Skip to main content

Ruben Garcia's Library tagged p2p   View Popular

13 Nov 09

iPod Touch in Linux - Mac Forums





  • I don't want a relgious war about operating system choices, so please don't turn it into one. It is clear from your remarks that you have never actually spent any time using Linux (which is, in my opinion, light years better than Windows, and better than a Mac -- its easier to use, has a nicer/more elegant GUI, its faster, speedier, and has a broader selection of higher-quality software that is easier to install, etc. Oh, its cheaper too. And 13-year-olds (not just mine) think its one of the coolest things on this planet).



    But that is a complete distraction from the FACT that Apple has saddled the beautiful, supremely elegant iPod Touch hardware with crippling software. It has taken what was designed to be a music player and turned it into a vending machine that urges you to pump nickels and dimes into the Apple app store to buy new trinkets as often as possible. In order to turn it into this cash machine, it made software design choices that crippled the product. They designed it, on purpose, to not work out of the box, so that users would be *forced* to install iTunes, and be *forced* to register at the App Store, in order to get a functioning, usable product. Don't try to imply that this is somehow "my fault" for "not reading the box"; it is not: it is very clearly Apple's esign choice, and Apple's fault. Don't try to imply that this has something to do with Linux, its not: it is Apple that made this choice.



    Do you think that I am somehow unique in seeing through this bad design/marketing choice? If you do, you google "iPod jailbreak": there are about 2 million hits for this term -- there are millions of web pages where iPod customers are expressing their dissatisfaction with this terrible design choice. I can guarentee you that, of these two million expressions of unhappiness, that 99% of them are either Windows or Mac users. This has nothing at all to do with Linux.
    <!-- google_ad_section_end -->

    <!-- / message -->














    linas is offline






     




    <!-- controls -->



08 Oct 09

London Stock Exchange Summary

  • London Stock Exchange

    Updated: 18 October 2006

    As part of its strategy to win more trading business and new customers, the London Stock Exchange needed a scalable, reliable, high-performance stock exchange ticker plant to replace its earlier system. Roughly 40 per cent of the Exchange’s revenues are generated by the sale of real-time information about stock prices. Using the Microsoft® .NET Framework in Windows Server® 2003 and the Microsoft SQL Server™ 2000 database, the new Infolect® system has been built to achieve unprecedented levels of performance, availability, and business agility. Launched in September 2005, it is maintaining the London Stock Exchange’s world-leading service reliability record while reducing latency by a factor of 15. Its successful implementation, with support from Microsoft and Accenture, shows the London Stock Exchange’s leadership in developing next-generation trading systems.

    See the video: 300 KB, 750 KB

Tim Anderson’s ITWriting - Tech writing blog » London Stock Exchange migrating from .NET to Oracle/UNIX platform

  • One of the main reasons is that trading platforms are a competitive marketplace now. They now compete based on latency more than all else. Speed of execution wins. The reason this is especially relevant is due to High-Frequency Traders. They are the new market makers (what used to be the people screaming at each other on the floor of exchanges). High-Frequency Trading are computers trading with each other. This is why within the U.S., you see a war going on between electronic exchanges, and their rebates (exchanges paying HFT for trading on their markets, note this only applies to market suppliers, buyers still have to comply with NBBO).


    The problem is that the LSE has been executing prices at above 25ms slower than other exchanges, sometimes to the point where it’s faster to execute in exchanges further away. If they’re that slow with execution, trading volumes will be going to other exchanges, notably Euronext. These slow speeds, probably due to the way .NET is structured, and Windows’ opaque network stack is killing them competitively (as opposed to *NIX where one can intuitively know where the buffering is — and minimize that). The real failure here isn’t Microsoft, is Accenture and LSE for throwing in people that have no idea the modern demands and throwing out the tried and true.

1 - 20 of 269 Next › Last »
Showing 20 items per page

Diigo is about better ways to research, share and collaborate on information. Learn more »

Join Diigo