begin quoting Tracy R Reed as of Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 01:03:32PM +0700: [snip] > You cannot talk about the performance of virtualizing without mentioning > what kind of virtualization and whose implementation we are talking > about and then if you want to be really pedantic we can talk about what > kind of uses. For generalized use they vary wildly in performance. > Emulating another cpu type of virtualization is the slowest. Then we > have VMWare and then User Mode Linux. With Xen finally coming in as > fastest. IBM's MVS style virtualization is probably right in there with > Xen as far as speed goes but it's hard to say since mainframe > architecture is wildly different.
True. I was considering emulation as its own "virtualization technique", restricting 'virtualization' to the high-end meaning. So what term do you suggest for the minimally-emulated virtualization? [snip] > I think we have quite a bit to show for it (I think the Internet and > sharing photos with my family via my webpage is nice). That's just bandwidth and connectivity. Nothing whatsoever to do with CPU performance. We have taken advantage of bandwidth improvements, and I value those. > But you and I > obviously value different things. :) Yup. :) I value stablity, reliablity, robustness, choice, and a sensible UI. "New" doesn't automatically imply "Improved." I infer that you value newness, performance, ubiquity, and cost. It probably takes a blending of our values to achieve worthwhile progress... [snip] > > I started reconsidering what 'progress' meant about then. > > I think you should consider "What is an appropriate OS for this > hardware?" One would think the answer would be "Linux", no? > as the newer RedHats clearly offered a lot more functionality > but that level of functionality were not intended for that sort of > hardware. Actually, no, they did NOT offer a lot more functionality. > I think if you had your way the default install of any OS > would be able to run on your 7Mhz Atari and if we wanted anything else Get yer facts straight. Atari STs were 8MHz. > to take advantage of the new machine we just bought with a cpu two and a > half orders of magnitude faster we would have to download it separately. While I think you would have people buy a new machine every three months just so they could run the latest and greatest, presumably by using a clock circuit that gradually decayed to slower and slower speeds to really drive the point home. After all, hardware is dirt-cheap these days. Screw the user. Make 'em pay, and pay again, and pay again, just so that the open-source developers don't have to actually think about anything other than appearing cool. > > I think it's a matter of user expectations. The average user will put > > up with a certain amount of pain, and so that's what we get. If they'd > > put up with any more, we'd get that instead. > > The average user these days is accustomed to bitmapped displays and a > certain level of ease of use that was not available on your 2e. For You're confusing people again. I never owned an Apple 2e. > example hardly anybody memorizes keystroke combinations to save files > etc anymore. Cite? Everyone I've come across who works with a computer has memorized at least the basic keystrokes for common operations. > Nobody would care to use AppleWriter or whatever you used > on your 2e because they would word process more slowly with that than > they would with a modern PC. In that case it was the user that was too > slow, not the hardware. So people _were_ stupid back in the day, and everyone else was just too stupid to see how stupid everyone else was! I see! It's all so clear! They had slow hardware because they couldn't type very fast or think very well! The past was peopled by idiots. Amazing how far we've come... -Stewart "The sin of youth: to think those who came before were stupid" Stremler
pgpLzFMn9Up9L.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
