The repairs to the walls under the Ottoman cannon fire made use of the rubble, they made a wooden "basket" to hold the rubble; this ended up being very effective, as just like sand, the slight "give" to the rubble swallowed up much of the force of the cannonball.
This fits perfectly with traditional Microsoft strategies of getting a foot in the door and then having the users’ internal pressure on the organization to help get the Microsoft product established.
Decades ago, Lotus 1-2-3 on top of MSDOS was the lever; today it’s GCC High.
You can buy them from various manufacturers that make them; you often get unsolicited mail from them as your name and address is on the patent filings.
I’m curious about how much money was taken out by insiders who must have known what their costs were internally and how little advancement was made on making the same product at a lower cost.
Last I heard (~8 years ago), the RAID-like functionality in btrfs was very unstable and crash-prone. The impression I got was that there was not a lot of interest in fixing this. Then bcachefs came and ... appears to have gone nowhere AFAICT.
The non-RAID part of btrfs appears to be stable. It's the default filesystem on openSUSE and SLES. But I don't think it's ever going to reach feature parity with ZFS.
And to the grandparent post's point, since the split with the kernel there've been two big new feature releases: reconcile, which puts our data and drive management head and shoulders above other filesystems - and erasure coding was just released, 1.37 came out a few days ago.
btrfs is suffering from a lot of old bad publicity and some poor design decisions around RAID.
But by now it is a great file system if you don't go near RAID5/6. btrfs has its flaws (ZFS has its own flaws!). However:
- It's used a lot, especially by facebook and Redhat (on fedora)
- Gets a lot of testing
- Sees a lot of bug fixes
- Has a lot of features
I haven't read btrfs code but given that it is a popular file system and Linux code quality tends to be good in popular subsystems I would hesitate to say its code quality is worse than ZFS in any way.
> but real life workload are not "Geometric Mean".
A good benchmark suite consists of good benchmarks chosen carefully. These benchmarks are not chosen randomly. They represent diverse ways to "stress" or exercise the system. Real life workloads are indeed closer to "Geometric Mean" of various benchmarks by definition because real life workloads are diverse. Not everything would be like sqlite3 which is single pattern of file system usage.
Geekbench, Cinebench, 3DMark etc. are all averages or geometric means of various benchmarks also.
> When I use firefox, sqlite performance matter more than any random benchmark.
You've selected a single benchmark (sqlite) and said it's so important to you that it overrides everything else when you are comparing ZFS vs btrfs.
If you feel that a single benchmark like sqlite is good enough then that is fine -- your decision. I am hesitant to do the same and prefer geometric mean.
Be specific. Why do you need LVM? What for, what do you do with it?
Secondly: are you aware that ZFS includes what LVM does on Linux, and so you don't need a separate tool for it? This makes the comparison tricky but it's important to consider.
Consumer GPS chips are specifically nerfed for using them in rockets; they give erroneous readings on purpose if altitude is above a certain height and/or if speeds exceed a certain speed. That’s likely why the mid-course correction software uses other methods.
The restrictions on GPS prevent ballistic missiles, not MANPADs. Typical limits are 515 m/s and 18,000 meters (try using your phone's GPS on a commercial flight, it works fine near a window). Update rate is probably the biggest issue with GPS and MANPADs.
Are these chips so much better at calculating GPS position than general purpose CPUs or consumer FPGAs? Feels like a silly restrictions for anyone capable of building a ballistic missile. On the other hand it seems relatively computationally expensive to do a speed check every time for low energy devices.
It would be interesting to see if those are only for external sale vs restricted for sale within China.
If China allows those unrestricted chips to be sold internationally but not domestically it would be a strategic long-term decision, I would think. Destabilize the neighbors but not themselves.
The more likely reason is that their government has simply not gotten around to restricting it.
What you are likely thinking of is the "selective availability" system, which intentionally provided slightly inaccurate data to civilian clients, while military receivers could decrypt the most accurate info. But this has not been used for many years now.
Other than that, GPS is a one-way system, it does not know you exist, how fast your receiver is moving or "give" different information to one client vs another.
Even if it did, this is essentially a toy and moving slower and lower than a general aviation plane.
It uses accelerometers and other sensors because they can be sampled and integrated hundreds of times a second. The $5 gps module is 9600 baud serial and provides one update/second (or maybe 5/sec depending on which part number you pick).
To be fair, Eisenhower praised Lee's personal and leadership qualities, not the Confederate cause. The GP comment speaks of people who "idolize" Lee, which I think can be presumed to mean people who are on-board with the Confederate cause and by extension racism and slavery, which is pretty much how the subject is viewed by a great many today, but in Eisenhower's time people weren't tuned for twitter-sized ideas and were more capable of recognizing the way some people excelled while also simultaneously being strongly against other aspects of that person. Nuance like having complicated views on complicated people, doesn't do well on much of the internet these days, our culture has moved away from that. Now if you say Lee was a great military officer and also a traitor, people will assume that you mean one of those and just threw in the other to mask your extremist intent or something. People are assumed to be simple, with simple opinions about other simple people.
I think this is within the intent of the 2nd amendment. Having groups of citizens check the power of their government by being armed comes with the the downside of abusive types forming cults. I think this tradeoff is worth it. Mass shooting evens and cults harming people are obviously terrible. But, I prefer living with some of that knowing that it provides recourse for becoming like the majority of Iranians that are so helpless that at least 10s of thousands were slaughtered in daylight by their government merely for protesting. It’s easy to discount the possibility of becoming an oppressed citizenry if you grew up in the US where the worst you’ve heard about is maybe Kent state or early 2026 ice murdering unarmed citizens. Armed citizens are not a guarantee from oppression, but I think it’s important insurance.
reply