|
| Thursday, May 31, 2001 |
 |
T-what? 
| | I have three working machines here, running a total of seven operating systems, all running upstairs from my landlord, the fine ISP from which I lease a T-1 line. They want to test throughput, so I'm sharing the results. Here is how the various platform/OS combinations all do on a test of speed in the up- and downward directions (I'm posting results as they come up): |
| | G3/333 PowerMac tower running Mac OS 9.0.4: 824k down, 738k up |
| | G3/333 PowerMac tower running Windows 95: 1003k down, 1023k up |
| | G3/400 PowerBook running Mac OS 9.0.4: 908k down, 28k up (later, 920k down, 602k up) |
| | G3/400 PowerBook running Windows 98: 915k down, 617k up |
| | G3/400 Powerbook running Red Hat Linux 6: need to free up an IP address for it and try later |
| | G4/500 Dual Processor PowerMac running Mac OS 10.0.3: browser (I.E. 5.1 Preview Release 5.1b1) fails to make Java work (yes, it's enabled). On the next try I get this new OS X bomb box: "Sorry, the application Internet Explorer has unexpectedly quit. The system and other applications were not effected." Now it won't let me check from OS 9.1 because I've made too many applet requests from one IP address. [time passes...] Finally, OS 9.1 (in emulation) got 569k down and 134kup. |
| | Interesting comparison: late last night I checked the Cox Cable @Home modem at our little apartment by the beach. It clocked 2797k down and 313k up. Not bad at all. |
| | Interesting: so far the fastest "machine" is the oldest OS running in emulation on the oldest machine. And something was seriously screwed with the laptop for much of the day. In repeated tests the upload number never gets above 28k. The next morning it returned to somewhat normal performance. |
| | Okay, back to work. Whatever: the T1 seems to work fine. |
I was overheard to have said...
Testimony to buoyancy
Wanted: Death-Defying Industry
| | Dave agrees with Brent that the software industry is sick in bed with the flu, and adds, "That we're in such poor shape is testimony to the poor leadership in this industry, and imho, to the constant Boy Kills Boy theme in the press. It's a depressing story. It leads to depression in the industry." |
| | In his keynote last week at Media Relations 2001, Guy Kawasaki also blamed his own industries — investment banks and venture capitalists — for funding companies whose founding motivations were no less BKB than the stories the press likes to tell about them. Here's what he said: |
| | Women should always review business plans, because they aren't born with this gene that only men have: the one that makes then want to go out and kill things. Too many guys don't go into business to open a new market or to build a great company. They want to start a company so they can kill other companies. |
| | One problem is that it's too easy to blur the distinctions between competition and combat. Another is that its too easy to think that business is only about competition. How much less misguided is a business driven to kick ass than one driven to kill? |
| | David Weinberger likes to ask What is the Web for? (That link found via Dinah Sanders' Metagrrl, whose blog was going in 10/99.) I think we should also ask What is business for? Whatever the answer is, it has to be more than "To fight other companies." |
| | Toward that end, I think, Dave asked these questions last July: |
| | Do big corporations have a role as technology goes forward? If so, what is their role? |
| | What would you be willing to give up to have open and fair competition in all aspects of technology? |
| | We need to get beyond the belief that markets are only battlefields or playing fields and business is only combat or sports. |
| | Business is also about creativity, craft and selling our original work to customers who value it. We can talk about that in terms of many different conceptual metaphors. Conversation is one of them. Ecology is another. The concept matters less than the need to get past what Riane Eisler calls "dominator culture," which has been with us for twenty thousand years. That culture still tends to value zero-sum outcomes above all others, regardless of how destructive those outcomes plainly are for the sum of all parties involved. |
| | How about the rest of ya'll? |
discuss
Copyright 2009 The Doc Searls Weblog
|
