According to my calcs, you've got bandwidth to spare to complete the transfer overnight. If for some reason you do need to do this during the day, find a competent network engineer to implement QoS on your network so your VoIP/pr0n/WoW doesn't suffer.
The beauty of this distribution is that it doesn't cater only to geeks, its made for and is very usable/maintainable by mere humans. I was able wean my Mom off her Mac with Conectiva, which isn't that big a deal, but I was also actually able to show her how to maintain her software via Synaptic, which is nothing short of incredible, IMHO. (I'm very used to the "set it up for the friend/family member and then support/upgrade it until the end of the world over a modem" type scenario.)
I've been using Linux since RH4.0 days (not forever, but not since last night, either;-) and this distribution is the most exciting thing I've seen in a long time.
I used to have halogens as well, until I discovered some great lights from Good Earth Lighting, Inc. I have about six of the G6555-NK-I (tall brushed nickel) around my house. They use a hugely powerful 55W fluorescent bulb from GE that easily puts out as much light as my old 300W halogens. They are dimmable as well, which is quite rare in fluorescents.
From the box:
You'll save $233 or more on electricity through the first bulb.
I mean, I know this is IBM and Token Ring really only runs well on ISA, but can we have a MODERN motherboard designed in this decade please.
Does it embarrass you do display your ignorance in public? Just curious.
For the record, Token-Ring runs just fine on PCI, thank you very much. Yes, it did take awhile to come out on PCI, but if you understood anything about Token-Ring, you'd know that the silicon is about 10x more complicated then Ethernet, so it's really not surprising that the engineering effort would take longer, especially if you factor in Token-Ring's much smaller market share.
Also, you've gotten your wish - this motherboard was designed in this decade. But just because you don't use ISA, that doesn't mean that there aren't hundreds of thousands of really expensive ISA boards (Dialogics, anyone?) out there that still work just fine, despite having been originally designed for the brain-damaged ISA bus. Despite the bruhaha about USB, the truth is it sucks for many types of applications. Let's not forgot that USB was designed to replace your serial ports, not the ISA bus. USB networking, for example, has roughly 60% the throughput of a even a cheesy $5 ISA card.
Sure it would be great to replace all this ISA-based crap, but at upwards of $5K+ a board, suddenly ISA looks a lot more palatable.
One of the most disturbing trends in recent history are the legal challenges being made to Free Software, i.e. MPAA vs CSS and RIAA vs. Napster et al. Regardless of the legality of the disputed points, it appears to be a David vs. (well-funded, publicity adept) Goliath type situation. Additionally, it appears the positions and interpretations of existing law (such as the DMCA) by the plantiffs are becoming more and more extreme. The unfortunate reality is that the defendants usually do not have the resources to defend themselves and must end up giving away their rights or censoring themselves.
My question: the GPL was originally setup to preserve the freedom of the individual with regards to future use/modification of software and distribution of that software. With GPL'd software falling under the assault of (quasi-) legal actions like the above and being under the threat of removal from distribution, does it make sense to include provisions to strongly discourage (i.e. punish) litigation like the above? I could see a license provision that would preclude any use of GPL'ed software by companies engaged in legal action against the authors of GPL'ed software. While this is not enough motivation to avoid all litigation, it would prevent litigious companies from profiting from the benefits of open source if they are simutaneously attempting to censor it.
Slashdot Mirror
+1
According to my calcs, you've got bandwidth to spare to complete the transfer overnight. If for some reason you do need to do this during the day, find a competent network engineer to implement QoS on your network so your VoIP/pr0n/WoW doesn't suffer.
The beauty of this distribution is that it doesn't cater only to geeks, its made for and is very usable/maintainable by mere humans. I was able wean my Mom off her Mac with Conectiva, which isn't that big a deal, but I was also actually able to show her how to maintain her software via Synaptic, which is nothing short of incredible, IMHO. (I'm very used to the "set it up for the friend/family member and then support/upgrade it until the end of the world over a modem" type scenario.)
;-) and this distribution is the most exciting thing I've seen in a long time.
I've been using Linux since RH4.0 days (not forever, but not since last night, either
I used to have halogens as well, until I discovered some great lights from Good Earth Lighting, Inc. I have about six of the G6555-NK-I (tall brushed nickel) around my house. They use a hugely powerful 55W fluorescent bulb from GE that easily puts out as much light as my old 300W halogens. They are dimmable as well, which is quite rare in fluorescents.
.10/kWh)
.079/kWh), which means each one will pay for itself in about 8 months.
From the box:
You'll save $233 or more on electricity through the first bulb.
Coal saved: 2100 lbs
Greenhouse gases eliminated: 6,200 lbs
Acid Rain emission reduction: 82 lbs
(based on 10,000 hour life and
These babies are saving me about $7/month (based on my local rate of
I mean, I know this is IBM and Token Ring really only runs well on ISA, but can we have a MODERN motherboard designed in this decade please.
Does it embarrass you do display your ignorance in public? Just curious.
For the record, Token-Ring runs just fine on PCI, thank you very much. Yes, it did take awhile to come out on PCI, but if you understood anything about Token-Ring, you'd know that the silicon is about 10x more complicated then Ethernet, so it's really not surprising that the engineering effort would take longer, especially if you factor in Token-Ring's much smaller market share.
Also, you've gotten your wish - this motherboard was designed in this decade. But just because you don't use ISA, that doesn't mean that there aren't hundreds of thousands of really expensive ISA boards (Dialogics, anyone?) out there that still work just fine, despite having been originally designed for the brain-damaged ISA bus. Despite the bruhaha about USB, the truth is it sucks for many types of applications. Let's not forgot that USB was designed to replace your serial ports, not the ISA bus. USB networking, for example, has roughly 60% the throughput of a even a cheesy $5 ISA card.
Sure it would be great to replace all this ISA-based crap, but at upwards of $5K+ a board, suddenly ISA looks a lot more palatable.
Hi Richard,
One of the most disturbing trends in recent history are the legal challenges being made to Free Software, i.e. MPAA vs CSS and RIAA vs. Napster et al. Regardless of the legality of the disputed points, it appears to be a David vs. (well-funded, publicity adept) Goliath type situation. Additionally, it appears the positions and interpretations of existing law (such as the DMCA) by the plantiffs are becoming more and more extreme. The unfortunate reality is that the defendants usually do not have the resources to defend themselves and must end up giving away their rights or censoring themselves.
My question: the GPL was originally setup to preserve the freedom of the individual with regards to future use/modification of software and distribution of that software. With GPL'd software falling under the assault of (quasi-) legal actions like the above and being under the threat of removal from distribution, does it make sense to include provisions to strongly discourage (i.e. punish) litigation like the above? I could see a license provision that would preclude any use of GPL'ed software by companies engaged in legal action against the authors of GPL'ed software. While this is not enough motivation to avoid all litigation, it would prevent litigious companies from profiting from the benefits of open source if they are simutaneously attempting to censor it.
Thanks for your thoughts and time.