I think it T. gondii attacks some regulatory function in the brain that inhibits risk-taking behavior, which for rodents is associated via different mechanisms with the detection of cats and other predators.
The rodents in question remain afraid of open spaces and unfamiliar foods. The only thing that appears to be targeted is the fear of cat urine.
Except for the whole "IE9 doesnt run on XP, and IE10 doesnt run on ANY production Windows", yea, its wonderful. HOORAY for 3 platforms to support!
One of the reasons why I recommend chrome so heavily: Every one of my friends / clients / acquaintences running Chrome is on the same version of Chrome, Flash, and PDF plugins. Makes securing and troubleshooting them a zillion times easier, as well as instructing them to do anything since I dont have to guess what their UI looks like.
I certainly go in there if I happen to be stopped near a best buy and its been a while. Sometimes its nice to browse cameras or whatever, and hands on sometimes does tell you more than just the specs. That TV may be 1080, and may have 3 hdmi inputs, but are they well placed? How big is the trim on the screen? Etc etc, some things pics just arent as good as actually being there.
That said, I dont believe Ive actually purchased anything there in over 10 years.
Its also a little obnoxious that the leaker seems to feel entitled that a non-profit org like Mozilla continue to devote time to a product that is less than stellar and they make no money from.
Its open source, dude, go improve it yourself; whining that Mozilla doesnt share your priorities--when they provide Thunderbird for free--is the worst.
Im pretty sure many towns / cities have local news sources that arent CNN, Fox, BBC, ABC, CBS, etc. Certainly the bar has been lowered dramatically with the internet, but lets not forget the enormous privilege of free press we already enjoy.
When he says "freedom", he really means it - as in freedom to oppress, freedom to fuck the individual, freedom to discriminate based on color and creed, freedom to do anything as long as it's not the government doing it
He is a little crazy, and I dont know that I would ever vote for him, but as with most things there is a kernel of truth there. See, those individual "freedoms" you mentioned only cause a little evil; whereas the government has almost unlimited potential for evil by "fixing" problems. See, for instance, China's forced late-term abortions-- designed to "fix" the country's population problem.
Those are projections, and not terribly relevant to reality.
But dont let that bother you; I hear Obama is projecting that he can accomplish World Peace right about when he gets around to respecting congressional authority over war.
Among other things, he's dramatically changed the health care landscape for the better,
And dramatically expanded congressional power in the process. Some will say "for the better", I fear for 50 years down the road.
and militarily he's kicked ass, accomplishing the destruction of the most hated person on earth since Adolph Hitler.
I thought thats why we hated Bush. Why the double standard? Its also a bit pathetic to give 100% credit to Obama for a military / intelligence effort that he only played a ~30% role in (in terms of years).
You do realize that "credit" and "fault" on things that take years to do cant be placed solely on the person who happened to be in office when they came to fruition, right? Ill give Obama credit for having been the guy to OK the final raid, but lets not make this into some "Obama, Terrorist Hunter" thing, especially after all the criticism Bush got.
The real double standard is that you are lauding Obama's overseas accomplishments and ignoring some pretty galling stuff. Like that Bush gets lambasted for 2 wars-- both of which were congressionally authorized. Then Obama goes into Libya with NO congressional authorization, and one of his Cabinet remarks that "UN authorization is much better", and everyone cheers. Seriously, what the heck? Im glad we went to Libya, but Im appaled at the regard Obama seems to have for "rule by the people", especially after criticizing Bush for HIS wars a mere year before he entered office.
Or his initial executive decree regarding abortion when he entered office, which resulted in everyone's tax money going to fund it. Except one problem: http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/pro-choice-americans-record-low.aspx For the majority of the time he has been in office-- including when he issued the decree- the majority of Americans have been pro-life. So essentially, the majority of americans are now being forced to pay for the minority of americans to do things they find reprehensible. Wonderful, progress indeed.
This isnt "progress", its Obama doing whatever he wants, and to hell what the majority of americans think.
A virtual machine can only expose hardware that actually exists on your system,
Sorry for double post, but have to correct this.
This is utterly incorrect, I can set up an ESXi 5 box on a machine with a single gbit NIC, and attach 7 10gbit nics to the virtual machine on a virtual switch that doesnt exist anywhere. In fact, I would be astonished if you could point me to where I could purchase vmxnet3 NICs-- those are purely virtual, but can be "exposed" to a guest operating system and are the default for any guest which has the vmware tools installed.
What defines a virtual machine is the seperation of the Operating system from the physical hardware; instead it is encapsulated and hosted by another operating system or hypervisor which provides a translation layer from the physical to the virtual. You can expose hardware to the virtual machine which doesnt exist anywhere at all: for example, you could have an ESXi datastore hosted on a RAMdisk, but expose an LSILogic SCSI controller with a SCSI hard disk to a VM; and your RAMdisk might be limited to 16GB, but you could thin-provision a 1TB disk to that VM. Or your host might only have 16GB of RAM, but you could expose 64GB to the guest OS (though in most cases that would be a phenomenally bad idea).
and your CPU actually switches between the different contexts -- your CPU is actually aware that it is running different systems on modern chips.
Thats not entirely accurate either. The CPU isnt "aware", the hypervisor is. VTx etc are just functions that more easily allow CPU instructions to be virtualized with lower overhead. And when you say "context switching", generally the virtual machines are threaded-- in ESXi, for example, each VM will have its own process per core you exposed to that VM. If you have 8 cores and only have assigned 2 to VMs, there isnt any "context switching", they run fullspeed as userland apps of the host hypervisor.
The abstraction here is mostly at the driver level; your guest OS is typically using drivers provided by the VM software maker that interact with the VM software to expose the hardware's functionality.
This is also a half-truth. If you dont install VMWare tools for example, you would generally expose an e1000 NIC to the guest, and the guest OS would use its own native e1000 drivers to talk with the virtual NIC, which would then talk to the hypervisor, which would then route the traffic out of the proper uplink. Generally you are NOT exposing NICs to the VM, you are exposing a connection to a virtual switch which has a physical uplink.
Whereas an emulator can emulate any hardware you do not have from the CPU on up, a virtual machine simply exposes your existing hardware, and lets your hardware do as much of the work as possible.
Again, false, false, false, false. VMware (as well as virtualbox and several others) let you expose a variety of hardware, primarily so that if you are unable to install the virtualization helper tools that you can still have native driver support in the guest OS. The main limits on what you can expose are that you cannot emulate CPU instructions that you do not have: if your CPU doesnt support AES-NI, you cant expose that to your guest. However, you certainly could have a Xeon 5600 series CPU pretend to be a 5500 CPU-- this is one of the features of ESX to allow live migration of guests between systems with disparate CPUs.
Please, if youre going to try to instruct people on virtualization, make sure you are not handing out gross misinformation. For the record, there IS a quiz on this, and if you care to take a mock exam, they have several @ mylearn.vmware.com under the VCP 5 portal.
Yes, it actually DOES pretend to be windows, which is why you can run "wine cmd.exe" and it will launch, and you can run "regedit" even though the registry it opens is a fake one. Theres a lot more to wine than simply an API (or more correctly APIs plural, since there are many it implements).
WINE is a re-implementation of the Windows system-call library. Tepples is absolutely correct above: It's a reimplementation of the API, and no more a emulator than Linux is of UNIX.
It also has a fake registry, a fake filesystem with symlinks,etc etc. Its not just DLLs, its an entire environment.
And for the record, it has been common useage for YEARS to refer to things that "emulate" another software environment as an emulator. Case in point, the DOSbox that you refer to does NOT emulate hardware-- dosbox emulates DOS on x86 hardware. An emulator, as Wikipedia notes, is a software or hardware environment that tries to mirror the functions of another hardware or software environment
Meanwhile, Virtual Machines have nothing to do with hardware vs software: it simply allows one operating system to play host to another. It isnt an emulation, becaues there arent compatibility issues-- the OS is the real deal, its just seperated from the actual hardware by a hypervisor.
Wine isnt simply an API, its a reimplementation of an API plus the necessary environment to make said API work-- which in the end is an emulator, because its goal is to mirror the behavior of a genuine windows environment.
No, its not, though it may be a good karma talking point on slashdot. Bankrupt means "is defaulting on debt". We arent doing that, while several countries in Europe are definitely considering it.
Do you have an idea of how much money it would cost to bury all the electric lines in the country? And how much more of a PITA it becomes to repair when some idiot with a backhoe cuts the line?
First of all, you are assuming Blizzard is 100% trustworthy.
I and several others used WoW on Wine / Linux for years with no issues. Ive also seen time and again people complaining that they were banned for technical issues, only for the truth that they were cheating to come out.
So forgive me if all of my experience points to this being yet another case of that. If it were some technical issue, why would Blizz stick to its guns and alienate customers?
The goal of Linux isnt to pretend to be Unix. The goal of Wine IS to pretend to be Windows. Its entire purpose is setting up an environment that as closely as possible pretends to be a Windows one. According to the wikipedia definition,
In computing, an emulator is hardware or software or both that duplicates (or emulates) the functions of a first computer system (the guest) in a different second computer system (the host), so that the emulated behavior closely resembles the behavior of the real system.
As I and several thousand others can attest, its there for both. WoW-- a complex, 10+GB game, works better with Wine than just about any other program you could try.
Whats news is that Slashdot's headlines are getting worse by the day. "Banned ALL Linux users on wine!" Wow! Really? Wonder what the folks in this thread might say about that? (User using wine; also, this post)
Very clearly, this is only "all linux users" for certain, low-percentage values of "all". From the posts on battle.net, it appears that "all" is roughly in the vicinity of "10". But congrats on yet another inflammatory headline, slashdot. Drive those clicks!
Slashdot Mirror
Democracy and capitalism are the worst systems out there.
Except for all the other ones that have been tried, of course.
I think it T. gondii attacks some regulatory function in the brain that inhibits risk-taking behavior, which for rodents is associated via different mechanisms with the detection of cats and other predators.
The rodents in question remain afraid of open spaces and unfamiliar foods. The only thing that appears to be targeted is the fear of cat urine.
Guilt about sex is one of the things religion uses to keep people in line.
Except for the whole book of Song of Solomon, you mean.
But dont let your ignorance get in the way of your anti-religious sentiment, this is slashdot and theres karma to be had.
Except for the whole "IE9 doesnt run on XP, and IE10 doesnt run on ANY production Windows", yea, its wonderful. HOORAY for 3 platforms to support!
One of the reasons why I recommend chrome so heavily: Every one of my friends / clients / acquaintences running Chrome is on the same version of Chrome, Flash, and PDF plugins. Makes securing and troubleshooting them a zillion times easier, as well as instructing them to do anything since I dont have to guess what their UI looks like.
It has firefox near 50% in 2008, to give you an idea of how bogus this is.
Want more realistic stats? Check this, which has IE at a more realistic 30%:
http://gs.statcounter.com/
I certainly go in there if I happen to be stopped near a best buy and its been a while. Sometimes its nice to browse cameras or whatever, and hands on sometimes does tell you more than just the specs. That TV may be 1080, and may have 3 hdmi inputs, but are they well placed? How big is the trim on the screen? Etc etc, some things pics just arent as good as actually being there.
That said, I dont believe Ive actually purchased anything there in over 10 years.
Its also a little obnoxious that the leaker seems to feel entitled that a non-profit org like Mozilla continue to devote time to a product that is less than stellar and they make no money from.
Its open source, dude, go improve it yourself; whining that Mozilla doesnt share your priorities--when they provide Thunderbird for free--is the worst.
Im pretty sure many towns / cities have local news sources that arent CNN, Fox, BBC, ABC, CBS, etc. Certainly the bar has been lowered dramatically with the internet, but lets not forget the enormous privilege of free press we already enjoy.
When he says "freedom", he really means it - as in freedom to oppress, freedom to fuck the individual, freedom to discriminate based on color and creed, freedom to do anything as long as it's not the government doing it
He is a little crazy, and I dont know that I would ever vote for him, but as with most things there is a kernel of truth there. See, those individual "freedoms" you mentioned only cause a little evil; whereas the government has almost unlimited potential for evil by "fixing" problems. See, for instance, China's forced late-term abortions-- designed to "fix" the country's population problem.
Those are projections, and not terribly relevant to reality.
But dont let that bother you; I hear Obama is projecting that he can accomplish World Peace right about when he gets around to respecting congressional authority over war.
Please lay out the specific things you seem to feel Mit Romney will do that is different then GWB as a republican and where he differs from Obama.
Get a workable budget passed, something Democrats seem to have a hard time with.
Among other things, he's dramatically changed the health care landscape for the better,
And dramatically expanded congressional power in the process. Some will say "for the better", I fear for 50 years down the road.
and militarily he's kicked ass, accomplishing the destruction of the most hated person on earth since Adolph Hitler.
I thought thats why we hated Bush. Why the double standard? Its also a bit pathetic to give 100% credit to Obama for a military / intelligence effort that he only played a ~30% role in (in terms of years).
You do realize that "credit" and "fault" on things that take years to do cant be placed solely on the person who happened to be in office when they came to fruition, right? Ill give Obama credit for having been the guy to OK the final raid, but lets not make this into some "Obama, Terrorist Hunter" thing, especially after all the criticism Bush got.
The real double standard is that you are lauding Obama's overseas accomplishments and ignoring some pretty galling stuff. Like that Bush gets lambasted for 2 wars-- both of which were congressionally authorized. Then Obama goes into Libya with NO congressional authorization, and one of his Cabinet remarks that "UN authorization is much better", and everyone cheers. Seriously, what the heck? Im glad we went to Libya, but Im appaled at the regard Obama seems to have for "rule by the people", especially after criticizing Bush for HIS wars a mere year before he entered office.
It also ignores that Obama seems to LOVE to do things that heavily divide us, often pushing actions / laws through that the majority of Americans are against. For instance, this healthcare reform you're pushing?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/121943/benefits-healthcare-reform-tough-sell-americans.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/140981/verdict-healthcare-reform-bill-divided.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/145496/favor-oppose-repealing-healthcare-law.aspx
Over the last few years, public opinion has ranged from "slightly against" to "slightly for" to "majority want this thing repealed". Thats not a victory.
Or his initial executive decree regarding abortion when he entered office, which resulted in everyone's tax money going to fund it. Except one problem:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/pro-choice-americans-record-low.aspx
For the majority of the time he has been in office-- including when he issued the decree- the majority of Americans have been pro-life. So essentially, the majority of americans are now being forced to pay for the minority of americans to do things they find reprehensible. Wonderful, progress indeed.
This isnt "progress", its Obama doing whatever he wants, and to hell what the majority of americans think.
I think everyone in America agrees with that.
We just disagree about which half ;)
A virtual machine can only expose hardware that actually exists on your system,
Sorry for double post, but have to correct this.
This is utterly incorrect, I can set up an ESXi 5 box on a machine with a single gbit NIC, and attach 7 10gbit nics to the virtual machine on a virtual switch that doesnt exist anywhere. In fact, I would be astonished if you could point me to where I could purchase vmxnet3 NICs-- those are purely virtual, but can be "exposed" to a guest operating system and are the default for any guest which has the vmware tools installed.
What defines a virtual machine is the seperation of the Operating system from the physical hardware; instead it is encapsulated and hosted by another operating system or hypervisor which provides a translation layer from the physical to the virtual. You can expose hardware to the virtual machine which doesnt exist anywhere at all: for example, you could have an ESXi datastore hosted on a RAMdisk, but expose an LSILogic SCSI controller with a SCSI hard disk to a VM; and your RAMdisk might be limited to 16GB, but you could thin-provision a 1TB disk to that VM. Or your host might only have 16GB of RAM, but you could expose 64GB to the guest OS (though in most cases that would be a phenomenally bad idea).
and your CPU actually switches between the different contexts -- your CPU is actually aware that it is running different systems on modern chips.
Thats not entirely accurate either. The CPU isnt "aware", the hypervisor is. VTx etc are just functions that more easily allow CPU instructions to be virtualized with lower overhead. And when you say "context switching", generally the virtual machines are threaded-- in ESXi, for example, each VM will have its own process per core you exposed to that VM. If you have 8 cores and only have assigned 2 to VMs, there isnt any "context switching", they run fullspeed as userland apps of the host hypervisor.
The abstraction here is mostly at the driver level; your guest OS is typically using drivers provided by the VM software maker that interact with the VM software to expose the hardware's functionality.
This is also a half-truth. If you dont install VMWare tools for example, you would generally expose an e1000 NIC to the guest, and the guest OS would use its own native e1000 drivers to talk with the virtual NIC, which would then talk to the hypervisor, which would then route the traffic out of the proper uplink. Generally you are NOT exposing NICs to the VM, you are exposing a connection to a virtual switch which has a physical uplink.
Whereas an emulator can emulate any hardware you do not have from the CPU on up, a virtual machine simply exposes your existing hardware, and lets your hardware do as much of the work as possible.
Again, false, false, false, false. VMware (as well as virtualbox and several others) let you expose a variety of hardware, primarily so that if you are unable to install the virtualization helper tools that you can still have native driver support in the guest OS. The main limits on what you can expose are that you cannot emulate CPU instructions that you do not have: if your CPU doesnt support AES-NI, you cant expose that to your guest. However, you certainly could have a Xeon 5600 series CPU pretend to be a 5500 CPU-- this is one of the features of ESX to allow live migration of guests between systems with disparate CPUs.
Please, if youre going to try to instruct people on virtualization, make sure you are not handing out gross misinformation. For the record, there IS a quiz on this, and if you care to take a mock exam, they have several @ mylearn.vmware.com under the VCP 5 portal.
Yes, it actually DOES pretend to be windows, which is why you can run "wine cmd.exe" and it will launch, and you can run "regedit" even though the registry it opens is a fake one. Theres a lot more to wine than simply an API (or more correctly APIs plural, since there are many it implements).
WINE is a re-implementation of the Windows system-call library. Tepples is absolutely correct above: It's a reimplementation of the API, and no more a emulator than Linux is of UNIX.
It also has a fake registry, a fake filesystem with symlinks ,etc etc. Its not just DLLs, its an entire environment.
And for the record, it has been common useage for YEARS to refer to things that "emulate" another software environment as an emulator. Case in point, the DOSbox that you refer to does NOT emulate hardware-- dosbox emulates DOS on x86 hardware. An emulator, as Wikipedia notes, is a software or hardware environment that tries to mirror the functions of another hardware or software environment
Meanwhile, Virtual Machines have nothing to do with hardware vs software: it simply allows one operating system to play host to another. It isnt an emulation, becaues there arent compatibility issues-- the OS is the real deal, its just seperated from the actual hardware by a hypervisor.
Wine isnt simply an API, its a reimplementation of an API plus the necessary environment to make said API work-- which in the end is an emulator, because its goal is to mirror the behavior of a genuine windows environment.
No, its not, though it may be a good karma talking point on slashdot. Bankrupt means "is defaulting on debt". We arent doing that, while several countries in Europe are definitely considering it.
Do you have an idea of how much money it would cost to bury all the electric lines in the country? And how much more of a PITA it becomes to repair when some idiot with a backhoe cuts the line?
The fifties were full of crazy ideas and huge projects and what did we get, the most awesome country in the world.
Partly on an economic boom brought on by a World War a mere 10 years prior, yes.
Just sayin. The great depression didnt exactly go away on its own.
Wine works with directx. Its just not very good.
Wow.. Where were you when they banned people for playing WoW in Wine?
AFAICT from the posts, that was 6 years ago, was an accident, and the users in question were unbanned with an acknowledgement from Blizzard.
Once again, If blizz is sticking to their guns that these are legit bans, their track-record makes me believe them.
First of all, you are assuming Blizzard is 100% trustworthy.
I and several others used WoW on Wine / Linux for years with no issues. Ive also seen time and again people complaining that they were banned for technical issues, only for the truth that they were cheating to come out.
So forgive me if all of my experience points to this being yet another case of that. If it were some technical issue, why would Blizz stick to its guns and alienate customers?
The goal of Linux isnt to pretend to be Unix. The goal of Wine IS to pretend to be Windows. Its entire purpose is setting up an environment that as closely as possible pretends to be a Windows one. According to the wikipedia definition,
In computing, an emulator is hardware or software or both that duplicates (or emulates) the functions of a first computer system (the guest) in a different second computer system (the host), so that the emulated behavior closely resembles the behavior of the real system.
How does Wine not fit that bill?
As I and several thousand others can attest, its there for both. WoW-- a complex, 10+GB game, works better with Wine than just about any other program you could try.
Whats news is that Slashdot's headlines are getting worse by the day. "Banned ALL Linux users on wine!" Wow! Really? Wonder what the folks in this thread might say about that? (User using wine; also, this post)
Very clearly, this is only "all linux users" for certain, low-percentage values of "all". From the posts on battle.net, it appears that "all" is roughly in the vicinity of "10". But congrats on yet another inflammatory headline, slashdot. Drive those clicks!