online communities. Sometimes I just can't watch it happen without saying something.
Whether intentionally or not, your own post came off as fairly rude, in my opinion much moreso than the parent, which is probably why you were downvoted.
You are replying to a different person than the original poster.
Secondly, no, emotional situations don't excuse the delivery. Unless he was literally writing a cry for help from confinement somewhere, he can take the time and respect readers by putting in some semblance of appropriate formatting. If it's just a rant then so be it, but it doesn't belong here.
Thirdly, HN isn't a support group. I'm not going to bother with comforting words because the parts I could decipher give the image of a very naive, assumptive, flippant person. So many mistakes were made -- on their part (at the very outset by proclaiming a right to enter another country -- that I'm surprised that they spent the effort seeking sympathy.
Pedantry -- that isn't Moore's Law related, aside from the loosest interpretation that computers as a whole get faster.
This is so true, though. Much of the horizontally scalability need comes from the land of extremely underpowered VPS machines on platforms like AWS. Yet the mind-boggling scale of performance you can inexpensively* (*-term used relatively) acquire for database servers is astonishing. SSDs (and plug-in flash drives) and boundless memory have changed everything.
Actually, RAM would be the perfect application of the exact meaning of Moore's law: more RAM is an almost direct function of more transistors, and Moore's law is:
> the number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years
Moore's law precisely predicts you can double your amount of RAM every two years for the exact same price. Which is pretty much what TFA is about.
Given all the problems they've had with AWS, I wonder what the overall cost/benefit would be for someone like Reddit moving from the flexed-EC2-servers model to just one high-powered db server and some caching webservers in front of it.
Reddit's probably was using trying to use EBS as a backend for a transactional database. The issue is that EBS makes no guarantees on latency, only that they'll never lose your data.
Amazon is not saying it, but EBS is probably lying when doing an fsync().
In this post [1] explaining why Reddit was down, one problem was that the DB slave got ahead of the master, with the most probable explanation being that the master flagged the data as being safe for replication, before committing it to disk and I trust PostgreSQL more than I trust EBS.
In this forum answer Amazon is giving about this potential problem [2], they are dodging the question by saying that fsync() guarantees durability for instance failures, but not for volume failures, with the anual failure rate (AFR) being given as 0.1% - 0.5% for volumes (how accurate that is, it remains to be seen).
So EBS is probably lying about fsync's success, especially since the behavior of fsync in virtual environments is always a surprise. So you can definitely lose your data more frequently than if you had your own hardware.
Amazon is not saying it, but EBS is probably lying when doing an fsync().
Given that POSIX says "the nature of the transfer is implementation-defined" and they've defined what fsync does on their implementation: No, they're not lying.
I wouldn't say that they're being misleading, either. On a local physical disk, once fsync returns your data is safely stored unless/until the disk dies. According to the forum post you linked to, semantics on EBS are exactly the same.
fsync does not mean "has been written to spinning magnetic media".
Reddit could easily cut their spend on hosting by like 50-75% just by moving to a dedicated hosting provider. They'd also get bare metal speeds in the process.
Who knows why they've stuck with AWS, though. It's possible Amazon is giving them a discount so they can be used as an example.
That would create lots of restrictions Microsoft wasn't comfortable with
The most likely scenario was that Microsoft would have been broken up, which while it was unwanted by Gates would have likely led to a much more valuable set of combined parts today. Microsoft was the #1 software engineering powerhouse, but they always managed to sabotage their own efforts (force integration where it was detrimental, alignment to a core strategy that often meant that they saw themselves as their biggest competitor, etc).
If Microsoft didn't help Apple, and Apple hypothetically disappeared, today we would likely have a lot more mini-Microsofts in our lives.
Probably, given that Microsoft has never made money on Windows Mobile -- minuscule licensing costs coupled with a high engineering price. In their brightest expectations I don't think they see themselves making money with it.
Microsoft's mobile efforts have always been about the ecosystem. Office, Exchange, Windows security technologies, and now the xbox platform (though I still marvel that having your xbox achievements available for perusal was thought to be a big feature of WP7). Given that approach, Android can serve that purpose even without royalties.
>In their brightest expectations I don't think they see themselves making money with it.
If MS defeated Android there is no question that they would raise the price of the licensing fee. Since they won't MS is faced with the reality that, while they are making money now, these patents won't last forever.
Given that the author is Marco (and the article is on HN because it is from Marco Arment), I wonder what his boycott position is regarding Apple? Apple has a long history of supporting draconian IP policies, and has a business model built around controlling what you can do with what you bought. Financially Apple absolutely dwarfs the combined revenue of all of the MPAA realm.
I don't mean to distract the conversation or hate on Apple, but it's a very pertinent question -- Marco and friends defend Apple's right to control their devices and their content, but are up in arms about media companies doing the same? Explain the reasoning why one company has the right to limit your freedoms while another doesn't?
(*- I will happily provide numerous citations of both Marco defending Apple draconian policies, and Apple supporting jackboot government-backed IP protections)
I'll throw my hat in the ring here. After I upvote you for starting a good discussion (which it seems few people ever do on HN).
The MAJOR difference I see is that Apple does what it does, and doesn't hide behind a lobbying group to take the heat. They say "this is the way we are going to do this, because it is better." We may not agree, and I usually don't, but whatever.
The movie studios, however, let the MPAA do all the dirty work and get all scorn. That way, MPAA == evil corporate mongers, while, say Warner Brothers == "ooh, Dark Knight Rising comes out this year!!!"
Boycotting MPAA's member companies is a way to say we see through their crap, and aren't going to put up with it.
Explain the reasoning why one company has the right to limit your freedoms while another doesn't?
If you look at the specific examples Marco spelled out (" region locks and unskippable screens and encryption and criminalization of fair use.") those are restrictions that benefit only the studios and inconvenience the customer. The iOS restrictions Apple propagates benefit Apple, but for many customers (not HN types) they are beneficial.
It's a fine line, and Apple has had their share of jackboot actions but it can be argued that it's not exactly the same. As for Apple defending Apple policies, I'd bet most of those examples demonstrate the benefit to consumers. (and has he defended the really egregious Apple missteps, like the security officer pretending to be a police officer?)
Your comparison is invalid. Apple's bootloader locks are a better comparison (Not referring to SIM lock which is provider mandated). Or the fact that you can't change batteries on your devices? Seems to me the purpose behind that is for you to change your device when the battery can't hold a good enough charge instead of just changing the batteries! How does that benefit the consumer?
I believe Apple's stated reason for the battery thing is that the mechanism for making a battery removable takes up a lot of space, and by getting rid of it, they can make the actual battery bigger.
That is true, and you can replace the battery. Doing so voids your warranty, but by the time your Li-Polymer battery no longer holds a charge your laptop will be out of warranty anyway, even with AppleCare. All you need is a screwdriver.
But Apple does support a lot of draconian IP policy. I think they're in need of a whipping over this.
Non-removable batteries are an extreme edge case that simply don't adversely affect most consumers. In fact, they benefit most consumers with increased battery life.
I've never met a single person that actually used this feature (most people I know have their laptops plugged in most of the time).
On the other hand, I'd consider content DRM as a non-edge-case that does harm and affect a majority of consumers.
Let's not allow the noise of such edge-case complaints distract from more relevant restrictions that DO hurt consumers on a daily basis, like content DRM.
I've had multiple relatives show fear of plugging in their iPods because iTunes wipes out their iPod. My wife refused to plug in her iPod to her new laptop because she felt she'd lose the episodes she had bought on the iPod itself. And that's not an irrational fear. Even I had it before iCloud enabled you to redownload all your purchased content.
Macbook Pros went from 5 to 7-8 hours usual time on a charge by making the batteries non-(trivially) removable. You can also pay a modest fee to have the battery replaced, so there's no need to replace your device, as you suggest.
Apple also do a lot of these kinds of region locking restrictions, like locking iPhones to certain regions. Now iPhones are released in many many countries. But when it was just USA, people in the EU would be breaking the region locking to use an iPhone they bought in the USA.
DRM and hacker-unfriendly hardware protections are bad for the people using those products. Laws like SOPA are bad for everyone. It's quite possible to support Apple's lockdown without supporting the neutering of the internet.
Indeed, but the piece is primarily anti-MPAA. See-
"The MPAA studios hate us. They hate us with region locks and unskippable screens and encryption and criminalization of fair use. They see us as stupid eyeballs with wallets, and they are entitled to a constant stream of our money. They despise us, and they certainly don’t respect us."
Apple has draconian restrictions on stuff like iOS for the user's sake (and for Apple's partially), and with the huge amount of users they obviously got that right. I'm not entirely sure what Apple's stance on SOPA is (I heard they supported it, but then I heard they didn't), but I don't think it would matter to them. They don't need to sue for piracy because they have the iTunes Store, which only distributes content. Apple even removed the DRM from their iTunes Store media a few years ago. They don't limit your freedom in the way that SOPA or PIPA will. You're comparing two completely different industries.
I could say that the MPAA's restrictions are also for the viewer's sake, and with the huge amount of viewers they obviously got that right. I don't believe it, but I don't see where it's wrong but the equivalent for Apple is right.
Personally, I think Apple's policies are more destructive. They're doing a pretty decent job of convincing an entire generation that locked-down, manufacturer-controlled computing is good.
They're doing a pretty decent job of convincing an entire generation that locked-down, manufacturer-controlled computing is good.
I've spent 20 years playing tech support to friends and family who have accidentally fubar'd their open computing devices. IME that has done far more to convince folks that locked-down, manufacturer-controlled computing is good moreso than anything Apple's done.
The conflict is framed as "open" vs "closed" but once someone can do "open done right for non-techies" that's where the industry will go.
I used to think that yes, Apple makes neat things, but it's still evil because it locks us down. But consider, for example, how trivial it is to install OS X on a PC. There certainly are many ways Apple could go to prevent that, but they don't and will even give away updates for such installations.
This makes me think that Apple has consciously made its top priority delivering the smooth experience and working device/software. For that, Apple chose to sacrifice breadth for the sake of depth—focusing on fewer use cases, but better working them through. This means fewer features and poorer extensibility. We tend to perceive that as restrictions, but it limits the non-technical users' ability to shoot themselves in the foot, and allows for better quality.
True to a point, although I think this is a but of a false dichotomy. I'm not 100% sure having to do slightly less tech support is really worth the cost of giving one company complete control of our computing experiences anyway.
For years the most common cause of people's computer issues was a combination of the terrible security or MS operating systems circa Windows 95 - XP and overly complex programs with badly designed UIs.
I'm sure it is possible to create a platform where one can install whatever software you like but not run a huge risk of malware. For example you can run applications in a sandbox which will stop them from damaging the system. Applications would then only be able to break out by exploiting the OS itself, so you build it on top of something like OpenBSD.
So you can avoid security problems without complete control, but you also mentioned the UI, and it is just one part of the overall experience.
E.g., today most people don't really differentiate parts of their experience defined by the OS from those defined by application makers. So you have to control the ways your users install software, if you want users to not hate your product because of some crappy app.
To be honest, I doubt that without such complete control there would exist a computer / tablet I could recommend to, say, my non-technical mother, and be more or less sure that she won't hate all computer-related things afterwards.
I never said that Apple was right. There are a lot of things I disagree with in regard to Apple (I hated the first iPhone, I really did). I said that you're comparing two completely different models and range of products.
You're also assuming that everyone who uses a computer knows how to modify it and not break it. Understand that a lot of Apple users want a device that just works. They don't want to have to mess around with the operating system or type a lot of intimidating commands into a terminal just to change something. They want to go on Facebook, play some games, listen to music, or type term papers. DRM does nothing but prevent things from "just working." It locks down where you can watch DVDs, how you can watch them, how you can use things, and can even lock you out of something if there's a problem on the developer's end (example: Assassin's Creed 2 included a DRM that needed an internet connection whenever you played the game, so if Ubisoft's servers went down or you don't have access to Internet, you can't play the game). To say that DRM is for the user's benefit and totally not for the developer's is insane.
Comparing the MPAA's restrictions with Apple is a bit unfair, and their success is only due to almost a complete monopoly in that area. The MPAA executives look at their audience with dollar signs in their eyes. Apple looks at them with those same dollar signs, but also with care and pride for the products they push out. They want to get a good product out. They adopted new business models like iTunes, iCloud, and even Siri. The MPAA is the antithesis of innovation and doesn't care about the products it pushes out, it just wants money.
Do you perhaps see the Apple glass as half full, and the MPAA glass as half empty? As the GP argued, one could just as easily argue that every MPAA policy is for your own good. Further I think it's incredibly unfair to say that the MPAA member companies -- and the many artists and professionals behind it -- don't care about their product. I'm hardly an MPAA booster (when a blu-ray has unskippable ads I hate them just a little more), but I have yet to see an argument that excuses Apple policies that isn't just as applicable to the MPAA, which is exactly why I asked the original question regarding Marco. I found his entry odd given his history.
Of course you can argue that, but you'd be wrong. Ask anyone on the street what they think of Apple locking down their products and not allowing you to modify them, and you'd get mostly positive responses about Apple. Now ask them about DRM (in an understandable way, of course), like how they might buy a song on one music store and not be able to listen to it on their iPod. You'd get negative responses, guaranteed. I don't mean to say that artists don't care about the product they created. Artists deserve a lot for the stuff they make. But the MPAA just uses these artists to make money. Has their ever been an MPAA album, or has the MPAA itself (not the artists) released a single? The executives just care about money, not the music or the culture behind the music. If they actually cared about the audience, they wouldn't use DRM and lawsuits to make people pay for their product.
Replace "consumer" with "musician" or "filmmaker", and every argument in support of Apple's locked down systems also applies to the RIAA and MPAA. To hear them speak, these policies are the only think keeping the ravening barbarian hordes of Internet users from destroying the all of the art and culture in our society.
The MPAA views Internet users in the same way that Apple views people attempting to unlock or jailbreak their device. They have nothing but contempt for those of us who dare to use the products that we've purchased in a way that they have not envisioned. In their world, they tell us what we are and are not allowed to do, and we meekly submit. Both MPAA and Apple have this mentality and I find it rather hateful.
Apple's restrictions do nothing but prevent things from "just working". It locks down where you can obtain apps, what you can do with them, and can even lock you out of something if there's a problem on Apple's end (example: iOS 4 was widely considered to be unusable on the iPhone 3G, yet it was impossible to downgrade unless you had the foresight to use circumvention tools in advance of iOS 4's release).
One could argue that DRM is required for there to be a thriving market in media, and therefore is to the user's benefit. Now, you don't believe that, I don't believe that, and maybe even the MPAA doesn't believe that, but the argument isn't invalid on its face. It's clear that restrictions which only limit users can be considered to be good for them. Apple's restrictions only limit users, yet you and many others argue that they're good for users.
I don't really care about Apple's intentions, care, or pride. I see Apple as pushing the entire world to a much worse model of computing. The MPAA, on the other hand, is fading into obsolescence one way or another.
I agree, and I'd kind of like to boycott Apple at this point. But the problem is that I need to get my work done, and Apple has a monopoly.
On what?
On decent UI design and hardware/software that "just works."
Linux UIs are getting slightly better with Gnome 3 and Unity, but they still suck. (And they're getting better by copying Apple.) Windows UIs have been getting worse since XP. (All the good features in Windows 7 are copied from Apple, like their Expose equivalent.) Neither OS offers anything like the plug-and-go and design cleanliness that Apple offers.
It really makes a difference in terms of productivity. I know how to futz around with my machine to make it work, but I have better things to do with my time.
Until either a competitor or the open source community can offer good design -- which matters -- I am stuck with Apple.
BTW, I'll give you all a hint on good design: minimal is a synonym for good. Exterminate features.
When I'm working on Linux, I wish I'd work on OS X. When I'm on OS X, I wish I'd work on Linux.
OS X just works and all that, but it is a constrained environment that lacks the Debian repository. MacPorts is painful as hell, it broke my installed packages twice and the last thing you ever want to do is to upgrade all installed packages (because, you know, you might fear security risks). It also installs its own replacements for whatever OS X ships with, being its own little bubble, which drives me insane.
And what's the fix for MacPorts? That's right, Homebrew, which is a bunch of scripts that compiles your packages (again) from source and you end up praying to God that the software you want is available, that it takes care of all dependencies and that it compiles until the end, as you've got no idea what to do otherwise. Like it's freaking 1996.
So you know, now I'm happy working on Ubuntu full-time, which inherits the most awesome software repository ever from Debian. It may not be the shiniest and most polished operating system ever, but it treats me well as a developer, it doesn't restrict me in any way and I never had any problem that's unworkable.
BTW, I'll give you all a hint on good design:
minimal is a synonym for good. Exterminate features.
In general people saying that don't know what they are talking about. Any simple interface that actually does what you want is actually a beast under the hood. If it isn't then the software is mostly useless.
What most people are missing: the interface/software should do what you want, not the other way around.
This is my biggest problem with Ubuntu lately. I would have rather preferred for them to not fuck around with Gnome's interface, pulling out a proven and working interface, replacing it with broken software in the name of simplicity. I want it to work, not marvel at how simple, shiny and useless it is.
I don't. I'd like to, but thats the reason I don't.
If something done for my own good drives me to another product, what does that say about if it is actually for my own good? Thats my problem with the GP's post.
Although there are a lot of people here that like Apple products and support their policies, there are also lots of people here who use Free Software/Open Source. Lots of us are already boycotting lots of companies that don't fit what our ethics are.
I'm a hacker, Hacker News community member, and a FLOSS user/developer, and I oppose Apple's draconian policies.
His bedrock assumption is that MPAA companies hate their customers, and that is why he suggests a boycott. But if you asked him the same thing about Apple, he would say that they like their customers, and want to delight them.
You might not agree with him about whether these organizations really hold these stances toward their customers, but his argument flows from these two underlying assumptions.
>I do have to agree with the site that they might not be able technically to give the info.
I have mixed feelings about sites that rely upon the "we regularly purge identifying information" excuse. In this case I believe it makes the site directly responsible for libel as they are actively looking to protect the sources of information that benefits them.
They do it for all comments to have a protection when someone comes gunning for some comments.
This isn't about someone defending a champion of free speech or a hero of mankind. It's about, in most cases, liars who invent claims in comments to support their side. Such lies gain truth through repeated assertion (remember how RIM couldn't believe that the iPhone was possible? Retold endlessly, it was all based upon a quickly deleted claim on some random message board by some anonymous person claiming to be a RIM employee. The claim was absurd -- the iPhone used the same stock ingredients that RIM was used to -- but there you had an "insider" to support it).
People are bad about rumors, but there's still no reason to try to block anonymous commenting. If someone wants to make themselves anonymous for a single post, they will, barring blatant mistakes. We should not expect server logs to let us snoop around a comment made with exactly zero reputation or trustworthiness.
They weren't bad comments at all. The circle-the-wagons "we're better than this" reaction is worse.
While a death is usually a tragedy, made magnitudes worse when it's a child, the title of that post was absurd, and it was a giant elephant in the room that simply had to be rationally diffused. Like others I went into that story primarily to read how she was a programming prodigy.
Tragic death. Not a programming prodigy. The misrepresentation was noticed by all, and it will be a sad day when social convention means we all have to carry forward the lie lest we offend someone's sensibility about death.
Upvoted - this [groggles' comment] hits the nail on the head.
PG, given that you gray-out comments that get torrentially downvoted, perhaps you could bold-face (or render in green?) those comments that get a certain number of upvotes, or perhaps those comments that exceed X% of the aggregate number of upvotes for the thread.
The Citi claim is based upon absolutely nothing. For that matter every single "Microsoft makes $X from Android" are based upon nothing but speculation.
Show me a line item in either HTC or Microsoft's quarterlies validating that?
It is interesting that virtually every agreement that Microsoft has achieved has been with vendors that sell Microsoft products.
A decent watering schedule is not an overwatering schedule. Watering plants properly is not a difficult activity.
Further even assuming that it is very low power, just the energy and materials used to construct it blow away any notion that it is green.
This is an anti-green product. It is using products made via energy and chemical rich processes, then vampiring power, to solve a complete non-problem. It is novel, and it's right for HN, but the GP's point is completely on the money.
This guy -- who apparently rejects 99% of interviewees -- apparently runs a single-person company of dubious purpose. This absurdly trollish post is over the top because that's what ensured it a front-page showing.
Kudos on the pagerank earned by trolling the gullible folks on HN.
Punctuation exists for good reason.