God forbid that anyone should actually read the article! Yes, let's all just skim it and then flame away!
Come on, it's a CNN (I mean, shit, CNN? You can't get much lower on the clue scale than that) piece that actually did manage to include some interesting stuff, and you act like it came straight out of Redmond or something.
Where in that article (which I read a couple of hours before it was posted on/.) does it say that RedHat finished last?
I'm going to rant a bit here - Could the posters please make sure that the comments they post (either their own or those the submitter putin) are at least vaguely accurate and not likely to cause a goddamn flame war? This comment was completely gratuitous.
Back on topic: I actually found the article to be reasonably fair (if a bit clueless in places - the "RedHat only" poll comes to mind), but it covered some pretty deep material for CNN; stuff about Winblows NT's multi-threaded TCP stack, the stuff about Samba, etc.
Can we do without the endless flames of CNN now? Please?
Not very likely in an analogue copy (which seems to be what the first guy was suggesting). A digital watermark is a digital watermark, remember. It's usually applied by changing the least significant bits of certain chunks of data to match the output of a particular algorithm; it's not the sort of thing that would be audible (in any meaningful sense of the word).
Yeah, I've been thinking about getting a decent KVM switch. Actually, though, having four keyboards means you don't accidentally type "rm./*" on the wrong box, so it's not all bad.
You can actually get into their site (if you're very lucky), but it's incredibly slow (apparently a cable modem link, and we all know what the upstream speed is like for cable...), and they seem to have their maxusers set very low (2? 5? 10? Who knows?)
In any case, they sure aren't making it easy to get in there.
Read it again, bozo - he received the threatening mail from LinuxOne's lawyer, not from the investment firm.
And to the moderator who gave the above post an "Insightful": try reading the article yourself before moderating, so you actually know what all these posts are talking about...
Yeah, I was initially attracted to the Yeong Yang myself, in the "Black? Check. Cubic? Check. NeXTish? Check. Cool, I want one" kinda way, but the rather cheapo construction of its door panel hinges and the case as a whole sorta turned me off.
ObOT: At the moment, I have two computer desks (one for my wife). My wife's one has a Mac, a 17" monitor, a keyboard, a mouse, a printer and a tablet, and it's pretty much full. My desk has a full tower case, three half tower cases, a 20" monitor, an 8-port rackmount-size Ethernet hub, four keyboards, four mice and a whole pile of books, and I've still got a fair bit of space left. It all depends on how you pack it in...
This site is "News for Nerds", not "Endless navel-gazing about how to run the site". If you want that sort of discussion, go hassle on of the infinite number of sites devoted to pointless flamewars about how they should be run.
For the same reason that my first comment got moderated down - it's OFF TOPIC. Perhaps you're having difficulty grasping the concept, but comments are actually supposed to be about the article they're attached to.
If this is true why do IDE drives come in strange sizes like 14GB or 22GB, while SCSI drives traditionally come as 9GB/18GB/36GB? Honest question -- if they were the same mechanisms, one would expect the same sizes.
Number of platters. The SCSI sizes you're talking about are mostly multiples of 4.5GB. The strange ATAPI sizes are actually not real - they're mostly calculations based on either "1GB = 1000MB", or values before formatting.
Also, looking at IBM's lineup, IDE drives are marketed as "DeskStar" while SCSI drives are marketed as "UltraStar" -- Is this truely all marketing, or are they using better components in the "server" drives?
In IBM's case, I'd hesitate to say that it's all marketing, but Quantum certainly pulls the trick of labelling their SCSI and ATAPI series differently, even though the internals are the same.
With regard to your question about "server" drives, originally the more expensive SCSI drives have all sorts of extra features and technology built into them - stuff like handling heat expansion (SCSI drives generally run hotter) by actually calculating the expansion based on temperature and adjusting drive alignment to take that into account, as well as a variety of error-checking and failure-detection measures. However, as the division between cheaper drives and those for servers has gradually disappeared, this sort of thing has become rarer.
One thing to mention here is the supposedly "AV-capable" drives from Quantum, etc., which have big caches and fast rotation speeds to allow them to handle writing large amounts of data (such as for digital video). Unfortunately, they also apparently decided that users wouldn't care if there was the occasional glitch in their video data, so they didn't bother putting in anything but the most basic error-checking. Those drives lose data faster than you can say "marketing bullshit".
Well, I'm a SCSI-only kinda guy myself, but there's a couple of points you glossed over...
4) SCSI has lower CPU overhead and doesn't make your system slug along as the kernel babysits the disk transfers.
Almost every bit of ATAPI kit out there these days uses DMA, which has made a big difference. It's not like the old days when you could see your CPU usage peak during a long copy operation. That said, SCSI still handles multiple requests better.
5) SCSI disks are usually made with higher MTBFs in mind.
True at one time, but many of the SCSI drives out there now are almost identical to their ATAPI counterparts, except for the interface.
There's already a port of NetBSD to the Super-H SH3 CPU, closely related to the SH4 in the Dreamcast (and they're currently working on SH4 support). Take a look here.
I remember when the original Marathon came out (Mac only, of course - Bungie, at that time, developed only for the Mac), and it was great - like a thinking man's Doom. Bungie were always very relaxed toward third-party maps, hacks, etc. They even released their own in-house level editor with Marathon Infinity, and carried on that tradition with Myth II, as well. Truly one of my favorite game companies. To check out more information than you could possibly want to know about the Marathon series, see here.
I believe the first such book by Steve Jackson and Ian Livingstone was "The Warlock of Firetop Mountain". This was then expanded into the Fighting Fantasy series, and was followed by (in order) "Citadel of Chaos", "Forest of Doom", "Starship Traveller", "City of Thieves", "Deathtrap Dungeon" (which was released a couple of years ago as a PC game), and "Island of the Lizard King", which was the last one I bought. My favorites were the original "TWoFM", "CoC" and "FoD". The series started to go downhill from "IotLK", and the books that were published after that were pretty weak (around 60 in all, I believe), mainly because Jackson and Livingstone weren't writing them anymore. Towards the end (around 1995 or so, I think), they were putting out crap like "Revenge of the Vampire", and were pretty much on the level of the "Choose your Own Adventure" books.
This is getting pointless (not that there was ever any point to your posts to begin with, but...)
Except *that* isn't even true. Debian and FreeBSD run on my PC98 box. Slackware doesn't. Ditto for my VAIO that RH installs on, but Slackware doesn't. And then there's SGI's Visual Workstation....
Well golly gee. Fancy that. Considering the PC98 is a different architecture, that's hardly a surprise. I'm surprised that you couldn't get Slackware running on a VAIO; it's running quite happily on mine. Visual Workstations won't work properly without rebuilding the kernel, so Debian/RH/Slackware/etc. are all pretty much useless out of the box anyway. Since you decided to choose this topic, then why don't you see if you can install RH or Debian (since these seem to be your favored distros) on a PC110 using a flash card for the root partition, a Type II PCMCIA HD, and a PCMCIA NIC. It worked with Slackware; you don't have a hope in hell of getting RH to install on that kind of setup without doing an awful lot of the work yourself. I haven't tried Debian, but I suspect that the current versions would run into memory problems (only 8MB RAM available; you might have more luck with 1.3). Strangely enough, the PC110 isn't a different architecture, unlike the examples you gave; it's a full PC/AT compatible.
By my count, there are five posters in this thread, all of whom thought you meant other architectures.
Strange way of counting you have; there appear to be either three or four people besides myself that posted under the thread from my original post, at least one of which is you, one who criticizes both you and me, and one who agrees with my comment about Slackware. Where are you looking? Or is it just more voices in your head?
S/he said that it was "strange". There's nothing at all strange about it being in the last two percent. It'd be equally strange for it to be in any other two percent of the keyspace.
If you're talking about the pure chance of it being found in the last two percent, then, yes, the probability of that happening is...two percent. But that tells you nothing new; you already knew that when the search covered 98% of the key space without finding the answer. What do you find so "strange" about this result?
That was the bizarre part. The most likely cause was my general lack of clues about FreeBSD, but disabling the mouse (PS/2) caused the installer to freeze later on in the setup. Damned if I do, damned if I don't...
1) How much thought does it take to realize that a statement about a distribution like Slackware, that is well known as running only on x86, and for which ports to other architectures are not generally available, as you admit, would generally apply only to x86? (BTW, I am aware of the ports in progress to Alpha and Sparc, although I believe the Alpha port is further ahead at the moment; I am also aware that they are not publically distributed, as are most other/. readers, I would say.) By using the word shoehorn, I would have thought that it was obvious that I was stating that Slackware could be made to fit on minimal and/or quirky hardware, rather than requiring 64MB of RAM and a PII/300 to run satisfactorily. I don't know what twisted interpretation you made of that statement to come up with the idea that I might be referring to other architectures; that's your problem, not mine.
2) Go back and read my post. Now, be honest for a moment (I know it's hard, but try): does it really look like I'm flaming Debian? I stated my personal experience with Debian (that it took me a while to get the hang of it), an opinion which appears to be shared by at least a few other people here, if you bothered to read the other posts about its installer. I also stated that Slackware had my favorite installer, for several reasons which I don't believe anyone could possibly think were trollbait.
3) You jump all over me because you ran out of crack/are in the middle of PMS/your girlfriend didn't put out for you last night/whatever, and then run around screaming that I'm a troll. I then state that the troll description could be more accurately applied to you, and you begin ranting that I'm insulting the opinions of all ACs. Let me state this clearly so that you do not misunderstand yet again - I am referring to you, as an individual, and not to all ACs.
Configuring the kernel doesn't do a lot of good when the installer gives you no idea of legal values for the IRQ and I/O ports. I ended up trying likely values and having to reboot every time, because the keyboard would stop responding. Not my idea of fun.
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't you try and catch up on some 20th-century linguistics? It's all in there.
God forbid that anyone should actually read the article! Yes, let's all just skim it and then flame away!
Come on, it's a CNN (I mean, shit, CNN? You can't get much lower on the clue scale than that) piece that actually did manage to include some interesting stuff, and you act like it came straight out of Redmond or something.
Where in that article (which I read a couple of hours before it was posted on
I'm going to rant a bit here - Could the posters please make sure that the comments they post (either their own or those the submitter putin) are at least vaguely accurate and not likely to cause a goddamn flame war? This comment was completely gratuitous.
Back on topic: I actually found the article to be reasonably fair (if a bit clueless in places - the "RedHat only" poll comes to mind), but it covered some pretty deep material for CNN; stuff about Winblows NT's multi-threaded TCP stack, the stuff about Samba, etc.
Can we do without the endless flames of CNN now? Please?
Not very likely in an analogue copy (which seems to be what the first guy was suggesting). A digital watermark is a digital watermark, remember. It's usually applied by changing the least significant bits of certain chunks of data to match the output of a particular algorithm; it's not the sort of thing that would be audible (in any meaningful sense of the word).
Yeah, I've been thinking about getting a decent KVM switch. Actually, though, having four keyboards means you don't accidentally type "rm
You can actually get into their site (if you're very lucky), but it's incredibly slow (apparently a cable modem link, and we all know what the upstream speed is like for cable...), and they seem to have their maxusers set very low (2? 5? 10? Who knows?)
In any case, they sure aren't making it easy to get in there.
Read it again, bozo - he received the threatening mail from LinuxOne's lawyer, not from the investment firm.
And to the moderator who gave the above post an "Insightful": try reading the article yourself before moderating, so you actually know what all these posts are talking about...
BTW, that "ObOT" is On Topic, not Off Topic. Shoulda left the "n" in...
Yeah, I was initially attracted to the Yeong Yang myself, in the "Black? Check. Cubic? Check. NeXTish? Check. Cool, I want one" kinda way, but the rather cheapo construction of its door panel hinges and the case as a whole sorta turned me off.
ObOT: At the moment, I have two computer desks (one for my wife).
My wife's one has a Mac, a 17" monitor, a keyboard, a mouse, a printer and a tablet, and it's pretty much full.
My desk has a full tower case, three half tower cases, a 20" monitor, an 8-port rackmount-size Ethernet hub, four keyboards, four mice and a whole pile of books, and I've still got a fair bit of space left.
It all depends on how you pack it in...
Try spraying some more gasoline on the fire, Bruce - I don't think it's hot enough yet
God, don't try thinking for yourself anytime soon.
I never thought I'd see those words from the mouth (figuratively speaking) of an AC...
SCSI still supports multi-tasking OS's better.
Um... that's why I included this sentence:
SCSI still handles multiple requests better.
This site is "News for Nerds", not "Endless navel-gazing about how to run the site". If you want that sort of discussion, go hassle on of the infinite number of sites devoted to pointless flamewars about how they should be run.
Why moderate it down?
For the same reason that my first comment got moderated down - it's OFF TOPIC. Perhaps you're having difficulty grasping the concept, but comments are actually supposed to be about the article they're attached to.
If this is true why do IDE drives come in strange sizes like 14GB or 22GB, while SCSI drives traditionally come as 9GB/18GB/36GB? Honest question -- if they were the same mechanisms, one would expect the same sizes.
Number of platters. The SCSI sizes you're talking about are mostly multiples of 4.5GB. The strange ATAPI sizes are actually not real - they're mostly calculations based on either "1GB = 1000MB", or values before formatting.
Also, looking at IBM's lineup, IDE drives are marketed as "DeskStar" while SCSI drives are marketed as "UltraStar" -- Is this truely all marketing, or are they using better components in the "server" drives?
In IBM's case, I'd hesitate to say that it's all marketing, but Quantum certainly pulls the trick of labelling their SCSI and ATAPI series differently, even though the internals are the same.
With regard to your question about "server" drives, originally the more expensive SCSI drives have all sorts of extra features and technology built into them - stuff like handling heat expansion (SCSI drives generally run hotter) by actually calculating the expansion based on temperature and adjusting drive alignment to take that into account, as well as a variety of error-checking and failure-detection measures. However, as the division between cheaper drives and those for servers has gradually disappeared, this sort of thing has become rarer.
One thing to mention here is the supposedly "AV-capable" drives from Quantum, etc., which have big caches and fast rotation speeds to allow them to handle writing large amounts of data (such as for digital video). Unfortunately, they also apparently decided that users wouldn't care if there was the occasional glitch in their video data, so they didn't bother putting in anything but the most basic error-checking. Those drives lose data faster than you can say "marketing bullshit".
Well, I'm a SCSI-only kinda guy myself, but there's a couple of points you glossed over...
4) SCSI has lower CPU overhead and doesn't make your system slug along as the kernel babysits the disk transfers.
Almost every bit of ATAPI kit out there these days uses DMA, which has made a big difference. It's not like the old days when you could see your CPU usage peak during a long copy operation. That said, SCSI still handles multiple requests better.
5) SCSI disks are usually made with higher MTBFs in mind.
True at one time, but many of the SCSI drives out there now are almost identical to their ATAPI counterparts, except for the interface.
Someone moderate this crap down. I don't want to see this as the first thing under an article on a hard-drive company, f'Chrissakes.
There's already a port of NetBSD to the Super-H SH3 CPU, closely related to the SH4 in the Dreamcast (and they're currently working on SH4 support). Take a look here.
I remember when the original Marathon came out (Mac only, of course - Bungie, at that time, developed only for the Mac), and it was great - like a thinking man's Doom.
Bungie were always very relaxed toward third-party maps, hacks, etc. They even released their own in-house level editor with Marathon Infinity, and carried on that tradition with Myth II, as well. Truly one of my favorite game companies.
To check out more information than you could possibly want to know about the Marathon series, see here.
I believe the first such book by Steve Jackson and Ian Livingstone was "The Warlock of Firetop Mountain". This was then expanded into the Fighting Fantasy series, and was followed by (in order) "Citadel of Chaos", "Forest of Doom", "Starship Traveller", "City of Thieves", "Deathtrap Dungeon" (which was released a couple of years ago as a PC game), and "Island of the Lizard King", which was the last one I bought. My favorites were the original "TWoFM", "CoC" and "FoD". The series started to go downhill from "IotLK", and the books that were published after that were pretty weak (around 60 in all, I believe), mainly because Jackson and Livingstone weren't writing them anymore. Towards the end (around 1995 or so, I think), they were putting out crap like "Revenge of the Vampire", and were pretty much on the level of the "Choose your Own Adventure" books.
This is getting pointless (not that there was ever any point to your posts to begin with, but...)
Except *that* isn't even true. Debian and FreeBSD run on my PC98 box. Slackware doesn't. Ditto for my VAIO that RH installs on, but Slackware doesn't. And then there's SGI's Visual Workstation....
Well golly gee. Fancy that. Considering the PC98 is a different architecture, that's hardly a surprise. I'm surprised that you couldn't get Slackware running on a VAIO; it's running quite happily on mine. Visual Workstations won't work properly without rebuilding the kernel, so Debian/RH/Slackware/etc. are all pretty much useless out of the box anyway.
Since you decided to choose this topic, then why don't you see if you can install RH or Debian (since these seem to be your favored distros) on a PC110 using a flash card for the root partition, a Type II PCMCIA HD, and a PCMCIA NIC. It worked with Slackware; you don't have a hope in hell of getting RH to install on that kind of setup without doing an awful lot of the work yourself. I haven't tried Debian, but I suspect that the current versions would run into memory problems (only 8MB RAM available; you might have more luck with 1.3). Strangely enough, the PC110 isn't a different architecture, unlike the examples you gave; it's a full PC/AT compatible.
By my count, there are five posters in this thread, all of whom thought you meant other architectures.
Strange way of counting you have; there appear to be either three or four people besides myself that posted under the thread from my original post, at least one of which is you, one who criticizes both you and me, and one who agrees with my comment about Slackware. Where are you looking? Or is it just more voices in your head?
S/he said that it was "strange". There's nothing at all strange about it being in the last two percent. It'd be equally strange for it to be in any other two percent of the keyspace.
If you're talking about the pure chance of it being found in the last two percent, then, yes, the probability of that happening is...two percent. But that tells you nothing new; you already knew that when the search covered 98% of the key space without finding the answer. What do you find so "strange" about this result?
That was the bizarre part. The most likely cause was my general lack of clues about FreeBSD, but disabling the mouse (PS/2) caused the installer to freeze later on in the setup. Damned if I do, damned if I don't...
OK, let's spell it out for you:
1) How much thought does it take to realize that a statement about a distribution like Slackware, that is well known as running only on x86, and for which ports to other architectures are not generally available, as you admit, would generally apply only to x86? (BTW, I am aware of the ports in progress to Alpha and Sparc, although I believe the Alpha port is further ahead at the moment; I am also aware that they are not publically distributed, as are most other
2) Go back and read my post. Now, be honest for a moment (I know it's hard, but try): does it really look like I'm flaming Debian? I stated my personal experience with Debian (that it took me a while to get the hang of it), an opinion which appears to be shared by at least a few other people here, if you bothered to read the other posts about its installer. I also stated that Slackware had my favorite installer, for several reasons which I don't believe anyone could possibly think were trollbait.
3) You jump all over me because you ran out of crack/are in the middle of PMS/your girlfriend didn't put out for you last night/whatever, and then run around screaming that I'm a troll. I then state that the troll description could be more accurately applied to you, and you begin ranting that I'm insulting the opinions of all ACs. Let me state this clearly so that you do not misunderstand yet again - I am referring to you, as an individual, and not to all ACs.
Now, was that clear enough for you?
Configuring the kernel doesn't do a lot of good when the installer gives you no idea of legal values for the IRQ and I/O ports. I ended up trying likely values and having to reboot every time, because the keyboard would stop responding. Not my idea of fun.