So you let users access their mail archive on their PC via Remote Desktop when they are away? That really would improve your network security... and explains why you post AC.
I agree on the last two points.
But I would not call "very little" storing mail on the server, having folders, searching.. everything that is necessary to access the same mail storage from my office PC, from my notebook (either connected or disconnected, thanks to local caching) or from a Web Mail. No, sorry, POP3 is just not good enough!
So, for me GMail is very nice for "emergency" use, for having an SMTP that I can use from anywhere, and for all the website registrations; and I love the label thing (I wish Thunderbird had it now!), but it's not going to be my main mail until they support IMAP.
As a user of both SL4(=RHEL4) and various FC I can easily tell you that it's not not just a belief. RHEL4 had, when it was first released, practically the very same packages of FC3; with the upgrades (now it's at 4.3) it has inherited some packages from FC4. You can check for it yourself at distrowatch, for example.
All my support for this question. I did switch, long time ago, from Slackware to RedHat (3.3!) because of RPMs, and I stayed with it until RH8, which was too unstable to be used on servers. I did switch some servers to Debian, because I liked APT, but stable was just too old for too many things, so my desktop(s) had RH9 and FC. Were I'm working now I have switched all desktops and the server to ScientificLinux, and I only (reluctantly) run FC5 in VMplayer, to test some builds with an up-to-date gcc4.
If Fedora wants to be in any way relevant in the business world, more effort should go into Fedora Legacy to support at least selected versions of FC for a longer period; just like RHEL benefits from FC, FL should get back something from RHEL... and then probably the efforts of Centos, WhiteBox and maybe even Scientific might converge on Fedora Legacy.
Sorry, that was too rushed; it violates bartiquette so badly that it might get you in trouble. Try this instead: iptables -I INPUT 1 -mlength --length 1025:1000000 --protocol beer -j GETCOFFEE It works for me.
For me, instead, having the money to buy a Powerbook instead of an iBook would have meant no need for a desktop PC at home and one in the office and a portable to carry around, but just one small portable and 2 large fixed monitors. Much less sysadm and syncing etc.
Your point stands for your usage, but that's not all that counts for everybody, since different people have different needs:-)
There is a commercial reason: Intel now wants to sell the Itanium for "workstation" use, so it cut down the number of FPUs in Pentium 4, relying only on SSE for multimedia performance.
From "Athlon XP Meets P4":
The picture is similar in 3D rendering (OpenGL) - the AMD Athlon XP's three FPU units helped it to outstrip the Pentium 4, with 2 FPU units. Ideally, you can employ the following equation: Performance = Clock Speed x Operations/Cycle
This equation helps explain the theory behind why the AMD Athlon XP, although clocked at a lower speed, is able to reach the same performance than a faster-clocked Intel Pentium 4...
My experience is that, on real-world FPU-intensive code, an AthlonXP or a PowerPC G3 are about twice as fast as a Pentium 4, per MHz.
Things are different if you can vectorize your code and use Single Instruction Multiple Data - there the Pentium4 is supposed to be faster. But this was not the case for my code.
The other point, is that single-precision FP is not faster than dual precision FP, because the ix86 and PowerPC FPUs always use full precision internally - so it only makes a difference if you do few operations on a lot of data.
Please read carefully: "license to use the information disclosed in this Specification to make your software TIS-compliant".
So this is only the licence of the spec, and it does not seem to impose anything on the licensing of the code that implements it. Therefore, the spec cannot be re-licensed, but the code that implements it can be released under any license.
If the spec's licence would imply that its implementations have to follow that same licence, then even SCO's implementation of ELF would have to be a "non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license":-)
A magnetic field IS made of photons. Forget photons=light: only a very narrow frequency range of varying electromagnetic fields is percieved by our eyes as light, but photons(=quanta of EM field) can be used to describe anything from a static magnetic or electric field, up to the very high energies in the particle accelerators. So yes, the guy has photons (low energy, but also the G field is low energy), but anyway the thing is flawed for other reasons...
And, just by chance, it happens to use the same kernel version, and RedHat internal release number, that you find in RedHat 6.1: Kernel 2.2.12-2 on an i686
And they don't even know how to administer a web server (left there with each and every port open) But it is true that they have a different FTPd (BeroFTPD instead of WuFTPD):-)
CERN is still CERN. The name has been changed, but what was an acronym has been kept as the short name. And most of all, all of us here at CERN will keep on calling it CERN:-).
No, sorry, i absolutely disagree with you. As far as I understand, Slashdot is a news web site, not a Linux advocacy website. And if a big name like Bruce says something relevant, well, that's perfectly legitimate news. Being such a relevant matter, it was important so bring it to a wider public than just the Debian mailing list.
And about it being not clever: well, if anybody needed a proof of the importance that the community gives to support from industry's big names, now he has got it.
TeX is mostly typesetting, but LaTeX, which uses TeX as an "engine", is mostly about automatic layout - it will place figures and tables where they actually look good. So, TeX or LaTeX are usually not what a layout professional would look for to prepare a magazine (thought it could be good for a book), but they are just great for us who want something that looks very good, and we don't know about the subtleties of DTP. Most "non professionals" will get a much better layout out of (La)TeX than out of any other pagesetting program, simply because it's too difficult to change the (great) defaults !:-P
TeX is mostly typesetting, but LaTeX, which uses TeX as an "engine", is mostly about automatic layout - it will place figures and tables where they actually look good. So, TeX or LaTeX are usually not what a layout professional would look for to prepare a magazine (it could be good for a book), but they are just great for us who whant something that looks very good, and we don't know about the subtleties of DTP. The non professional will get a much better layout out of (La)TeX than out of any other pagesetting program, simply because it's too difficult to change the (great) defaults !:-P
Slashdot Mirror
So you let users access their mail archive on their PC via Remote Desktop when they are away?
That really would improve your network security... and explains why you post AC.
I agree on the last two points.
But I would not call "very little" storing mail on the server, having folders, searching.. everything that is necessary to access the same mail storage from my office PC, from my notebook (either connected or disconnected, thanks to local caching) or from a Web Mail. No, sorry, POP3 is just not good enough!
So, for me GMail is very nice for "emergency" use, for having an SMTP that I can use from anywhere, and for all the website registrations; and I love the label thing (I wish Thunderbird had it now!), but it's not going to be my main mail until they support IMAP.
Well, yes, just in time for those who do not want to upgrade Office :-).
Those who have 2007 already had ODF converter.
As a user of both SL4(=RHEL4) and various FC I can easily tell you that it's not not just a belief. RHEL4 had, when it was first released, practically the very same packages of FC3; with the upgrades (now it's at 4.3) it has inherited some packages from FC4. You can check for it yourself at distrowatch, for example.
All my support for this question. I did switch, long time ago, from Slackware to RedHat (3.3!) because of RPMs, and I stayed with it until RH8, which was too unstable to be used on servers. I did switch some servers to Debian, because I liked APT, but stable was just too old for too many things, so my desktop(s) had RH9 and FC. Were I'm working now I have switched all desktops and the server to ScientificLinux, and I only (reluctantly) run FC5 in VMplayer, to test some builds with an up-to-date gcc4.
If Fedora wants to be in any way relevant in the business world, more effort should go into Fedora Legacy to support at least selected versions of FC for a longer period; just like RHEL benefits from FC, FL should get back something from RHEL... and then probably the efforts of Centos, WhiteBox and maybe even Scientific might converge on Fedora Legacy.
Sorry, that was too rushed; it violates bartiquette so badly that it might get you in trouble. Try this instead:
iptables -I INPUT 1 -mlength --length 1025:1000000 --protocol beer -j GETCOFFEE
It works for me.
No reason to worry - just use iptables:
iptables -I INPUT 1 -mlength --length 0:1024 --protocol beer -j DONTPAY
For me, instead, having the money to buy a Powerbook instead of an iBook would have meant no need for a desktop PC at home and one in the office and a portable to carry around, but just one small portable and 2 large fixed monitors. Much less sysadm and syncing etc. :-)
Your point stands for your usage, but that's not all that counts for everybody, since different people have different needs
the iBooks just mirror their LCD on the external monitor, but a Powerbook can drive it at a higher resolution:
http://www.apple.com/powerbook/specs.html
http://www.apple.com/ibook/specs.html
There is a commercial reason: Intel now wants to sell the Itanium for "workstation" use, so it cut down the number of FPUs in Pentium 4, relying only on SSE for multimedia performance. From "Athlon XP Meets P4":
The picture is similar in 3D rendering (OpenGL) - the AMD Athlon XP's three FPU units helped it to outstrip the Pentium 4, with 2 FPU units. Ideally, you can employ the following equation:
Performance = Clock Speed x Operations/Cycle
This equation helps explain the theory behind why the AMD Athlon XP, although clocked at a lower speed, is able to reach the same performance than a faster-clocked Intel Pentium 4...
My experience is that, on real-world FPU-intensive code, an AthlonXP or a PowerPC G3 are about twice as fast as a Pentium 4, per MHz.
Things are different if you can vectorize your code and use Single Instruction Multiple Data - there the Pentium4 is supposed to be faster. But this was not the case for my code.
The other point, is that single-precision FP is not faster than dual precision FP, because the ix86 and PowerPC FPUs always use full precision internally - so it only makes a difference if you do few operations on a lot of data.
Please read carefully: "license to use the information disclosed in this Specification to make your software TIS-compliant". :-)
So this is only the licence of the spec, and it does not seem to impose anything on the licensing of the code that implements it. Therefore, the spec cannot be re-licensed, but the code that implements it can be released under any license.
If the spec's licence would imply that its implementations have to follow that same licence, then even SCO's implementation of ELF would have to be a "non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license"
Please, mod the parent UP !
and everybody else, please take 30 seconds to read the XD1 datasheet
A magnetic field IS made of photons. Forget photons=light: only a very narrow frequency range of varying electromagnetic fields is percieved by our eyes as light, but photons(=quanta of EM field) can be used to describe anything from a static magnetic or electric field, up to the very high energies in the particle accelerators.
So yes, the guy has photons (low energy, but also the G field is low energy), but anyway the thing is flawed for other reasons...
Have a bit of patience, boy - we're working on it.
;-P
If you are interested in neutrinos, there's quite a lot going on. Check:
Fermilab's MINOS;
CERN's NGS;
more in general, a page on Neutrino oscillation
if you really think so, why don't you tell to
netops@cern.ch
???
To produce it, you have to give it so much energy (kinetic energy, that is) that yes, it will be very dense, but for a very short amount of time.
Please go and check the official web pages: A New State of Matter
Satanic ? I thought it was the biohazard logo... it DID seem proper for them :->
Kernel 2.2.12-2 on an i686
And they don't even know how to administer a web server (left there with each and every port open) :-)
But it is true that they have a different FTPd (BeroFTPD instead of WuFTPD)
CERN is still CERN. The name has been changed, but what was an acronym has been kept as the short name. And most of all, all of us here at CERN will keep on calling it CERN :-).
And about it being not clever: well, if anybody needed a proof of the importance that the community gives to support from industry's big names, now he has got it.
So my point is, Slashdot got it right.
TeX is mostly typesetting, but LaTeX, which uses TeX as an "engine", is mostly about automatic layout - it will place figures and tables where they actually look good. :-P
So, TeX or LaTeX are usually not what a layout professional would look for to prepare a magazine (thought it could be good for a book), but they are just great for us who want something that looks very good, and we don't know about the subtleties of DTP.
Most "non professionals" will get a much better layout out of (La)TeX than out of any other pagesetting program, simply because it's too difficult to change the (great) defaults !
TeX is mostly typesetting, but LaTeX, which uses TeX as an "engine", is mostly about automatic layout - it will place figures and tables where they actually look good. So, TeX or LaTeX are usually not what a layout professional would look for to prepare a magazine (it could be good for a book), but they are just great for us who whant something that looks very good, and we don't know about the subtleties of DTP. The non professional will get a much better layout out of (La)TeX than out of any other pagesetting program, simply because it's too difficult to change the (great) defaults ! :-P