Consider: a major search engine decides to also parse through sites listed via the alternate DNS server in addition to the traditional ones. Search results would then link to the site by IP instead of name (and maybe display a teeny icon indicating its presence on the other DNS system). Thus, the sites would still be searchable and useable, while at the same time spreading word of the new DNS system's existance.
Again, it's a nice idea, but bear in mind that most websites are hosted virtually - many sites to 1 IP. They rely on the browser passing the hostname as part of the HTTP headers. If you just provide an IP to link, the browsers don't have this information to send, so will just be fed the default site for that IP.
This relies on your audience having set up DNS to query their servers for these additional TLD's. Naturally, 99% of the net won't have done, so you're seriously missing out on a lot of potential visitors. It won't be indexed by any search engines, as they most likely won't be searching alternate DNS, and unless people are running their own mailservers with support for the domains, you won't be able to count on getting mail from people.
It's a nice idea - just a shame it's unworkable until it's accepted by the current top level authorities, which of course it never will unless they can screw money out of it...
No, but it's in unstable, which is perfectly fine on my box. If you're running X, then unstable is probably stable enough, and the dependencies seem reasonably fixed as of now...
This is really starting to get ridiculous. I suspect it would be far less of a problem were IE (and it's renderer/scripting) and the other parts of windows scripting not so heavily integrated into the shell - at least people would have some kind of control.
What's more worrying is that the increasing integration of things like KDE and Gnome are heading the same way. Admittedly the problems won't be around for so long, but as the number of unclued linux users goes up I suspect things may only start to get worse...
You just know that they'll include DVD/CD/MP3 playing, and whatever happens to be the new cool entertainment fad at the time.
It'll do email, word processing, keep track of your finances, and probably keep an eye on your ouse via the inbuilt PSCam(TM)(c).
But it'll still have limited connectivity options.
It'll be far to expensive for anyone to afford.
Nobody will be able to get hold of them for months.
All people want is a good console with good games, nice graphics, and the ability to play online, whether it's via ethernet or dialup.
I'm guessing that'll be the one area it'll fall down on...
I completely agree with you on the first point, but the statement about the Windows Terminal service shows that you don't seem to have it used once. In our school we've got 100 MBit LAN and Terminal Server is still slow as a snail. I can't imagine running it over ISDN, let alone modem.
I doubt that's down to terminal services - running it on reasonably fast machines over 128k is quite usable - I've done it more than once from home when the windows guys at work aren't answering the phone. Over 100 mbit net, it's *very* fast.
the problem with VNC is that it requires *huge* amounts of bandwidth - it's sluggish over 10 meg lan, and certainly isn't manageable over dialup. X does work nicely over some other platforms - eXceed under windows being a good example.
I think the real issue is that X isn't well designed for low bandwidth use - try something like MS (ick, I know) terminal services, and it's quite useable over 128k isdn, or even over 56k if neccesary. It can be done - it just needs a more efficient use of bandwidth than X currently does.
No, Microsoft became successful because the american public by and large wouldn't know good software if it jumped up and bit them on the ass.
Wrong. Even by fluke they should have turned out something reasonable. For microsoft to consistently turn out products as bad as they do, they have to know *exactly* what a good product is, and work hard to make their software as unlike it as possible;)
Unfortunately, interesting kit like this is somewhat harder to come by over here in the UK - the tivo has only just been commercially released, and many of the cool hackable gadgets don't even make it out. It's a real shame, as there are a lot of us over here who would like a chance to have a play, but the cost/inconvenience of getting them shipped over makes it prohibitively expensive:(
Re:Just because you can ...
on
MySQL FS
·
· Score: 1
The latest releases of MySQL *DO* support transactions...
Re:Just because you can ...
on
MySQL FS
·
· Score: 1
the 3.23.xx releases of MySQL do support commit and rollback. What's more interesting is the ease with which you can run MySQL db's over multiple servers - this could make a great foundation for a simple, fast distributed filesystem...
I've been using reiserFS for a few months now - it's superb. It's not lost any data at all, recovers flawlessly from power failures, and is considerably faster than ext2. All in all, I'm impressed - sure, it's still not "complete", and could certainly do with conversion tools to and from ext2, but for all round reliability, and flexibility, it's great:)
You could try the cobalt users mailing list (it's somewhere on cobalt.com) - be warned, there's an *awful* lot of crap that gets posted there, so sign up for the digest;)
Another consideration if you're planning on the used RaQ route is that cobalt charge for their OS restore CD (installed via NFS IIRC), and it is the only way to do a proper restore - the RaQ's have no bios, so you have no way of getting any alternative to work. TBH, you would be better looking some of the alternatives - it'll work out cheaper, and with better hardware in the long run...
Are there any great alternatives to the Cobalt line? Perhaps another similar piece of all-in-one hardware. Maybe one that is even better? Sure, setting up a Linux or BSD box could work, but there would be a steep learning curve for someone that wants a Cobalt. Maybe there's a Cobalt-like GPL (or even commercial) package for Linux? Any suggestions?
It depends what you're after - I've been adminning RaQ's for a while, simply because they're been available from hosting providers at relatively good prices. For what they're meant to do, they're great machines - powerful enough, dead simple for even a fairly clueless user, but reasonably flexible so as not to hold back the clued too much. On the other hand, there becomes a point that the RaQs are too frustrating, and you feel the need to move on. I'm currently setting up a cluster of Intel ISP1100 servers - PIII 800, 1GB ram, 2x36GB hdd, all in 1U of rackspace. They're extremely fast, and you can stick pretty much any OS you like on there. Along with something like webmin, or an inhouse frontend, they'd make a pretty good solution. They're also not that expensive for what they are...
I've never had any problem with 2.2 and do not understand why everyone got in a fuss with 2.4 anticipation. I'm sure 2.4 is a lot better, but I't doesn't matter what kernel we are running we are still better that windows
hmmm, lemme think:
much improved SMP support,
a vastly improve TCP/IP stack,
USB support (admittedly backported), are some the best reasons as far as I'm concerned. Compared with 2.2.x the 2.4-test kernels have been stunningly fast. I can't wait to get a chance to try the final 2.4 over the weekend.
Incidentally though, that sort of unqualified doze bashing makes you look like a fool. Sure, 9x sucks ass, but as a desktop OS, win2k is very nice...
Great, looks promising. Just a shame there's no win2000 support (well there's a surprise). I don't particularly wanna play with it on my linux machine, and I'm damned if I'm gonna resort to using NT4;)
Hard to believe theres only been 100 launches. Seems like more that that, especially when you think of the timescale.
It'll be interesting to see what effect the space station has on space exploration in general. Will it have little or no effect, and be little more than a damned expensive toy, like mir, or will it actually pave the way for further, cheaper, more interesting space flights?
Think of us English and Australians who have to put up with a intefering, meddling government hell-bent on censoring and spying on what we transmit and receive across the internet.
And let's not forget about the RIP bill here in the England. Visit stand.org for more info, and to contact your MP
Slashdot Mirror
Consider: a major search engine decides to also parse through sites listed via the alternate DNS server in addition to the traditional ones. Search results would then link to the site by IP instead of name (and maybe display a teeny icon indicating its presence on the other DNS system). Thus, the sites would still be searchable and useable, while at the same time spreading word of the new DNS system's existance.
Again, it's a nice idea, but bear in mind that most websites are hosted virtually - many sites to 1 IP. They rely on the browser passing the hostname as part of the HTTP headers. If you just provide an IP to link, the browsers don't have this information to send, so will just be fed the default site for that IP.
This relies on your audience having set up DNS to query their servers for these additional TLD's. Naturally, 99% of the net won't have done, so you're seriously missing out on a lot of potential visitors. It won't be indexed by any search engines, as they most likely won't be searching alternate DNS, and unless people are running their own mailservers with support for the domains, you won't be able to count on getting mail from people.
It's a nice idea - just a shame it's unworkable until it's accepted by the current top level authorities, which of course it never will unless they can screw money out of it...
No, but it's in unstable, which is perfectly fine on my box. If you're running X, then unstable is probably stable enough, and the dependencies seem reasonably fixed as of now...
This is really starting to get ridiculous. I suspect it would be far less of a problem were IE (and it's renderer/scripting) and the other parts of windows scripting not so heavily integrated into the shell - at least people would have some kind of control.
What's more worrying is that the increasing integration of things like KDE and Gnome are heading the same way. Admittedly the problems won't be around for so long, but as the number of unclued linux users goes up I suspect things may only start to get worse...
You just know that they'll include DVD/CD/MP3 playing, and whatever happens to be the new cool entertainment fad at the time.
It'll do email, word processing, keep track of your finances, and probably keep an eye on your ouse via the inbuilt PSCam(TM)(c).
But it'll still have limited connectivity options.
It'll be far to expensive for anyone to afford.
Nobody will be able to get hold of them for months.
All people want is a good console with good games, nice graphics, and the ability to play online, whether it's via ethernet or dialup.
I'm guessing that'll be the one area it'll fall down on...
I have no idea.
;P) it works....
must be that randomness M$ puts in to all it's products that decides how well (if?
I completely agree with you on the first point, but the statement about the Windows Terminal service shows that you don't seem to have it used once. In our school we've got 100 MBit LAN and Terminal Server is still slow as a snail. I can't imagine running it over ISDN, let alone modem.
I doubt that's down to terminal services - running it on reasonably fast machines over 128k is quite usable - I've done it more than once from home when the windows guys at work aren't answering the phone. Over 100 mbit net, it's *very* fast.
the problem with VNC is that it requires *huge* amounts of bandwidth - it's sluggish over 10 meg lan, and certainly isn't manageable over dialup. X does work nicely over some other platforms - eXceed under windows being a good example.
I think the real issue is that X isn't well designed for low bandwidth use - try something like MS (ick, I know) terminal services, and it's quite useable over 128k isdn, or even over 56k if neccesary. It can be done - it just needs a more efficient use of bandwidth than X currently does.
Now all we need is a way of being able to port the images into ascii quake, so we can frag friends in glorious ascii-colour(tm)
:)
No, Microsoft became successful because the american public by and large wouldn't know good software if it jumped up and bit them on the ass.
;)
Wrong. Even by fluke they should have turned out something reasonable. For microsoft to consistently turn out products as bad as they do, they have to know *exactly* what a good product is, and work hard to make their software as unlike it as possible
...but it has to be done ;)
"can you imagine a beowulf cluster of these?"
like those robotic spider things in stargate? no thanks...
Unfortunately, interesting kit like this is somewhat harder to come by over here in the UK - the tivo has only just been commercially released, and many of the cool hackable gadgets don't even make it out. It's a real shame, as there are a lot of us over here who would like a chance to have a play, but the cost/inconvenience of getting them shipped over makes it prohibitively expensive :(
a bit of both, of course ;)
The latest releases of MySQL *DO* support transactions...
the 3.23.xx releases of MySQL do support commit and rollback. What's more interesting is the ease with which you can run MySQL db's over multiple servers - this could make a great foundation for a simple, fast distributed filesystem...
I've been using reiserFS for a few months now - it's superb. It's not lost any data at all, recovers flawlessly from power failures, and is considerably faster than ext2. All in all, I'm impressed - sure, it's still not "complete", and could certainly do with conversion tools to and from ext2, but for all round reliability, and flexibility, it's great :)
You could try the cobalt users mailing list (it's somewhere on cobalt.com) - be warned, there's an *awful* lot of crap that gets posted there, so sign up for the digest ;)
Another consideration if you're planning on the used RaQ route is that cobalt charge for their OS restore CD (installed via NFS IIRC), and it is the only way to do a proper restore - the RaQ's have no bios, so you have no way of getting any alternative to work. TBH, you would be better looking some of the alternatives - it'll work out cheaper, and with better hardware in the long run...
Are there any great alternatives to the Cobalt line? Perhaps another similar piece of all-in-one hardware. Maybe one that is even better? Sure, setting up a Linux or BSD box could work, but there would be a steep learning curve for someone that wants a Cobalt. Maybe there's a Cobalt-like GPL (or even commercial) package for Linux? Any suggestions?
It depends what you're after - I've been adminning RaQ's for a while, simply because they're been available from hosting providers at relatively good prices. For what they're meant to do, they're great machines - powerful enough, dead simple for even a fairly clueless user, but reasonably flexible so as not to hold back the clued too much. On the other hand, there becomes a point that the RaQs are too frustrating, and you feel the need to move on. I'm currently setting up a cluster of Intel ISP1100 servers - PIII 800, 1GB ram, 2x36GB hdd, all in 1U of rackspace. They're extremely fast, and you can stick pretty much any OS you like on there. Along with something like webmin, or an inhouse frontend, they'd make a pretty good solution. They're also not that expensive for what they are...
I've never had any problem with 2.2 and do not understand why everyone got in a fuss with 2.4 anticipation. I'm sure 2.4 is a lot better, but I't doesn't matter what kernel we are running we are still better that windows
hmmm, lemme think:
much improved SMP support, a vastly improve TCP/IP stack, USB support (admittedly backported), are some the best reasons as far as I'm concerned. Compared with 2.2.x the 2.4-test kernels have been stunningly fast. I can't wait to get a chance to try the final 2.4 over the weekend.
Incidentally though, that sort of unqualified doze bashing makes you look like a fool. Sure, 9x sucks ass, but as a desktop OS, win2k is very nice...
Great, looks promising. Just a shame there's no win2000 support (well there's a surprise). I don't particularly wanna play with it on my linux machine, and I'm damned if I'm gonna resort to using NT4 ;)
Hard to believe theres only been 100 launches. Seems like more that that, especially when you think of the timescale. It'll be interesting to see what effect the space station has on space exploration in general. Will it have little or no effect, and be little more than a damned expensive toy, like mir, or will it actually pave the way for further, cheaper, more interesting space flights?
Count me in. The sick fuckers deserve it....
I meant stand.org.uk :P
Think of us English and Australians who have to put up with a intefering, meddling government hell-bent on censoring and spying on what we transmit and receive across the internet.
And let's not forget about the RIP bill here in the England. Visit stand.org for more info, and to contact your MP