I agree that from a client/server standpoint, using an RDBMS makes far more sense than the standard sendmail mbox format
Okay, wait. This isn't my area of particular expertise, but isn't one of the inherent advantages to using an RDBMS (for anything, not this application) its ability to cross-reference records and, in the case of the high-end varieties, to store frequently-called queries in memory in order to reduce disk access?
It seems to me that using an RDBMS for indexing and storing email is overkill. The typical pattern of an email client is to check for new messages over and over, or occasionally move a large file. This usage doesn't leverage any of an RDBMS's abilities at all. You're expending lots of resources in memory and management complexity for little gain. After all, an admin's job (from an employer's position, especially) is to most efficiently use the resources available, not nesessarily to come up with the most elegant solution, right?
If anything, using a lightweight system like DB to seperate header info from message content seems like all you'd need. If filesystem access times are that bad, work on that. Check out filesystem options, or seperate the users onto multiple drives or something.
Perhaps, IT workers, due to their crucial role in all global economies, can work to give countries whose currencies are especially unstable a bit more stability. Take the risk, ask to be paid in the native currency, and the company you work for will have an incentive towards building stability in its foreign posts.
Do you really think that will work? I'm trying not to be overly cynical or anything, but it seems hopeful at best. I'm all for grass-roots action, but it seems that a better venue for a statement on economic policy could be found though some kind of advocacy group, though I admit that I wouldn't even know if such things exist for folks like us in situations like that.
The governments whose currencies are "especially unstable" seem to me to also be the governments whose attentions are not generally so fixed on small-time advocacy. They probably have larger problems that they're focused on.
Does such a (I hate to even say the word) lobby exist for IT workers? Even in a primitive form?
Really? The US is the only country that taxes its citizens when they work outside its borders? Does anyone have any references to back that up? I'm curious, because I'm a US citizen and I may end up working abroad soon.
Part of the disconnect in this discussion is that we're each operating with our own definition of a "good" user interface.
Yes, efficiency in a UI is good. Flexibility, consistency, clarity and information density are also good. There are lots of qualities that make a particular UI implementation useful. The trick is to include as many of those as possible into the product.
The interface for Cisco routers, as anyone who's ever seen it can tell you, is quite simple. Efficient. Able to be used via a low-bandwidth text interface, which is perfect. But is it easy to use? Not for most people. Microsoft Bob, at the other end of the spectrum, was incredibly inefficient, but useable by most people above age 5.
I think the main point is not whether XF86 or a particular WM has a good interface, since those programs are mainly MAKING the interface for the rest of the system. Does Sendmail have a good interface? Does vi? Only when considered seperately and by somebody who is very familiar with them.
For the VAST majority of OSS projects there are no common use models. That makes learning the software more difficult. On the MacOS, most software conforms to several systemwide standards. CMD-Q is quit, CMD-O is open, etc. Windows is almost as good. These types of things make a system AS A WHOLE easier to use. That is the challenge for OSS project leaders - find a way to make their learning curve work for them.
It's not necessarily an issue of commerciality. It seems that "techies" will often justify doing something simply because it can be done, with less regard for future implications or for weighing various considerations.
A techie's job is to come up with ideas and build stuff. That's what they're paid to do. A judge's job or a politician's job is (supposed to be, anyway) geared more towards serving society or a community, and making decisions on behalf large groups.
Saying that the techies should be making the decisions in the world because the world is more complex these days is dangerous. Rather, the judges and lawyers and politicians should be further educated.
Okay, who's paying for the trip there anyway. Is it globally funded?
Yeah, let's start a collection, too. I'm all for space exploration, but just because a lot of people want humankind to go to Mars doesn't mean we really need to. Commercial interests will eventually get us there. In the meantime, we have tons of things to do with our money here on this planet.
I'm all for going, don't get me wrong, but we're not in the Cold War space race era any longer. We need better reasons than beating the bad guys to the punch now.
If you are going to throw down the cash for a computer and don't do some investigating first, is it really the government's job to stop you from doing something stupid?
Yes. Yes it is. Are you suggesting that average citizens, without any help from a well-funded and influential non-commercial group could manage to protect themselves from a feature of a microprocessor?
Have you ever eaten DDT lately? Have you breathed fallout from nuclear accidents? Have you impaled yourself on a solid steering column? The reason people MAKE governments is to protect them and to make expert decisions in their interests.
Maybe all governments don't do the greatest job all the time, but human society doesn't want to go back to living in Wild Kingdom. I applaud people who watch out for government missteps, but "The Market" is not the most useful force for driving our society. A balance between totalitarianism and anarchy is the best we can hope for.
Re:Nevertheless, a question
on
Happy Odd Day!
·
· Score: 1
Oh, okay. Har Har! Too damn late in the week for me, I guess.
Re:Nevertheless, a question
on
Happy Odd Day!
·
· Score: 1
This, to me, is the primary reason that the Microsoft tactic of integrating their software is so bad - more than the anticompetitive stuff. Why is there no press about this?
Everybody says "Well, yes, I hate Windows, too, but I love how all the Microsoft software works together so well," but it's precisely that integration (plus the fact that the people in the "new feature" department have so much more control over product development than the people in the "make sure it doesn't break" department) that opens these HUGE security holes in everybody's computers.
Nobody holds Microsoft accountable for this. How can we, as the Slashdot community, get some grassroots press release and technical writing campaign going to publicize this fact? Where is the stump we need to stand on?
Any ideas, anyone? I'm no genius, but I'd be willing to participate however I could. Down with FUD! Give them facts!
But if reproductive influence can be translated (updated) to be economic influence, doesn't it sorta relate?
I mean, I realize my original idea was a little wacky, but who makes the world go 'round these days? The successful businessmen and successful politicians. And lately it seems like technical innovators are gaining more recognition and influence than managers and CEOs.
I wonder if the behavior that this article describes might not be an evolutionary step in the making... homosuperior or something?
Think about it - all indications of evolutionary momentum shows that our brains are going to continue to grow, and it's the frontal lobes, not the lizard-brain core that is growing.
Maybe we're all going to end up a little more savant-style (as well as a lot more asian) in the future. Hmmm... Sounds a lot like the little grey men archtype, doesn't it? Before long we'll be coming back to earth to pick up Richard Dreyfuss at Devil's Tower!
You're right about some people's attitudes - linux should win or lose any comparison on its merits, not because people want it to win or because they want the other platform to lose. We here at/. should take care not to let this forum degenerate into Mac vs. Windows.
Play with linux for a bit, though, and you'll see why people sometimes have trouble securing their machines. There are a ton of options available, and network security is not easy - especially when the sharks out there keep getting more creative.
After shelling out for NT, you need to spend even more money to enable network services besides file sharing, so people who don't need that software don't have it. With linux, it's all there, right after install. So, because nobody has released a distro just for newbies, most people's boxes come up running telnetd and sendmail and all the potentially weak links in a large, complex system.
In short, the strengths of linux can also become its weaknesses, and we as a user community should see what we can do to remedy that.
> Fact is, we all know that Linux can squish NT flat. Let's set up a test that proves that.
You sound like MindCraft. The purpose of a test is not to prove something, but rather to TEST something.
These tests are valid - not as a measure of one platform over another, just as a measure of an overall setup. The cgi compromised the Linux box. So fix the cgi, set the test up again, and let's find the next hole.
CISC obviously isn't quite dead, but is it GOOD? Desktop CPUs aren't often judged on any qualities besides raw speed, but I think efficiency is important, too.
The PowerPC chip uses far less power and thus produces less heat than the current Pentiums. I would call this a performance advantage, or some kind of advantage.
That means you need less ventilation power (resulting in a quieter machine), and less muscle in your UPS (you DO have a UPS, right?).
Electricity may be pretty cheap, but we could all use a machine that used less juice, especially when we leave them on all the time.
Does anyone know how Merced might compare in power consumption?
Nobody needs dumb terminals in today's workplace environment. Real computers are necessary, not slick looking terminals.
The server IS the "real computer," and real software runs on it. Who cares if you're close enough to hear the fans going?
A five year commitment is too long a technology commitment in today's marketplace. Computer needs change on the order of months, not years.
This argument is actually FOR this product. When you use terminals, all you need to upgrade is the server! Put in a new UltraMegaPowerSparc, and the entire workplace is upgraded.
This won't integrate very well with a Windows-centric economy.
If you mean a Windows-centric workplace, then you're right. But a Windows-centric workplace probably won't even consider buying this product.
It doesn't just involve buying a thin client. It also involves buying the server, the software, the administrators to configure it all and the technicians to train the masses
It seems to me that there actually should be LESS training involved, since these terminals provide access only to applications. The user experience is simpler.
This is one of the scariest things about the pervasive use of MS software.
Basically all entry-level business worker bees are now required to know and use Office, so nearly everybody that's using a computer at work is relying on MS's dictionary, thesaurus and grammar tools.
How much more Philip K. Dick can this get?
The skills that we use to communicate in business (which, in America at least, equals life and culture) are being taught and reinforced by the editorial department at one company!
And now encyclopedias and so on. Regardless of MS's actual intentions, the balance of power in cultural indoctrination just can't be so lopsided!
The point is, we all want good crypto available to everyone. So why try so hard to circumvent an obviously dumb law?
The irony is, of course, that by not allowing US developers to export their code, the US government is discouraging US crypto development when they THINK they're protecting US assets. That means that non-US technology has a better chance for sucess.
If developers don't bother to develop the software within the US, nobody gets in trouble, the NSA's greatest fears are realized (which is fun), and we all get better crypto protection.
There's no restriction on importing strong crypto INTO the US, is there? If not, why doesn't the Linux community just agree to restrict all strong crypto development to people who aren't going to get in trouble for it and have US-based developers focus on other projects? We all get to benefit from the proceeds, so what's the difference?
Why bother hating Apple at all? Get over it, people. Stick to Linux, build beige Wintel boxes from scratch, and upgrade all you like.
If you don't like the iMac, or any Apple product for that matter, don't buy it. Vote with your wallet just like everyone else in our market economy.
But at least try to understand that Apple and Compaq and Sony and a ton of other companies are also vying for the customers that DO like machines with colors and curves. They don't understand computers as well. They want to send email and use Quicken or something. The machine will look good in their den.
Just because you don't feel marketed to by a certain company or product, just because they're not offering something for your "power user" tastes, doesn't mean it's worthless.
The iMac is selling like crazy and Apple wants to protect their investment in design and marketing for as long as they can. It's just business.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that from a client/server standpoint, using an RDBMS makes far more sense than the standard sendmail mbox format
Okay, wait. This isn't my area of particular expertise, but isn't one of the inherent advantages to using an RDBMS (for anything, not this application) its ability to cross-reference records and, in the case of the high-end varieties, to store frequently-called queries in memory in order to reduce disk access?
It seems to me that using an RDBMS for indexing and storing email is overkill. The typical pattern of an email client is to check for new messages over and over, or occasionally move a large file. This usage doesn't leverage any of an RDBMS's abilities at all. You're expending lots of resources in memory and management complexity for little gain. After all, an admin's job (from an employer's position, especially) is to most efficiently use the resources available, not nesessarily to come up with the most elegant solution, right?
If anything, using a lightweight system like DB to seperate header info from message content seems like all you'd need. If filesystem access times are that bad, work on that. Check out filesystem options, or seperate the users onto multiple drives or something.
Am I missing something?
Perhaps, IT workers, due to their crucial role in all global economies, can work to give countries whose currencies are especially unstable a bit more stability. Take the risk, ask to be paid in the native currency, and the company you work for will have an incentive towards building stability in its foreign posts.
Do you really think that will work? I'm trying not to be overly cynical or anything, but it seems hopeful at best. I'm all for grass-roots action, but it seems that a better venue for a statement on economic policy could be found though some kind of advocacy group, though I admit that I wouldn't even know if such things exist for folks like us in situations like that.
The governments whose currencies are "especially unstable" seem to me to also be the governments whose attentions are not generally so fixed on small-time advocacy. They probably have larger problems that they're focused on.
Does such a (I hate to even say the word) lobby exist for IT workers? Even in a primitive form?
Really? The US is the only country that taxes its citizens when they work outside its borders? Does anyone have any references to back that up? I'm curious, because I'm a US citizen and I may end up working abroad soon.
I'm assuming by "Puerto Ricans" you mean people who LIVE in Puerto Rico, and not just Puerto Ricans in general.
Yeah, you're right. Let's get the CIA right on that.
Check out stratfor.com for some actual intelligence.
Part of the disconnect in this discussion is that we're each operating with our own definition of a "good" user interface.
Yes, efficiency in a UI is good. Flexibility, consistency, clarity and information density are also good. There are lots of qualities that make a particular UI implementation useful. The trick is to include as many of those as possible into the product.
The interface for Cisco routers, as anyone who's ever seen it can tell you, is quite simple. Efficient. Able to be used via a low-bandwidth text interface, which is perfect. But is it easy to use? Not for most people. Microsoft Bob, at the other end of the spectrum, was incredibly inefficient, but useable by most people above age 5.
I think the main point is not whether XF86 or a particular WM has a good interface, since those programs are mainly MAKING the interface for the rest of the system. Does Sendmail have a good interface? Does vi? Only when considered seperately and by somebody who is very familiar with them.
For the VAST majority of OSS projects there are no common use models. That makes learning the software more difficult. On the MacOS, most software conforms to several systemwide standards. CMD-Q is quit, CMD-O is open, etc. Windows is almost as good. These types of things make a system AS A WHOLE easier to use. That is the challenge for OSS project leaders - find a way to make their learning curve work for them.
It's not necessarily an issue of commerciality. It seems that "techies" will often justify doing something simply because it can be done, with less regard for future implications or for weighing various considerations.
A techie's job is to come up with ideas and build stuff. That's what they're paid to do. A judge's job or a politician's job is (supposed to be, anyway) geared more towards serving society or a community, and making decisions on behalf large groups.
Saying that the techies should be making the decisions in the world because the world is more complex these days is dangerous. Rather, the judges and lawyers and politicians should be further educated.
Okay, who's paying for the trip there anyway. Is it globally funded?
Yeah, let's start a collection, too. I'm all for space exploration, but just because a lot of people want humankind to go to Mars doesn't mean we really need to. Commercial interests will eventually get us there. In the meantime, we have tons of things to do with our money here on this planet.
I'm all for going, don't get me wrong, but we're not in the Cold War space race era any longer. We need better reasons than beating the bad guys to the punch now.
If you are going to throw down the cash for a computer and don't do some investigating first, is it really the government's job to stop you from doing something stupid?
Yes. Yes it is. Are you suggesting that average citizens, without any help from a well-funded and influential non-commercial group could manage to protect themselves from a feature of a microprocessor?
Have you ever eaten DDT lately? Have you breathed fallout from nuclear accidents? Have you impaled yourself on a solid steering column? The reason people MAKE governments is to protect them and to make expert decisions in their interests.
Maybe all governments don't do the greatest job all the time, but human society doesn't want to go back to living in Wild Kingdom. I applaud people who watch out for government missteps, but "The Market" is not the most useful force for driving our society. A balance between totalitarianism and anarchy is the best we can hope for.
Oh, okay. Har Har! Too damn late in the week for me, I guess.
Do you mean parody?
Parity is RAM.
This, to me, is the primary reason that the Microsoft tactic of integrating their software is so bad - more than the anticompetitive stuff. Why is there no press about this?
Everybody says "Well, yes, I hate Windows, too, but I love how all the Microsoft software works together so well," but it's precisely that integration (plus the fact that the people in the "new feature" department have so much more control over product development than the people in the "make sure it doesn't break" department) that opens these HUGE security holes in everybody's computers.
Nobody holds Microsoft accountable for this. How can we, as the Slashdot community, get some grassroots press release and technical writing campaign going to publicize this fact? Where is the stump we need to stand on?
Any ideas, anyone? I'm no genius, but I'd be willing to participate however I could. Down with FUD! Give them facts!
With the supposed vulnerability of the US military computer networks, you'd think that they would try to avoid retaliation a little more.
Maybe the vulnerability is a ruse. Some old server that the pentagon lets people trash so the real stuff is left alone.
Sneaky bastards.
But if reproductive influence can be translated (updated) to be economic influence, doesn't it sorta relate?
I mean, I realize my original idea was a little wacky, but who makes the world go 'round these days? The successful businessmen and successful politicians. And lately it seems like technical innovators are gaining more recognition and influence than managers and CEOs.
I wonder if the behavior that this article describes might not be an evolutionary step in the making... homosuperior or something?
Think about it - all indications of evolutionary momentum shows that our brains are going to continue to grow, and it's the frontal lobes, not the lizard-brain core that is growing.
Maybe we're all going to end up a little more savant-style (as well as a lot more asian) in the future. Hmmm... Sounds a lot like the little grey men archtype, doesn't it? Before long we'll be coming back to earth to pick up Richard Dreyfuss at Devil's Tower!
You're right about some people's attitudes - linux should win or lose any comparison on its merits, not because people want it to win or because they want the other platform to lose. We here at /. should take care not to let this forum degenerate into Mac vs. Windows.
Play with linux for a bit, though, and you'll see why people sometimes have trouble securing their machines. There are a ton of options available, and network security is not easy - especially when the sharks out there keep getting more creative.
After shelling out for NT, you need to spend even more money to enable network services besides file sharing, so people who don't need that software don't have it. With linux, it's all there, right after install. So, because nobody has released a distro just for newbies, most people's boxes come up running telnetd and sendmail and all the potentially weak links in a large, complex system.
In short, the strengths of linux can also become its weaknesses, and we as a user community should see what we can do to remedy that.
> Fact is, we all know that Linux can squish NT flat. Let's set up a test that proves that.
You sound like MindCraft. The purpose of a test is not to prove something, but rather to TEST something.
These tests are valid - not as a measure of one platform over another, just as a measure of an overall setup. The cgi compromised the Linux box. So fix the cgi, set the test up again, and let's find the next hole.
CISC obviously isn't quite dead, but is it GOOD? Desktop CPUs aren't often judged on any qualities besides raw speed, but I think efficiency is important, too.
The PowerPC chip uses far less power and thus produces less heat than the current Pentiums. I would call this a performance advantage, or some kind of advantage.
That means you need less ventilation power (resulting in a quieter machine), and less muscle in your UPS (you DO have a UPS, right?).
Electricity may be pretty cheap, but we could all use a machine that used less juice, especially when we leave them on all the time.
Does anyone know how Merced might compare in power consumption?
Nobody needs dumb terminals in today's workplace environment. Real computers are necessary, not slick looking terminals.
The server IS the "real computer," and real software runs on it. Who cares if you're close enough to hear the fans going?
A five year commitment is too long a technology commitment in today's marketplace. Computer needs change on the order of months, not years.
This argument is actually FOR this product. When you use terminals, all you need to upgrade is the server! Put in a new UltraMegaPowerSparc, and the entire workplace is upgraded.
This won't integrate very well with a Windows-centric economy.
If you mean a Windows-centric workplace, then you're right. But a Windows-centric workplace probably won't even consider buying this product.
It doesn't just involve buying a thin client. It also involves buying the server, the software, the administrators to configure it all and the technicians to train the masses
It seems to me that there actually should be LESS training involved, since these terminals provide access only to applications. The user experience is simpler.
This is one of the scariest things about the pervasive use of MS software.
Basically all entry-level business worker bees are now required to know and use Office, so nearly everybody that's using a computer at work is relying on MS's dictionary, thesaurus and grammar tools.
How much more Philip K. Dick can this get?
The skills that we use to communicate in business (which, in America at least, equals life and culture) are being taught and reinforced by the editorial department at one company!
And now encyclopedias and so on. Regardless of MS's actual intentions, the balance of power in cultural indoctrination just can't be so lopsided!
The point is, we all want good crypto available to everyone. So why try so hard to circumvent an obviously dumb law?
The irony is, of course, that by not allowing US developers to export their code, the US government is discouraging US crypto development when they THINK they're protecting US assets. That means that non-US technology has a better chance for sucess.
If developers don't bother to develop the software within the US, nobody gets in trouble, the NSA's greatest fears are realized (which is fun), and we all get better crypto protection.
Why would Linus have to look at it? He deals with kernel additions mostly, right?
There's no restriction on importing strong crypto INTO the US, is there? If not, why doesn't the Linux community just agree to restrict all strong crypto development to people who aren't going to get in trouble for it and have US-based developers focus on other projects? We all get to benefit from the proceeds, so what's the difference?
Why bother hating Apple at all? Get over it, people. Stick to Linux, build beige Wintel boxes from scratch, and upgrade all you like.
If you don't like the iMac, or any Apple product for that matter, don't buy it. Vote with your wallet just like everyone else in our market economy.
But at least try to understand that Apple and Compaq and Sony and a ton of other companies are also vying for the customers that DO like machines with colors and curves. They don't understand computers as well. They want to send email and use Quicken or something. The machine will look good in their den.
Just because you don't feel marketed to by a certain company or product, just because they're not offering something for your "power user" tastes, doesn't mean it's worthless.
The iMac is selling like crazy and Apple wants to protect their investment in design and marketing for as long as they can. It's just business.