Entries:
Comments:
Posts:

Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements

Discussions

Bass Bass Knows the way the wind is flowing.
  • Zune for Mac, YEESSS

    dahat said:
    Bass said:
    *snip*

    I suspect you missed my key point from above, allow me to copy and paste it for you: 

    Remember what one of the best parts about the Zune software is?

     

    Zune Pass... which is dependent on some form of Windows Media Player DRM... something that does not exist on the Macintosh.

    Should they have used MTP or another common way to sync the device... perhaps.

     

    Maybe you should request a video on that subject.

     

    No matter the answer... that is in the past... what we are talking about is bring the Zune software to the Mac.

     

    Yes... they could go and rev firmware and make it syncable via MTP... but then what? You are automatically cutting off all of those new users that magicalclick wants to bring the goodness of the Zune to... by saying “Sure... you can use Zune Pass... only not on your Mac... unless you dual boot to windows... or on another PC... or just online.”

     

    MTP/MTPZ are trivial compared to bringing the whole WMP DRM thing over... which has been my point form the beginning.

    Yes... they could go and rev firmware and make it syncable via MTP... but then what?

     

    Then Mac and Linux users could use the Zune, something your company obviously doesn't want. And not because they have low marketshare.

     

    It's worth noting the Zune basically implements MTP, it just denies read/write access to all clients who don't know some secret authentication procedure. Again, Zune was explicitly designed to be incompatible. Not the other way around.

     

    http://libmtp.sourceforge.net/device_details.php?id=64

  • Firefox 3.6 released

    brian.shapiro said:
    Bass said:
    *snip*

    It doesn't matter, there's practically no difference between having a browser natively support a video, and a browser running a plugin that supports a video. A video element, no matter what, is basically an embedded object. It will always be a square box in the middle of a page with a set of user controls. Having the element as part of a standard adds zero functionality.

     

    However, having it part of HTML allows people to push an open source video format as the standard and push out proprietary formats like WMV. 

    It doesn't matter, there's practically no difference between having a browser natively support a video, and a browser running a plugin that supports a video. A video element, no matter what, is basically an embedded object. It will always be a square box in the middle of a page with a set of user controls. Having the element as part of a standard adds zero functionality.

     

    A video or audio is a native part of the page just like an image is. It can be manipulated with CSS and JavaScript and is part of the DOM of the page.

     

    However, having it part of HTML allows people to push an open source video format as the standard and push out proprietary formats like WMV.

     

    I don't see how this is a bad thing. The Internet is an international, global thing, not a proprietary thing. Microsoft could open WMV and introduce it as W3C standard. Actually that would be a great thing for the future of the web.

  • Firefox 3.6 released

    brian.shapiro said:
    intelman said:
    *snip*

    Thats all this is really about , Flash, Silverlight, and proprietary video formats. the Video element doesn't really add anything new functionally. Browser devs are being self-serving by focusing on HTML5 before CSS3, because its a way to attack Microsoft.

    It adds video support to the native web. Silverlight/Flash/RealPlayer != native web

     

    None the less HTML5 is more then just video/audio guys. It's a whole new revision of the HTML standard with a bunch of features. Some of which IE8 currently supports right now. Smiley

  • Firefox 3.6 released

    Harlequin said:

    How does <video> work? You need to download the codec or will it be in the abckground?

     

    I still wish they wouldn't push HTML5/CSS3, HTML5 isn't even a recommendation yet I think, not sure about CSS3. Doubt we'll be able to even start using HTML5 fully until 2012 or 2013.

    <video src="path/to/video.ogg"> This is not a new technology to Firefox 3.6 however.

     

    HTML5 was created outside on the W3C, by Google, Mozilla and Apple as part of the WHATWG. IE8 adopted some HTML5 stuff already, giving some HTML5 technologies 100% modern web browser penetration.

  • It is time... Move the filesystem off of disks

    CreamFilling512 said:
    Bass said:
    *snip*

    Normally if you are running a database you need to ensure the hard drive caching can be disabled.  It's not just about performance but you can't guarantee transactions with any caching going on outside the control of the server software.

    Well I don't know about Windows, but there numerous parameters you can customize in Linux regarding the functionality of the file system or even the CPU scheduler. You can even swap out file systems and CPU schedulers completely, Linux is open source. Smiley


    That's actually what Google does, they use the O(1) scheduler with a modern kernel, while the default scheduler tends to be CFS (the "Completely Fair Scheduler"). This is on top many other changes designed to make Linux perform really well for their specialized task.

     

    In Android, Google uses CFS. But they might be adopting the Brain F**k Scheduler (BFS), which is reported to be really f**king fast, and yet it's algorithm is so simple that it's existance is a giant brainf**k of an engima. Kind of like some of Quake 3's rendering algorithms. Smiley

  • It is time... Move the filesystem off of disks

    Dexter said:
    Bass said:
    *snip*

    Bad analogy. A hashtable data structure moves data around because there's nothing better it can do. A database can do many things to get the best performance and it does just that.

    A modern DB (eg: Drizzle) is going to delegate as much responsibility to the kernel as possible. This makes the code simpler, and this easier to optimize. That's just how it is.

  • It is time... Move the filesystem off of disks

    CreamFilling512 said:

    Hints are like, I am going to read sequentially, or I am going to read randomly.  It's not like, here's a hint describing this complex internal data structure that you could write a 10000 page book about.  If the OS was capable of such a level of heuristic it would be super slow, its just optimized for general use.

    Listen, once it's in memory (the only thing a DB can actually do on it's own) it's not automagically optimized either. You are going to have to structure your data structures in such a way that they make optimial use of the hardware's cache as well. You can not avoid this. 

     

    A lot of those really complex data structures (eg: the judy array) are so complicated is because they are designed around being cached. They can not cache themselves, because x86 does not allow this. So they must structure their data to be cached by the system implicitly.

  • It is time... Move the filesystem off of disks

    Dexter said:
    Bass said:
    *snip*

    Seriously, do you really want/expect a database system to move gigabytes or terrabytes of data around just to keep the kernel happy?

    Why not? Isn't that exactly what happens when you invoke a database optimization?

     

    Sometimes you have to move gigabytes or terrabytes of data to have optimal performance. Look up the hash table data structure.

  • It is time... Move the filesystem off of disks

    Dexter said:
    Bass said:
    *snip*

    Any application (big enough, complex enough to worth the effort of doing it) can do better than the kernel at caching because an application will always know better than the kernel what data it needs. The kernel can at best obeserve the reads and the writes and some hints passed through the system calls and do some guesswork based on that. The kernel does not have a time machine to look into the future but the application might just have one.

     

    So I don't really agree. I think a program can provide enough hints to a kernel to let the kernel do all the real work. IE: Moving commonly read data to a certain part of a file. Again, similar to x86 optimization.

  • It is time... Move the filesystem off of disks

    CreamFilling512 said:
    Bass said:
    *snip*

    No way man, the OS has no knowledge of the internal structure of the database.  You can certainly get better performance by doing more work.  Database servers optimize their layout on the physical disk.

    You can optimize the internal structure of the database such that the OS will optimize reads to the fullest.

     

    It's really no different then optimizing instructions, you have no control over branch prediction and cache usage on an x86 processor. But you can still optimize code for branch prediction and cache, by modifying the structure of your program.