Hell, even well-paid admins could be vulnerable. All kinds of things can result in a need for money. Insurance problem, spouse gets fired, simple greed....
Gambling and drug problems are also classic cases of needs for lots of money and an addiction that overrides ethical considerations.
Don't worry, the price of long pork will most certainly fall in the coming years due to increased supply.
If everything else is equal you are correct, but not if enough people are long in long pork, or if more people express a longing for long pork. If you remember the Atkins fad, you will know that pork is not immune to speculative bubbles, especially in the rind sector.
In the early 2000s, a guy I knew used a bunny in his flowcharts to represent the internet. It meant about as much as a cloud, but was much cooler about it.
I'm guessing that had something to do with the limitations of the clipart folder?
All in all the most amazing thing about this Q&A is how he readily admits that he really has only used Ubuntu for his primary OS for a few weeks now. The thought that someone as ignorant as me, about the internals on Linux, has used Ubuntu more than its new COO is just stunning.
I was thinking at first that someone coming to Ubuntu with fresh eyes would note things that seem obvious to a seasoned user but aren't, so that could be useful. OTOH, it is just as important to keep those who have been using it happy, as it is easier to keep an existing user than to have to sell to a new user.
Booze never "gives" you a hangover. A hangover comes from the lack of water in your system; dehydration. Just make every second of third drink a glass of water, *poof* no hangovers.
An alternative to that is drinking as much water as you can before bed (usually 3-4 glasses for me). Works well.
Except it's not how they operate their machine but how some other party does.
But, that aside, where do we set the bar?
My intuition says that unless they are negatively impacting other people/the internet at large, there is no reason for a fine. However, if their machine is detected sending out spam, that is a problem that affects other people and they should be stopped. And there should be a grace period, so that those who are competent but just get unlucky are not negatively impacted.
To use a car analogy, if I am missing a brake light (which will not only affect me but could cause an accident) and a cop pulls me over, he issues me a warning. If I don't get it fixed within the next n hours and he catches me, I'll get fined. If I repeatedly get pulled over for brake lights, indicators and headlights out, the local cops are going to see me as a problem and book me without a warning.
In internet terms, if my machine is detected sending spam, I should be given one warning to fix the problem within say, 72 hours. If it is detected sending spam after that time, I'm given a 2nd warning with another 72 hours. If after that time my machine is still detected sending spam, I am fined and my machine must be taken to a registered operating system re-installer and myself given a short lecture in computer security. If I can't provide receipts, I am fined a larger amount, and so on, and so forth. I think being more lenient is a good idea because there aren't lives at risk.
Sending a message to OS developers: Financially penalizing OS developing companies (much as I like the idea), it would be unfair to non-profits. Better to have a star rating system for security that is developed on statistics of number of infections per number of operating systems running. Yes, I know that users with a clue will not be evenly distributed among operating systems and have a large impact, but it's a start, and would cause those who develop operating systems to give a shit.
Unfortunately, my linux box also crashes (or at least hangs) periodically. I have a sneaking suspicion it's related to the nvidia driver.
Do you overclock or undervolt/underclock? I did the latter and recently reset the machine to the defaults, and it has been stable ever since. And yes, this was after finding the lowest voltage of apparent stability and then raising the voltage by 2 increments. However, the sound still dies sometimes because of (I believe) pulse audio, which I haven't been bothered to fix.
Same thing happened when the Iranians overtook the US Embassy in 1979.
The difference was that the Iranians only had to piece together strip cut shredded documents. Not.8mmx4mm (level 6). From what I can tell, this is still the highest standard of shredding used in the USA. To piece that together requires completing a 19k piece jigsaw per page, something I tend to doubt that you are going to do by hand - each page is going to take longer than 30 days for a family to complete. http://www.worldslargestpuzzle.com/hof-010.html - that's what it took for a family to complete an actual jigsaw without having to use stereoscopic microscopes or use tweezers.
The funny thing from the latter piece is that the most common form of document reconstruction is for the 1/4 inch strip shredded documents - the cheapest possible method of shredding. Why am I not surprised.
You're mostly right. But, the guy who can't be bothered to vote, won't be bothered to use the various other boxes you mention, either. If/when revolution rolls around, he'll hide in the cellar with the women and children. He is irrelevant.
Not everyone chooses to abstain from voting because they are apathetic. A lot refrain from voting because they are pragmatic and (in my mind rightly) realize that their vote makes zero real difference. If they are unhappy with the political status quo (and that may include either of the two faces of the same coin style political circus that exists in many countries) and expend energy on doing things that do have some chance of making a difference if they exist, then they are not lacking in courage or idealism.
Obviously, to counter those drones, we will need a larger army of drones themselves. And it is not realistic to expect an army of teenagers to sit waiting for a drone attack that doesn't come, or pilots. We will need to build some sort of AI to control them all, a global digital defense network, if you will.
$250 Million for the free to air channels around Australia with no strings attached. I wonder why there is little to no coverage in the main stream press now days?
And then I realised where all the funding and authorisation comes from. I just find it... disturbing... that we are all of a sudden getting massive spin coverage on the facebook trolls over death-pages. Again, until I realise that it's the perfect reason to "censor" the internet.
Um, why? Dual screen (e.g. staring at a bezel) is crap for gaming, but having a large central monitor and a monitor at either side for peripheral vision - that is something worth having. And if you are comparing it to something 30"+, the price is going to be approximately half of what that setup will cost, with more pixels and more area. And no bezel anywhere near the focal point. That's non-trivial, especially when a 30" screen costs more than you might spend on a gaming computer. As far as utility - your peripheral vision is there to be used - movement of vague shapes is all you really need in an FPS, but in an RTS or TBS seeing the whole battlefield with a minimum of scrolling would be invaluable.
But totally agree with the work-purposes multi-monitor setups. ATI has a win on their hands with that one. With time their Linux drivers will get better and they will surely start eating some Nvidia and Matrox market share. In fact, it's hard to look past Nvidia or ATI/AMD for any graphics card setup these days. For work purposes all you need are the cheapest possible graphics cards that have the number of outputs you need, they'll chew less power and make less noise to boot.
But keep in mind that FreeBSD is a slowest OS. And probably the most conservative and really old at ecosystem. And also has completely f*cked up release time schedule (even Warner Losh himself agreed on that). As well as quality is quite shitty for other things than just a network router. And threads there are mostly crap.
I'm not sure how relevant that Phoronix comparison is because the filesystem used was UFS, not ZFS. However, unless we are talking about Gcrypt (which I have never used), the slow performance of FreeBSD is acceptable for my purposes. For my purposes, data integrity trumps speed. If I were the type to prioritize raw speed over correctness I would have flunked out of engineering school through not double checking my figures, chosen MySQL over PostgreSQL, etc. Conservative for an ecosystem is good too. Maybe old goes along with that, though for example PostgreSQL has 8.4 in ports from what I understand, which is recent. Maybe the release schedule will bug me, maybe not. Release schedule? It's not something that really worries me, as long as the operating system does what I want and the ports (or repos, or whatever) are comprehensive and up to date. What exact quality is bad about FreeBSD? To me, that sounds like FUD.;)
OpenSolaris has *valid* open source license, so your statement "I want fully free and opensource, hence FreeBSD" -- is sounds more like a FUD.:-)
Maybe you are right. Other people from Sun have said that, and maybe it is valid (maybe the FSF is the source of the FUD, though I trust them well enough, anecdotes from Theo about RMS holding up an airplane notwithstanding). e.g. http://www.mail-archive.com/opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org/msg13877.html I would like to see what direction Larry Ellison takes things before extending full trust to Oracle and what Sun is now that Oracle holds the whip hand.
At the same time, since something like ZFS is so groundbreaking, I would like to support the creation of it financially once whatever I do with it has some financial returns. It seems wrong that Sun develop something like ZFS, release it FOSS, and not benefit financially when there were certainly costs involved.
I have to wonder what other movie was made with the title "War Games", because you can't possibly be describing the one that ends with a computer drawing philosophical conclusions from playing a game.
I think he was referring to the cracking techniques not the AI, e.g. war dialing, which is the only cracking technique I can remember from the movie. But that was realistic - a brute force attack on a search space, logging hits on solutions.
Actually, ZFS does that without deduplication. It's a copy-on-write filesystem. When you copy a file, it creates a link. When you modify one copy, it duplicates the modified blocks and updates one of the copies to reference the new blocks. Deduplication allows it to combine identical blocks from different sources.
Thanks for the heads up, I did not know that. Dedup should still be useful if you are migrating redundant data from another filesystem rather than making fresh copies. For backups, I have to wonder how many identical blocks there are going to be in two zip files containing largely the same data, since I was under the impression that if the data changes then the files might be compressed a different way and so have different blocks. I hope I'm wrong.
Try PcBSD, you'll like the install process and the MacOS-like installation packages (self-contained). It's based on FreeBSD.
I notice that it's now based on the production release instead of the release candidate. I might give it a whirl. My thoughts were that I'd be better off getting to grips with FreeBSD because of the benefits of the larger community.
On BSD, if ZFS doesn't become the filesystem of choice, then if Solaris closes source and maybe 3 revs of BSD later, it could easily be an island. ZFS does have the pooling and such so there are some things that are potentially very useful and unique to it but I never needed the things XFS could do that Ext3 couldn't and even now the limits of ext3 and ext4 are still well beyond what just about everyone will need and btrfs should be good by then. I remember when FFS didn't get replaced with a logging filesystem because they added soft updates, if those guys have their own plans to make ffs2 or something and they are closer to the core BSD team then ZFS will be an island.
Thanks for your comment. Frankly the license does worry me, though I have to make a choice. My gut feeling was that FreeBSD is the largest BSD and so if they felt that the license risk was sufficiently low to put the sort of work into it that they have, then that would be good enough for me. It's not like they haven't been through legal battles before - BSD was given a baptism of legal fire. (Mind you, I'd certainly prefer it if OpenBSD was porting ZFS.)
My other gut feeling is much stronger, a conviction. And that is this: the solution to silent data corruption on the HDD (or SSD) that ZFS provides is a killer app. Unlike XFS, it has the potential to make also-rans of other file systems without equivalent features (and those with equivalent features but without sufficient testing). If you are running a server (which is the focus of FreeBSD) and you care about data integrity, ZFS is a no-brainer. RAIDZ will allow you to sleep at night, especially with inexpensive hardware. For much the same reasons, I insist on PostgreSQL over MySQL because it has a reputation for not treating my data like junk. And now with ZFS I have the opportunity to build my castle on a foundation of granite. The developers of FreeBSD must be equally aware of the advantages, considering that they first ported it over 3 years ago whereas it took me until a couple months ago to even realize what the hype was about. So I'd be very surprised if FreeBSD let ZFS become an island.
However, the fact that Oracle is the priciple driver behind BTRFS, but now owns Sun and thus could GPL ZFS does obviously cast some doubt on the future of both - although they can both carry on with non-Oracle devlopers, it will obviously be very important which one Oracle throws its weight behind (they're surely unlikely to give them both equal resources).
I'm curious - what do you see as the advantage to Oracle of making ZFS GPL?
Re:OS going away, or just "contractual support"?
on
The Future of OpenSolaris
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Uh, what? Redhat is RHEL, for which support is available. Fedora is RHEL beta, and is unsupported. Solaris is supported, OpenSolaris is unsupported. So in fact, it is entirely different.
My interpretation of part of the point of OpenSolaris - Sun were using it as a testing ground for concepts that would make it over to Solaris, e.g. ZFS. AFAIK it's not exactly Solaris beta, but it is at least somewhat analogous. Both Fedora and OpenSolaris are unsupported, RHEL and Solaris are supported. I don't think you'd use either Fedora or OpenSolaris if you fear cutting edge stuff breaking on you, and if you fear that sort of thing enough to want something more stable, you might also buy support contracts, which would be less costly to provide because less stuff would break (hence RHEL and Solaris and their support contracts). But the utility of OpenSolaris/Fedora in business - someone in IT could get their feet wet for free with either Fedora or OpenSolaris and then make a case to management that they want to go with RHEL or Solaris after they have done proof of concept.
Anyone know a good place to get access to ZFS in another place? Would BSD or FUSE on Linux be better?
FreeBSD - ZFS is no longer in experimental status as of version 8.0. I haven't heard anyone recommend FUSE on Linux. As far as other BSDs go, I know that at least OpenBSD has no plans to include it at this stage.
At the moment I'm learning FreeBSD over OpenSolaris because I want ZFS, FreeBSD is fully free and open source, FreeBSD looks to have a wider array of ports, which should be easy to install, even though with the LiveCD of OpenSolaris it boots up straight to X. On a production server or maybe even workstation, I think the choice would be down to FreeBSD versus Solaris, rather than OpenSolaris. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Solaris does have a lot of nice features though, FMA (fault management architecture - lets you know when something has gone kaput and what to do about it.) And FreeBSD will lag in terms of the version of ZFS it supports. Deduplication looks to be a pretty cool feature - if you copy some data to another part of the HDD, and then you leave it a bit and your hoarding nature kicks in and you don't know whether you can delete it or not - no fear, ZFS will recognize the data as the same, only store it in one place (unless modified of course) and so there is no benefit to deleting the copy other than being a neat freak.
I'm presently wrestling with setting up FreeBSD on wireless. After that I have to get X set up. It would be nice if FreeBSD had version specific handbooks ala PostgreSQL, but they don't. So it's a combination of man pages, handbook, googling, etc to get me where I want to go. It's a bit of a contrast to Ubuntu which I set up on another box in the space of about an hour, including updates. Unmetered FOSS mirrors on ISPs kick ass!
Anyway, I suspect that the user base of FreeBSD will grow by leaps and bounds when people realize the advantages of ZFS and don't want to wait for BTRFS or whatever the results of this meeting might be: http://blogs.sun.com/bonwick/entry/casablanca
Slashdot Mirror
Gambling and drug problems are also classic cases of needs for lots of money and an addiction that overrides ethical considerations.
If everything else is equal you are correct, but not if enough people are long in long pork, or if more people express a longing for long pork. If you remember the Atkins fad, you will know that pork is not immune to speculative bubbles, especially in the rind sector.
I'm guessing that had something to do with the limitations of the clipart folder?
I was thinking at first that someone coming to Ubuntu with fresh eyes would note things that seem obvious to a seasoned user but aren't, so that could be useful. OTOH, it is just as important to keep those who have been using it happy, as it is easier to keep an existing user than to have to sell to a new user.
An alternative to that is drinking as much water as you can before bed (usually 3-4 glasses for me). Works well.
My intuition says that unless they are negatively impacting other people/the internet at large, there is no reason for a fine. However, if their machine is detected sending out spam, that is a problem that affects other people and they should be stopped. And there should be a grace period, so that those who are competent but just get unlucky are not negatively impacted.
To use a car analogy, if I am missing a brake light (which will not only affect me but could cause an accident) and a cop pulls me over, he issues me a warning. If I don't get it fixed within the next n hours and he catches me, I'll get fined. If I repeatedly get pulled over for brake lights, indicators and headlights out, the local cops are going to see me as a problem and book me without a warning.
In internet terms, if my machine is detected sending spam, I should be given one warning to fix the problem within say, 72 hours. If it is detected sending spam after that time, I'm given a 2nd warning with another 72 hours. If after that time my machine is still detected sending spam, I am fined and my machine must be taken to a registered operating system re-installer and myself given a short lecture in computer security. If I can't provide receipts, I am fined a larger amount, and so on, and so forth. I think being more lenient is a good idea because there aren't lives at risk.
Sending a message to OS developers: Financially penalizing OS developing companies (much as I like the idea), it would be unfair to non-profits. Better to have a star rating system for security that is developed on statistics of number of infections per number of operating systems running. Yes, I know that users with a clue will not be evenly distributed among operating systems and have a large impact, but it's a start, and would cause those who develop operating systems to give a shit.
Do you overclock or undervolt/underclock? I did the latter and recently reset the machine to the defaults, and it has been stable ever since. And yes, this was after finding the lowest voltage of apparent stability and then raising the voltage by 2 increments. However, the sound still dies sometimes because of (I believe) pulse audio, which I haven't been bothered to fix.
The difference was that the Iranians only had to piece together strip cut shredded documents. Not .8mmx4mm (level 6). From what I can tell, this is still the highest standard of shredding used in the USA. To piece that together requires completing a 19k piece jigsaw per page, something I tend to doubt that you are going to do by hand - each page is going to take longer than 30 days for a family to complete. http://www.worldslargestpuzzle.com/hof-010.html - that's what it took for a family to complete an actual jigsaw without having to use stereoscopic microscopes or use tweezers.
I would think it more likely that they would somehow scan the pieces in and have a computer algorithmically complete the puzzle. See here: http://www.brighthub.com/computing/enterprise-security/articles/882.aspx
The funny thing from the latter piece is that the most common form of document reconstruction is for the 1/4 inch strip shredded documents - the cheapest possible method of shredding. Why am I not surprised.
Yes you could.
It's not necessary to employ true arguers. You could easily get away with hiring those only capable of simple contradiction.
TFA says that the government could petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review, so I take it that matters aren't yet... set in stone.
Not everyone chooses to abstain from voting because they are apathetic. A lot refrain from voting because they are pragmatic and (in my mind rightly) realize that their vote makes zero real difference. If they are unhappy with the political status quo (and that may include either of the two faces of the same coin style political circus that exists in many countries) and expend energy on doing things that do have some chance of making a difference if they exist, then they are not lacking in courage or idealism.
Obviously, to counter those drones, we will need a larger army of drones themselves. And it is not realistic to expect an army of teenagers to sit waiting for a drone attack that doesn't come, or pilots. We will need to build some sort of AI to control them all, a global digital defense network, if you will.
Don't forget the cosy ski trip Conroy had in the US with Kerry Stokes, owner of channel 7, just before the $250 million handout. http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26718780-953,00.html
Exactly. Problem-reaction-solution.
Um, why? Dual screen (e.g. staring at a bezel) is crap for gaming, but having a large central monitor and a monitor at either side for peripheral vision - that is something worth having. And if you are comparing it to something 30"+, the price is going to be approximately half of what that setup will cost, with more pixels and more area. And no bezel anywhere near the focal point. That's non-trivial, especially when a 30" screen costs more than you might spend on a gaming computer. As far as utility - your peripheral vision is there to be used - movement of vague shapes is all you really need in an FPS, but in an RTS or TBS seeing the whole battlefield with a minimum of scrolling would be invaluable.
But totally agree with the work-purposes multi-monitor setups. ATI has a win on their hands with that one. With time their Linux drivers will get better and they will surely start eating some Nvidia and Matrox market share. In fact, it's hard to look past Nvidia or ATI/AMD for any graphics card setup these days. For work purposes all you need are the cheapest possible graphics cards that have the number of outputs you need, they'll chew less power and make less noise to boot.
I'm not sure how relevant that Phoronix comparison is because the filesystem used was UFS, not ZFS. However, unless we are talking about Gcrypt (which I have never used), the slow performance of FreeBSD is acceptable for my purposes. For my purposes, data integrity trumps speed. If I were the type to prioritize raw speed over correctness I would have flunked out of engineering school through not double checking my figures, chosen MySQL over PostgreSQL, etc. Conservative for an ecosystem is good too. Maybe old goes along with that, though for example PostgreSQL has 8.4 in ports from what I understand, which is recent. Maybe the release schedule will bug me, maybe not. Release schedule? It's not something that really worries me, as long as the operating system does what I want and the ports (or repos, or whatever) are comprehensive and up to date. What exact quality is bad about FreeBSD? To me, that sounds like FUD. ;)
Maybe you are right. Other people from Sun have said that, and maybe it is valid (maybe the FSF is the source of the FUD, though I trust them well enough, anecdotes from Theo about RMS holding up an airplane notwithstanding). e.g. http://www.mail-archive.com/opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org/msg13877.html I would like to see what direction Larry Ellison takes things before extending full trust to Oracle and what Sun is now that Oracle holds the whip hand.
At the same time, since something like ZFS is so groundbreaking, I would like to support the creation of it financially once whatever I do with it has some financial returns. It seems wrong that Sun develop something like ZFS, release it FOSS, and not benefit financially when there were certainly costs involved.
I think he was referring to the cracking techniques not the AI, e.g. war dialing, which is the only cracking technique I can remember from the movie. But that was realistic - a brute force attack on a search space, logging hits on solutions.
Ahhhhhhh... now the floating mountains make sense. Thanks for explaining it.
Thanks for the heads up, I did not know that. Dedup should still be useful if you are migrating redundant data from another filesystem rather than making fresh copies. For backups, I have to wonder how many identical blocks there are going to be in two zip files containing largely the same data, since I was under the impression that if the data changes then the files might be compressed a different way and so have different blocks. I hope I'm wrong.
I notice that it's now based on the production release instead of the release candidate. I might give it a whirl. My thoughts were that I'd be better off getting to grips with FreeBSD because of the benefits of the larger community.
Thanks for your comment. Frankly the license does worry me, though I have to make a choice. My gut feeling was that FreeBSD is the largest BSD and so if they felt that the license risk was sufficiently low to put the sort of work into it that they have, then that would be good enough for me. It's not like they haven't been through legal battles before - BSD was given a baptism of legal fire. (Mind you, I'd certainly prefer it if OpenBSD was porting ZFS.)
My other gut feeling is much stronger, a conviction. And that is this: the solution to silent data corruption on the HDD (or SSD) that ZFS provides is a killer app. Unlike XFS, it has the potential to make also-rans of other file systems without equivalent features (and those with equivalent features but without sufficient testing). If you are running a server (which is the focus of FreeBSD) and you care about data integrity, ZFS is a no-brainer. RAIDZ will allow you to sleep at night, especially with inexpensive hardware. For much the same reasons, I insist on PostgreSQL over MySQL because it has a reputation for not treating my data like junk. And now with ZFS I have the opportunity to build my castle on a foundation of granite. The developers of FreeBSD must be equally aware of the advantages, considering that they first ported it over 3 years ago whereas it took me until a couple months ago to even realize what the hype was about. So I'd be very surprised if FreeBSD let ZFS become an island.
I'm curious - what do you see as the advantage to Oracle of making ZFS GPL?
My interpretation of part of the point of OpenSolaris - Sun were using it as a testing ground for concepts that would make it over to Solaris, e.g. ZFS. AFAIK it's not exactly Solaris beta, but it is at least somewhat analogous. Both Fedora and OpenSolaris are unsupported, RHEL and Solaris are supported. I don't think you'd use either Fedora or OpenSolaris if you fear cutting edge stuff breaking on you, and if you fear that sort of thing enough to want something more stable, you might also buy support contracts, which would be less costly to provide because less stuff would break (hence RHEL and Solaris and their support contracts). But the utility of OpenSolaris/Fedora in business - someone in IT could get their feet wet for free with either Fedora or OpenSolaris and then make a case to management that they want to go with RHEL or Solaris after they have done proof of concept.
I could be wrong though.
FreeBSD - ZFS is no longer in experimental status as of version 8.0. I haven't heard anyone recommend FUSE on Linux. As far as other BSDs go, I know that at least OpenBSD has no plans to include it at this stage.
http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/openbsd-misc/2009/1/17/4750954 - But that was over a year ago.
At the moment I'm learning FreeBSD over OpenSolaris because I want ZFS, FreeBSD is fully free and open source, FreeBSD looks to have a wider array of ports, which should be easy to install, even though with the LiveCD of OpenSolaris it boots up straight to X. On a production server or maybe even workstation, I think the choice would be down to FreeBSD versus Solaris, rather than OpenSolaris. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Solaris does have a lot of nice features though, FMA (fault management architecture - lets you know when something has gone kaput and what to do about it.) And FreeBSD will lag in terms of the version of ZFS it supports. Deduplication looks to be a pretty cool feature - if you copy some data to another part of the HDD, and then you leave it a bit and your hoarding nature kicks in and you don't know whether you can delete it or not - no fear, ZFS will recognize the data as the same, only store it in one place (unless modified of course) and so there is no benefit to deleting the copy other than being a neat freak.
I'm presently wrestling with setting up FreeBSD on wireless. After that I have to get X set up. It would be nice if FreeBSD had version specific handbooks ala PostgreSQL, but they don't. So it's a combination of man pages, handbook, googling, etc to get me where I want to go. It's a bit of a contrast to Ubuntu which I set up on another box in the space of about an hour, including updates. Unmetered FOSS mirrors on ISPs kick ass!
Anyway, I suspect that the user base of FreeBSD will grow by leaps and bounds when people realize the advantages of ZFS and don't want to wait for BTRFS or whatever the results of this meeting might be: http://blogs.sun.com/bonwick/entry/casablanca