There's a convention that when the first letter of a product name is intentionally not capitalized, that it isn't capitalized even at the start of a sentence. Both www.qmail.org and cr.yp.to/qmail.html refer to it in this way. English is silly. Hacker english is sillier.
Except if this is their proof that IBM did bad things, then they're going after the wrong company. SGI copyright notices were stamped all over this file. It's quite possible this originated from old BSD, but unfortunately, it was removed in 4.4BSD-Lite, so it's likely it was one of the tainted files... The fact something like this made it into the kernel at all is a little surprising.
minimalism? How about their gendered nouns and excessiveconjugation of verbs? French pronunciation might be fairly straightforward, but it's grammatical rules are not.
The easy way to help is to simply purchase a copy of their product. Personally, I've given RH enough of my money for the time being. The RHCE certification cost a lot of money, both in terms of the course itself, and lodging while I took the week long course.
I was using back in the late 2.2 series and early 2.4 series kernels. I think I stopped using it around 2.4.12 or so. Part of the problem with trying to report bugs is when there's a three or more month period between corruptions, it's hard to track down exactly where something went wrong. Was it 2.4.n, or 2.4.n+1, or a bad shutdown sometime in July, or a disk cache that didn't get committed before shutdown two months ago? I knew that I wasn't the only one experiencing that problem. When this first happened, I don't know exactly when the problem began, but when I tried to update a package, and/var/lib/dpkg/status could not be updated, my system had already become damaged (any idea how unfun it is to have a damaged dpkg status file is?)
In regards to reporting bugs, sure it's easy to do on a desktop system, but on a laptop, you can just about forget it. Just try to find a bootable disk with pcmcia drivers and all the smbfs programs/drivers needed. On a desktop system, simply attaching a new drive and doing a quick install on that drive may be all that's needed to pull the required metadata to report the bug.
ext[23] likely had problems back when Linux was in it's infancy, but it's matured quite far, and is rock solid these days. Something very bad has to happen to it for the data to be unrecoverable, and even then, there's still a good chance that you can use debugfs to work with the file system on a lower level to get back some of your more important data. Despite the fact that reiserfs is completely open source software, it's still rather like a black box, in that very few people truely understand it's inner workings, and finding out where things went wrong is difficult at best. When recovering from a disaster, the biggest benefit to ext[23] is that's it's predictable, and that predictability lends itself well to automated tools for scraping data off the disk.
Not all is rosy in the world of ReiserFS, however. I remember using it on my laptop, and was constantly frustrated with it. It would last about 3 to 4 months, and then I'd lose everything on the filesystem, or get subtle corruption like undeleteable files, or read-only files. I later found out that ReiserFS has some serious problems with low space conditions, but only after I'd lost my data twice. From there, I went straight to ext3, and haven't regretted it. It may not have the speed, efficiency, or fancy features of Reiser, but it has all the data integrity I'd come to expect from a file system.
There's a lot to be said about the simplistic approach of UFS or ext3. The metadata is simple, and easier to repair or reconstruct when something bad happens. Both UFS and ext3 have shown the ability to add new features without either breaking backwards compatibility or by implementing horribly complex structures that are prone to subtle breakage. For example, FreeBSD's UFS implements ACLs using their EA infrastructure. Linux's ext3 implements journalling the same as any other file on the disk.
Given the fact that development series kernels have a long running history for introducing bugs that cause filesystem corruption, it's not all that surprising. Even for those of us with no data of any real value, losing it all still hurts. Those with real valuable data at stake, will wait until 2.6 gets stable. Personally, I might put the 2.6 pre's on my laptop, but the servers at work will wait until at least 2.6.1+, or whatever release I feel comfortable with.
Microsoft in their INFINITE WISDOM added a feature to Windows XP. Certain types, particularly those that play with Windows Media Player, or are viewable by Internet Explorer have a REG_SZ value on the association named LegacyDisable. If it exists, XP decides that it's smarter than the application that decided to take over the file type association, and silently ignores it. Only if the application is designed to use the XP method of associating with files will it be allowed to change them (or if it deletes those registry values).
I have no idea why Microsoft did this, but it effectively makes it so that certain programs seem to cease operating when you upgrade to XP. For the AVI files you mentioned, the value to delete would be HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\AVIFile\shell\open\LegacyDisable
This really pissed me off the first time I used XP, and tried to reassociate the files with mplayer2.exe instead of wmplayer.exe, and the associations just wouldn't take. Didn't matter if I did it manually, or used mplayer2.exe to do it, it just didn't work, until I found that value hiding in those types...
These days, Microsoft's wares are less about want and more about need. e.g. I NEED to be able to read MS Word documents my business partners send me... I NEED to upgrade to the latest version of Windows because NT 4.0 is no longer supported. I NEED to add another MS server product to the network because no one else has the access to the client OS to be able to properly integrate the features into the system. It's like heroin -- once you start the habit, it's nearly impossible to break the addiction.
Samba works well, but real Windows servers work better with Windows clients. qmail works well, but you can't use all the features of Outlook without an MS Exchange server. Any streaming media format works well, but you can only use Windows Media Format without add-on software on each client machine. Etc, etc, etc.
Anti-trust laws were originally made because the free market usually works well, there are times when it can break down and cause harm to consumers. Competition is what the free market is all about, but when a profitable monopoly is established, they tend to bleed dry any competition, either by buying them up, or bludgeoning them to death with lawsuits.
People would nolonger aspire to become as rich and successful as possible? Is being greedy a crime?
Guess what? Not everyone wants to have so much money that they could never spend it within their lifetime. I have no idea how someone could ever use 40 million dollars in their lifetime, let alone 40 billion. Personally, all I need is food, clothing, shelter, and something to do with my time that I enjoy. I don't need a fast/expensive sports car, an automated do-everything house, or my own aircraft.
The alphabetical keys are full sized, yes. But they're not spaced the same as a regular keyboard, and many keys, including space, CTRL, ALT, Shift, Tab, Enter, Backspace, etc, are all miniturized versions. Looking at the image, they keys on that laptop are no bigger and no better arranged than on my Toshiba laptop that only has a 15" screen. A quick measurement shows that my desktop keyboard's alphabetical keys are 11" wide.
Actually, the worst part is that most LCDs tend to distort colours when you're even a little off of centre. New LCD panels are better, but they still distort to a certain extent. However, full-sized QWERTY and F-keys could've fit quite nicely on that laptop, along with arrow and navigation keys, but instead they attached a keyboard from any other small laptop onto it. A laptop keyboard that I don't have to mistype on the first time I use it would be much nicer, IMO.
The x86 processors used a segment:offset addressing scheme, and could address a total of 1 megabyte of memory. The mapping of addresses to physical addresses was simply (segment*16)+offset (this actually gave a maximum addressable range of 1MB + 65516 bytes. This additional <64k range became known as the HMA in DOS 5+). IBM wisely reserved the upper 384kb of addressable memory for expansion, BIOS and video memory. For a system that was originally shipped with only 64 to 128kb of RAM, it left lots of room for expansion, and the EMS systems used that reserved memory area to provide a 'window' into the add-in memory. However, with most video cards occupying the region at A000h, it was impossible to use more than 640K of conventional memory.
For the record, the 8088 had an 8-bit bus, 16-bit registers, and 20-bits of address space. The 8088 is to the 8086 as the 80386SX was to the 80386DX, and few people claim that the 80386SX was a 16-bit chip, otherwise we'd be claiming that current consumer CPUs are anywhere from 64-bit to 512-bit.
Why bother with Linux drivers when you can just download the FreeBSD ones. I expect, however, that the FreeBSD ones are only available for IA32, not IA64 or AMD64.
Ever consider the fact that it's not easy to catch dangerous people on purpose? The whole reasonable cause thing, innocent until proven guilty, etc... All these make it more difficult to catch and prosecute dangerous people, and all are there to protect you from corruption in offices of power. After all, can you be certain that you NEVER break a law, especially considering how many stupid laws and by-laws that have been passed in most places? When these things become too easy, all it takes is someone who has a personal vendetta against you to find something that will directly harm you. Or maybe they'd just blackmail you because of something embarassing that you did.
Besides, even if you lived in a complete police state, do you think you'd be any safer? You could still trip on your own shoelace tomorrow, fall, and break your neck. No amount of surveilance, or x-ray machines are going to help with that. And the thugs that would do you harm anyway, will simply migrate from one side of the law to the other. The world will always be unsafe. All you can do is manage your risks, and try not to make more problems with proposed solutions.
The thing about Outlook rules are they are server side, but have to be input client side. Once entered on the client, the server handles them unless they're too complex (matching substrings of recipient or sender addresses, for example). I'm sure it's possible to do a server side only thing, but looking at the Microsoft Exchange API, it's not something I'd really like to touch with a 10 foot pole.
I don't know about anyone else, but we recently resorted to forcing all incoming SMTP traffic into Linux mail servers so it can be spam filtered before hitting the internal Exchange servers. Nearly all the Exchange spam filtering products were either ineffective, too restrictive, far too expensive, or snake oil. We couldn't block everyone who was listed on the RBLs because sometimes our customers (new or old) end up getting listed on those because of a configuration problem, so those products were out (including Exchange 2003's built-in spam filtering). We weren't about to use products that filtered based on two dozen keywords, and a half-dozen e-mail address domains (including hotmail.com, yahoo.com, etc.). Distributed checksum tools were generally reliable, however, they also caught things like mailing lists, which was a problem (and the fact that in report only mode, they just add a header which can't be used with Outlook rules). The only product that we found that was suitable was SpamKiller from McAfee, but it was too expensive. So, instead with the new firewall, we just routed the mail through qmail and let SpamAssassin tag mail it thinks is spam.
After all of this, I'm not sure which is worse -- anti-virus companies, or anti-spam companies...
Hmm... Strictly speaking, a trusted system is one that is able to break the security controls. The locks on your car door would be a trusted system, to use an analogy. If the locks fail, the security of the doors is broken. In this context, trusted computers aren't ones that you have warm and fuzzy feelings about, but rather ones that are allowed to (or capable of) bypassing security controls.
Think more about the document control mechanisms... Those same mechanisms that would validate the document would also make documents unusable outside the business. It would mean that industrial espionage becomes more difficult, but it also means that whistle blowers who see a wrong in the company they work for cannot provide proof. It means the nasty forms of harassment could be time locked, so the victim can be harmed, but the harasser has no proof against him or her. It means a level of secrecy that would be almost impossible to break if the company wished it.
I mean, there's lots of potential for it to be used for good, but there'll be an even greater temptation to use it for poor or questionable causes.
Except it's still cheating. If the "optimization" was done in such a way that it automatically re-ordered shader programs to run faster on it's architecture, without caring which source or which pixel shader was being sent, it would be an optimization. Finger printing a pixel shader, and replacing it if it matches, regardless of if it's really the same end result or not, is still cheating.
Now, go and sell that nasty ATI or NVIDIA video card, and get an SIS based one. I'm sure THEY don't cheat on benchmarks (at least not video card benchmarks).
Yes, but without heavy research, "anyone" can't say where that code was copied and pasted from. The BSD influence in Linux is unmistakable, and history shows that BSD and Unix have a shared history. It's even possible that Caldera/SCO and Linux both lifted the same code from BSD, or that it's the shared code between AT&T UNIX and BSD that was copied. Not only do they need to prove that code was copied, they have to prove it was copied from SCO UNIX, not some other source.
It's more like trying to determine based on looks if two cows have the same parents or not, or if the same team of engineers worked on two different planes based on external appearances. You can make guess, maybe even some educated guesses, but without other proof, you can never say for sure.
Oh, I'm sorry, this is quite funny. So, ATI OPTIMIZES, and NVIDIA CHEATS. The truth of the matter is that ATI replaced the shaders as well, otherwise it would not have been foiled by the simple changes that foiled NVIDIA's replacement algorithms. If you want to call NVIDIA's behaviour cheating, then you must also call ATI's behaviour cheating. If ATI's drivers generically reordered instructions in pixel shaders, that'd be one thing, but that's clearly not the case.
I also don't remember FutureMark saying that the NVIDIA replacement pixel shaders were of lower image quality, only that they were similar but non-identical. Either way, the solution is obvious. Stop buying both NVIDIA and ATI cards, and go back to S3/SonicBlue. I don't believe they've ever been caught cheating at benchmarks. Either that, or we stop letting 3DMark scores determine which video cards we buy.
Look for "Explosives for Dummies", or "Demolitions for Dummies" for everything you need to know about managing Windows servers, especially when running "Microsoft Windows Services for Unix".
But did you also not read that ATI CHEATS? Oh, that's right -- ATI and FutureMark are on good terms. There's three kinds of lies in this world -- lies, damn lies and benchmarks.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a convention that when the first letter of a product name is intentionally not capitalized, that it isn't capitalized even at the start of a sentence. Both www.qmail.org and cr.yp.to/qmail.html refer to it in this way. English is silly. Hacker english is sillier.
Except if this is their proof that IBM did bad things, then they're going after the wrong company. SGI copyright notices were stamped all over this file. It's quite possible this originated from old BSD, but unfortunately, it was removed in 4.4BSD-Lite, so it's likely it was one of the tainted files... The fact something like this made it into the kernel at all is a little surprising.
minimalism? How about their gendered nouns and excessive conjugation of verbs? French pronunciation might be fairly straightforward, but it's grammatical rules are not.
The easy way to help is to simply purchase a copy of their product. Personally, I've given RH enough of my money for the time being. The RHCE certification cost a lot of money, both in terms of the course itself, and lodging while I took the week long course.
In regards to reporting bugs, sure it's easy to do on a desktop system, but on a laptop, you can just about forget it. Just try to find a bootable disk with pcmcia drivers and all the smbfs programs/drivers needed. On a desktop system, simply attaching a new drive and doing a quick install on that drive may be all that's needed to pull the required metadata to report the bug.
ext[23] likely had problems back when Linux was in it's infancy, but it's matured quite far, and is rock solid these days. Something very bad has to happen to it for the data to be unrecoverable, and even then, there's still a good chance that you can use debugfs to work with the file system on a lower level to get back some of your more important data. Despite the fact that reiserfs is completely open source software, it's still rather like a black box, in that very few people truely understand it's inner workings, and finding out where things went wrong is difficult at best. When recovering from a disaster, the biggest benefit to ext[23] is that's it's predictable, and that predictability lends itself well to automated tools for scraping data off the disk.
There's a lot to be said about the simplistic approach of UFS or ext3. The metadata is simple, and easier to repair or reconstruct when something bad happens. Both UFS and ext3 have shown the ability to add new features without either breaking backwards compatibility or by implementing horribly complex structures that are prone to subtle breakage. For example, FreeBSD's UFS implements ACLs using their EA infrastructure. Linux's ext3 implements journalling the same as any other file on the disk.
Given the fact that development series kernels have a long running history for introducing bugs that cause filesystem corruption, it's not all that surprising. Even for those of us with no data of any real value, losing it all still hurts. Those with real valuable data at stake, will wait until 2.6 gets stable. Personally, I might put the 2.6 pre's on my laptop, but the servers at work will wait until at least 2.6.1+, or whatever release I feel comfortable with.
I have no idea why Microsoft did this, but it effectively makes it so that certain programs seem to cease operating when you upgrade to XP. For the AVI files you mentioned, the value to delete would be HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\AVIFile\shell\open\LegacyDisable
This really pissed me off the first time I used XP, and tried to reassociate the files with mplayer2.exe instead of wmplayer.exe, and the associations just wouldn't take. Didn't matter if I did it manually, or used mplayer2.exe to do it, it just didn't work, until I found that value hiding in those types...
Samba works well, but real Windows servers work better with Windows clients. qmail works well, but you can't use all the features of Outlook without an MS Exchange server. Any streaming media format works well, but you can only use Windows Media Format without add-on software on each client machine. Etc, etc, etc.
People would nolonger aspire to become as rich and successful as possible? Is being greedy a crime?
Guess what? Not everyone wants to have so much money that they could never spend it within their lifetime. I have no idea how someone could ever use 40 million dollars in their lifetime, let alone 40 billion. Personally, all I need is food, clothing, shelter, and something to do with my time that I enjoy. I don't need a fast/expensive sports car, an automated do-everything house, or my own aircraft.
The alphabetical keys are full sized, yes. But they're not spaced the same as a regular keyboard, and many keys, including space, CTRL, ALT, Shift, Tab, Enter, Backspace, etc, are all miniturized versions. Looking at the image, they keys on that laptop are no bigger and no better arranged than on my Toshiba laptop that only has a 15" screen. A quick measurement shows that my desktop keyboard's alphabetical keys are 11" wide.
Actually, the worst part is that most LCDs tend to distort colours when you're even a little off of centre. New LCD panels are better, but they still distort to a certain extent. However, full-sized QWERTY and F-keys could've fit quite nicely on that laptop, along with arrow and navigation keys, but instead they attached a keyboard from any other small laptop onto it. A laptop keyboard that I don't have to mistype on the first time I use it would be much nicer, IMO.
Yes, but does the Neverwinter Nights expansion pack -- Shadows of Undrentide work on Linux or FreeBSD (e.g. is 1.30 patch available yet).
For the record, the 8088 had an 8-bit bus, 16-bit registers, and 20-bits of address space. The 8088 is to the 8086 as the 80386SX was to the 80386DX, and few people claim that the 80386SX was a 16-bit chip, otherwise we'd be claiming that current consumer CPUs are anywhere from 64-bit to 512-bit.
Why bother with Linux drivers when you can just download the FreeBSD ones. I expect, however, that the FreeBSD ones are only available for IA32, not IA64 or AMD64.
Besides, even if you lived in a complete police state, do you think you'd be any safer? You could still trip on your own shoelace tomorrow, fall, and break your neck. No amount of surveilance, or x-ray machines are going to help with that. And the thugs that would do you harm anyway, will simply migrate from one side of the law to the other. The world will always be unsafe. All you can do is manage your risks, and try not to make more problems with proposed solutions.
The thing about Outlook rules are they are server side, but have to be input client side. Once entered on the client, the server handles them unless they're too complex (matching substrings of recipient or sender addresses, for example). I'm sure it's possible to do a server side only thing, but looking at the Microsoft Exchange API, it's not something I'd really like to touch with a 10 foot pole.
After all of this, I'm not sure which is worse -- anti-virus companies, or anti-spam companies...
Hmm... Strictly speaking, a trusted system is one that is able to break the security controls. The locks on your car door would be a trusted system, to use an analogy. If the locks fail, the security of the doors is broken. In this context, trusted computers aren't ones that you have warm and fuzzy feelings about, but rather ones that are allowed to (or capable of) bypassing security controls.
I mean, there's lots of potential for it to be used for good, but there'll be an even greater temptation to use it for poor or questionable causes.
Now, go and sell that nasty ATI or NVIDIA video card, and get an SIS based one. I'm sure THEY don't cheat on benchmarks (at least not video card benchmarks).
It's more like trying to determine based on looks if two cows have the same parents or not, or if the same team of engineers worked on two different planes based on external appearances. You can make guess, maybe even some educated guesses, but without other proof, you can never say for sure.
I also don't remember FutureMark saying that the NVIDIA replacement pixel shaders were of lower image quality, only that they were similar but non-identical. Either way, the solution is obvious. Stop buying both NVIDIA and ATI cards, and go back to S3/SonicBlue. I don't believe they've ever been caught cheating at benchmarks. Either that, or we stop letting 3DMark scores determine which video cards we buy.
Look for "Explosives for Dummies", or "Demolitions for Dummies" for everything you need to know about managing Windows servers, especially when running "Microsoft Windows Services for Unix".
But did you also not read that ATI CHEATS? Oh, that's right -- ATI and FutureMark are on good terms. There's three kinds of lies in this world -- lies, damn lies and benchmarks.