Clients that use persistent connections SHOULD limit the number of simultaneous connections that they maintain to a given server. A single-user client SHOULD NOT maintain more than 2 connections with any server or proxy. A proxy SHOULD use up to 2*N connections to another server or proxy, where N is the number of simultaneously active users. These guidelines are intended to improve HTTP response times and avoid congestion.
(quote from rfc2616)
"SHOULD" is not the same as "MUST". The authors make a recommendation to this effect, but it is not a hard and fast rule. Additionally, the RFC was submitted in June 1999. Network conditions have changed drastically since then.
Think of how many of these situations they must have every hour every day.
Heh. So what?
The store that sells tupperware in the local mall has better service than this. There are costs associated with having millions of users (such as a large enough customer service department to handle those users appropriately). Maybe it's time we started holding internet-related businesses to a higher standard.
Aside from the correctness of the other guy that replied to this...
SCOX has 21M shares outstanding. In order to avoid massive shareholder lawsuits when you decided not to increase the value of the company, you would need to purchase all of the shares and take the company private. At your recommended price point of $0.20 per share, you would still need USD $4,200,000.
An interesting perspective: many businesses really don't care that much about vendor lock-in. They care about time-to-market so that they can cream their competition, and they care about the cost of their development staff (hardware and OS licenses are comparatively cheap).
That's why Microsoft makes so much sense to most businesses. As much as most open source folk don't want to admit it, Microsoft *makes things just work*. You can take an idea from drawing board to working prototype (which will later ship as a production product, no doubt;-) in a very short time compared to Linux (with the exception of simple web stuff, which for some reason always seems to happen faster in (perl|php|python|insert others here).
Linux can be a royal pain in the butt. I'm getting close to the point where I won't recommend it for servers anymore -- not because I don't like it (I prefer the environment, in fact) -- but because it creates a black box that requires an expert to run. Windows, on the other hand, is generally very easy for most businesses to work with (security issues notwithstanding -- but that's a whole different rant).
Vendor lock-in is much less likely to lose me a job or a client than the problematic reputation that will ensue when the customer can't figure out how to do something simple (like, say, change an IP address) on a system that I've installed. And don't kid yourself: these types of simple administrative tasks are made much more difficult under any Unix variant (including the "desktop" variants) than they need to be. Unix does not follow the KISS principle, which is unfortunate.
Add to that the lack of decent development environments for Unix platforms outside of the Java world, and the problem compounds. Give me a good IDE for C++ under Unix (without it being eclipse, which IMHO isn't that great) with intellisense, online context-sensitive API help, etc., and a good class library that actually makes POSIX and X11 programming painless, and a standard UI accross all variations of Unix, and... you get the idea. Unix has issues that need to be resolved before it will be acceptable for many things.
Windows is easy. My customers like it. I give my customers what they like, whether W2 or 1099.
Just to repeat myself so that we're absolutely clear, my most recent recommendation was for a large (200+-node) Linux cluster -- so I'm not all that biased for Microsoft here.
Awww, did that joke hit a bit close to home? If my sense of humor offends you so greatly, then you probably ought to think seriously about why that might be. You might learn something about yourself.
Tech hasn't changed that much since the 90's when it comes to programming and system administration. The real differences are: (a) businesses are actually making real money now, rather than living solely on VC, and therefore (b) they are no longer trying to hire everyone with a pulse (I can't even begin to count the number of useless 'warm bodies', as they were called, that I saw populating dot-coms back then) simply because they can. People are actually paying attention to who they hire now. There is just as much opportunity in this industry as there ever has been. You simply have to be willing to seek it out, and put the time in to learn to do the requisite jobs. If you're useless to the organization you work for, you won't last. As it should be.
As a hiring manager at a major internet company, I can tell you that only about 1% of candidates even come close to being worth my time to interview. Of those, 50% have more than ten years of experience. Puts a new spin on it, now, doesn't it? Age doesn't tend to be nearly the detriment that people think it is (unless you're so set in your ways that you can't see past your 3270, in which case you don't belong in a leading-edge firm anyway -- and that's not my problem).
BTW, I already have a grip, thanks, but you might try getting a sense of humor. It'll make the time you spend on Slashdot much more pleasant.
This is, perhaps my number one complaint about open source "zealots." They don't seem to understand that the best way to beat your enemy is to understand your enemy -- and steal his good ideas.
I, too, program on a lot of different platforms and in a lot of different languages. If I hadn't learned about other platforms (Windows included), I wouldn't know half of the handy tricks and tools of the trade that I know today.
cp is a lightweight utility to begin with. Those kinds of features don't detract significantly from performance.
On the larger components such as Gnome, things suffer from considerably less featuritis than in any other distribution I've laid eyes on.
BTW, if you don't want the progress bar, you can always disable the Gentoo-specific patches... I don't recall exactly how to enable it offhand, but there *is* a "build from original, unpatches sources" option.
A reasonable point here is that with some work Wine and the Mono folks could team up for an interesting result.
As to VS.NET not building for other OS's, I run VS.NET-compiled binaries all the time under Mono. Works just fine. And VS is (IMO) FAR better than any currently-available Linux dev environment C# or C++.
Hint to folks with more time on their hands than I've got: build a VS.NET clone, bring lots more people to the Linux world.
In my experience, it's not the -funroll-my-toilet-paper type of options. It's more the general lack of bloat in Gentoo that makes it faster.
I used Fedora, Debian, and others for many years, having resisted Gentoo due to time constraints (I had better things to do than compile an entire distro), but then one day I had some free time and tried it.
The lack of RedHack's Gnome customizations was enough for me to be converted. It's *amazing* how much faster Gnome runs without all the useless RedHat garbage cluttering up memory and chewing CPU cycles here and there.
On the other hand, you really have to know what you're doing to set up Gnome properly with everything working "as advertised."
Now I use it on servers at work because it's actually configurable enough to handle our rather unique environment without rewriting half the init scripts.
--S
Re:question about native code
on
Practical Mono
·
· Score: 1
(disclaimer: I haven't actually done this...)
I imagine you'd use P/Invoke, just like you do under Windows. COM is no longer the preferred way to integrate managed/unmanaged code.
One way that we can place political pressure on China to change is to prevent them from accessing all of the unique and useful (and highly desireable) services that come out of other countries. Whether or not it would accomplish the goal is another debate entirely, but what's the excuse for not trying?
My opinion of Google is a couple of notches lower for this move.
Besides, what's next? Complying if the US government asks them to censor something? It's a slippery slope.
...but think about the time span since the series. Do you really think they're going to be able to get all the actors back into the series? and will the chemistry be the same?
...but think about the time span since the series. Do you really think they're going to be able to get all the actors to do a movie? And will the chemistry be the same?
You're assuming that the training is worth what you pay for. In my experience, employees who go into training do not come out any more productive. In some cases, they come out *less* productive, because they drank the kool-aid.
I'm not convinced that virtualization is going to be such a big deal for either company.
On the server side, most organizations have no need for it. Computers are cheap, and it's lower risk to run separate hardware. Those that are savvy enough to make good use of it tend to use every last bit of their hardware, so they have nothing left to spend on virtualized instances of other stuff anyway.
In the home market (and, FWIW, I don't consider the Slashdot crowd the "home market":-), I don't think anyone is really going to care.
Virtualization has been around for a long time on much larger machines. Outside of the IBM mainframe world, you don't really see a whole lot of it in the grand scheme of things -- and that's on machines with six- and seven-figure price tags, where it would really make sense.
Slashdot Mirror
(quote from rfc2616)
"SHOULD" is not the same as "MUST". The authors make a recommendation to this effect, but it is not a hard and fast rule. Additionally, the RFC was submitted in June 1999. Network conditions have changed drastically since then.
--S
Heh. So what?
The store that sells tupperware in the local mall has better service than this. There are costs associated with having millions of users (such as a large enough customer service department to handle those users appropriately). Maybe it's time we started holding internet-related businesses to a higher standard.
--S
Funny, I've never "broken my system" by using ACCEPT_KEYWORDS on the command line, and I do it quite frequently.
/etc/portage/package.* is highly useful for the obnoxious stuff (like gnome releases)...
That said,
--S
Yum is sloooooooow. By the time yum even finishes *searching for* a package, emerge can be done compiling it :p
--S
Aside from the correctness of the other guy that replied to this...
SCOX has 21M shares outstanding. In order to avoid massive shareholder lawsuits when you decided not to increase the value of the company, you would need to purchase all of the shares and take the company private. At your recommended price point of $0.20 per share, you would still need USD $4,200,000.
Not worth it, if you ask me.
--S (IANA financial advisor or stock expert).
When I see "The Yankee Group", I don't even bother reading TFA. Did you know that "The Yankee Group" means "Complete Utter Tripe" in spoken Ancient?
--S
An interesting perspective: many businesses really don't care that much about vendor lock-in. They care about time-to-market so that they can cream their competition, and they care about the cost of their development staff (hardware and OS licenses are comparatively cheap).
;-) in a very short time compared to Linux (with the exception of simple web stuff, which for some reason always seems to happen faster in (perl|php|python|insert others here).
That's why Microsoft makes so much sense to most businesses. As much as most open source folk don't want to admit it, Microsoft *makes things just work*. You can take an idea from drawing board to working prototype (which will later ship as a production product, no doubt
Linux can be a royal pain in the butt. I'm getting close to the point where I won't recommend it for servers anymore -- not because I don't like it (I prefer the environment, in fact) -- but because it creates a black box that requires an expert to run. Windows, on the other hand, is generally very easy for most businesses to work with (security issues notwithstanding -- but that's a whole different rant).
Vendor lock-in is much less likely to lose me a job or a client than the problematic reputation that will ensue when the customer can't figure out how to do something simple (like, say, change an IP address) on a system that I've installed. And don't kid yourself: these types of simple administrative tasks are made much more difficult under any Unix variant (including the "desktop" variants) than they need to be. Unix does not follow the KISS principle, which is unfortunate.
Add to that the lack of decent development environments for Unix platforms outside of the Java world, and the problem compounds. Give me a good IDE for C++ under Unix (without it being eclipse, which IMHO isn't that great) with intellisense, online context-sensitive API help, etc., and a good class library that actually makes POSIX and X11 programming painless, and a standard UI accross all variations of Unix, and... you get the idea. Unix has issues that need to be resolved before it will be acceptable for many things.
Windows is easy. My customers like it. I give my customers what they like, whether W2 or 1099.
Just to repeat myself so that we're absolutely clear, my most recent recommendation was for a large (200+-node) Linux cluster -- so I'm not all that biased for Microsoft here.
--S
Awww, did that joke hit a bit close to home? If my sense of humor offends you so greatly, then you probably ought to think seriously about why that might be. You might learn something about yourself.
Tech hasn't changed that much since the 90's when it comes to programming and system administration. The real differences are: (a) businesses are actually making real money now, rather than living solely on VC, and therefore (b) they are no longer trying to hire everyone with a pulse (I can't even begin to count the number of useless 'warm bodies', as they were called, that I saw populating dot-coms back then) simply because they can. People are actually paying attention to who they hire now. There is just as much opportunity in this industry as there ever has been. You simply have to be willing to seek it out, and put the time in to learn to do the requisite jobs. If you're useless to the organization you work for, you won't last. As it should be.
As a hiring manager at a major internet company, I can tell you that only about 1% of candidates even come close to being worth my time to interview. Of those, 50% have more than ten years of experience. Puts a new spin on it, now, doesn't it? Age doesn't tend to be nearly the detriment that people think it is (unless you're so set in your ways that you can't see past your 3270, in which case you don't belong in a leading-edge firm anyway -- and that's not my problem).
BTW, I already have a grip, thanks, but you might try getting a sense of humor. It'll make the time you spend on Slashdot much more pleasant.
--S
And Microsoft's competition is... where exactly?
...Microsoft.
Linux doesn't cut it (yet, anyway -- give it another five or ten years perhaps).
Apple can't quite seem to capture it.
And then there's...
When Microsoft gets some real competition, then I'll start paying attention to messages such as yours. Until then, I'm not exactly worried.
--S (FWIW, I happen to do Linux work professionally. I'm just not a zealot.)
It never will recover to the point it was at in the late 90's.
We learned our lesson, and stopped hiring stupid people. We're sorry that you're bitter, but there it is.
Thanks,
The Management.
Funny, I have an app in production on Mono that was built and compiled with Visual Studio -- and it's no Hello World app.
--S
This is, perhaps my number one complaint about open source "zealots." They don't seem to understand that the best way to beat your enemy is to understand your enemy -- and steal his good ideas.
I, too, program on a lot of different platforms and in a lot of different languages. If I hadn't learned about other platforms (Windows included), I wouldn't know half of the handy tricks and tools of the trade that I know today.
--S
Was it because they couldn't spell?
--S (Oh wait, I meant never to post a spelling-nazi message to Slashdot...)
BWWAHAHAHA.
We must not know the same Java developers...
--S
I would think that some sort of evidence or proof would be required to prevent the case from being dismissed. But that's just me.
--S
cp is a lightweight utility to begin with. Those kinds of features don't detract significantly from performance.
On the larger components such as Gnome, things suffer from considerably less featuritis than in any other distribution I've laid eyes on.
BTW, if you don't want the progress bar, you can always disable the Gentoo-specific patches... I don't recall exactly how to enable it offhand, but there *is* a "build from original, unpatches sources" option.
--S
A reasonable point here is that with some work Wine and the Mono folks could team up for an interesting result.
As to VS.NET not building for other OS's, I run VS.NET-compiled binaries all the time under Mono. Works just fine. And VS is (IMO) FAR better than any currently-available Linux dev environment C# or C++.
Hint to folks with more time on their hands than I've got: build a VS.NET clone, bring lots more people to the Linux world.
--S
In my experience, it's not the -funroll-my-toilet-paper type of options. It's more the general lack of bloat in Gentoo that makes it faster.
I used Fedora, Debian, and others for many years, having resisted Gentoo due to time constraints (I had better things to do than compile an entire distro), but then one day I had some free time and tried it.
The lack of RedHack's Gnome customizations was enough for me to be converted. It's *amazing* how much faster Gnome runs without all the useless RedHat garbage cluttering up memory and chewing CPU cycles here and there.
On the other hand, you really have to know what you're doing to set up Gnome properly with everything working "as advertised."
Now I use it on servers at work because it's actually configurable enough to handle our rather unique environment without rewriting half the init scripts.
--S
(disclaimer: I haven't actually done this...)
I imagine you'd use P/Invoke, just like you do under Windows. COM is no longer the preferred way to integrate managed/unmanaged code.
--S
In a word? Yes.
Then maybe I wouldn't have so many damned compromised machines wasting my bandwidth.
--S
I disagree.
One way that we can place political pressure on China to change is to prevent them from accessing all of the unique and useful (and highly desireable) services that come out of other countries. Whether or not it would accomplish the goal is another debate entirely, but what's the excuse for not trying?
My opinion of Google is a couple of notches lower for this move.
Besides, what's next? Complying if the US government asks them to censor something? It's a slippery slope.
--S
Oh, wait...
--S
You're assuming that the training is worth what you pay for. In my experience, employees who go into training do not come out any more productive. In some cases, they come out *less* productive, because they drank the kool-aid.
--S
I never knew that having all the facts could be this simple! Thanks, Slashdot!
--S
I'm not convinced that virtualization is going to be such a big deal for either company.
:-), I don't think anyone is really going to care.
On the server side, most organizations have no need for it. Computers are cheap, and it's lower risk to run separate hardware. Those that are savvy enough to make good use of it tend to use every last bit of their hardware, so they have nothing left to spend on virtualized instances of other stuff anyway.
In the home market (and, FWIW, I don't consider the Slashdot crowd the "home market"
Virtualization has been around for a long time on much larger machines. Outside of the IBM mainframe world, you don't really see a whole lot of it in the grand scheme of things -- and that's on machines with six- and seven-figure price tags, where it would really make sense.
--S