I'm all for open source software, don't get me wrong, but switching from a known solution that Works For You(tm) even though it's horribly expensive to a $0 one but with a steep learning curve can be disastrous.
Would you replace Oracle with PostgreSQL if "all" you had in house were Oracle gurus?
I know, this is one example, others may not be that extreme. But taking this kind of decision has to be done with some caution.
> Ah, I get it. It's because you're using an OR '\|'.
In fact, an alternative;) And you do NOT have to use an alternative inside parentheses. You may use it standalone, eg, 'cat\|dog'
As to grouping operators, \( and \) in vim, nothing prevents you from using them without ever using the captured text. And AFAIK, grouping does not preserve contents across regexes either.
Maybe vim has some special syntax to capture groupings in, say, registers, but if so I don't know of it.
Because for some reason, vim sticks to the vi regex dialect in many ways, at a time where (, ), |, +, ?, { and } were literals (unlike in more modern regex dialects).
You MUST put a backslash in front of all of those in order to make them have their "regex" meaning.
u to undo, C-r to redo.:w your file, C-z to suspend, try, fg to re-edit, use undo: GREAT for testing configuration files/scripts.:w/other/file/name, of course.
Stripping out ALL comments and empty lines from files where comments begin with hashes::g/^\s*\(#\|$\)/d
The/c modifier to:s.
The 26 registers, a to z. The 26 marks, a to z.
Mark a, mark b. Substitute only on lines between a and b::'a,'bs/what/ever/
While I've never contested the fact that any *BSD can be a decent desktop OS given enough time to fiddle with it, I'm downloading it for yet another reason: I've never tried any *BSD OS.
I'm a man of old habits and have been using Linux for 12 years now. Time to discover what's "out there";)
In fact, I've been looking into OpenBSD at some time, but was rebuked by its user community, which I found quite unhelpul (an OpenBSD IRC channel which I went on to gather information about the OS likened me to a "Gentoo ricer", since yes, I use Gentoo).
Hey, somehow like... You know... When a Windows user goes and asks for help on quite a few Linux IRC channels around the world...
Anyway, that's good news, and will certainly help spread the word.
NAT breaks the internet and is essentially an ugly workaround that results in the need for lots of other workarounds. If you think this isn't so then you need to get your head out of the sand/your ass (your choice) and pay better attention.
Sorry but no.
For a machine that only needs to access other machines on the Net, but MUST NOT be reached at all (think: typical enterprise workstation, but that's just one scenario), NAT is THE solution. There is no better way for a machine not to be reachable than giving this machine a non routable address.
There is a small but growing number of folks who think IPv6 may be stillborn. The rationale goes something like this:
1. It's very expensive to upgrade an infrastructure of non-trivial size to IPv6 and that's only one of the several serious disincentives against deploying IPv6.
2. IPv6's rate of deployment to date can only be described as an abysmal commercial failure.
3. IPv6 fails to solve the Internet's core routing problem (reference the IRTF Routing Research Group). It's possible that a protocol which does solve that problem will leapfrog IPv6's deployment.
4. 2^32 addresses IS enough for everybody, IF most client computers are behind a NAT firewall. The count is too low only if most client computers need their own globally-routable address. That most client computers need their own globally-routable address is a dubious claim in light of today's wide deployment of NAT.
I fail to understand point 1: at the hardware level, I see no reason why any hardware equipment needs modification to support IPv6, unless you rely on "firmware-accelerated" hardware (TCP offloaders and whatnot). At the upper layers, all you need is software which handles both protocols. They're pretty much universal today.
I agree and disagree with point 2:
* imho, the main problem is the "misdistribution" of the IPv4 space to begin with. Do you think it's normal that Hewlett Packard owns two (yes, two) A-class IP networks, yet certainly does not have 2*(2^24-2) reachable hosts? Or that, for instance (real life example!), a VPN, P as in private, for one of our clients, uses a 126.192.0.0/14 network mask? * this very same poor address space distribution, on the other hand, incites so-called "developing" countries to embrace IPv6, especially in Asia: they just don't have enough unique IPv4 addresses to fulfill the current customer demand for Internet connections, so IPv6 is a reality over there already.
The IPv6 rate of deployment is abysmal in Europe and the US, maybe, but not in several other parts of the world - which happen to weigh more and more on the global state of things as time passes by.
I don't know about 3, so I won't comment.
As to point 4, I wholly agree that NAT won't go away. I'm not sure that even then, the IPv4 address space will be enough eventually.
To Leonard Boyarsky, lead world designer on Diablo III.
I've been playing Diablo 2 (and d2x in particular) for a long time and have been very much enjoying that game. But I've seen a very disturbing trend with d2x:
* Hell difficulty in single player is close to impossible, except with a few characters and very, very high-end equipment; * some very good items are realm-only; * some drops are way too rare, and the only chance you get to complete a BotD for instance (Breath of the Dying, VexHelElEldZodEth) is either to accumulate a four-digit-hours play time, use "item libraries" and edit your character, OR trade online.
The problem is, I don't play online, I don't WANT to play online, I'm not interested AT ALL in playing online, and I don't have 1000+ hours to spare, even for d2x. So, guess which solution I chose.
So, I'd like to know whether this trend will continue with Diablo 3, or if, at the opposite, there will be close to no difference in playability and good drops should you choose to play single or not.
> They're good, but they're only much use for driving fast on very very smooth fairly straight roads.
You should come to France some day, and you'll see that "very very smooth fairly straight roads" don't exist, except highways. And I don't drive on highways.
And yes, I enjoyed driving the beemer on "B roads", and no, it wasn't driving like a plank (BTW, I didn't have the sports suspension). It was even very, very comfortable, and I was not afraid to drive a tank-worth (450 miles) without stopping. The C5 gives me a backache after not even 200 miles. I make a difference between "smooth suspension" and "sloppy suspension". The C5 suspension is sloppy.
> Power isn't everything. The BMW needs a lot of power because you're constantly slowing down for corners - its handling and ride quality are *abysmal*
Bwaahaha*hrm*.
Sorry, but having had an E46 330d at the time, I can only laugh at that statement. There was just no car to compare it to at the time, and certainly not from France. The C5 felt sloppy compared to it. And no, the 330d didn't ride as a plank.
I now own an Opel Speedster Turbo, but it's because I don't drive 40k miles a yeat anymore, only 4k, if not less.
If you're talking about the BMW 750i vs any C6, just one thing: go to a showroom and just get into the car. Guess which one feels better just being at the wheel.
And don't get me started on the engines. If you were to compare the most powerful C6 to the 7 series, then the 730i would be the one to compare it to. And the one with the better performance AND the better mileage would not be the C6.
Yeah, I'm French, but I really have no respect at all for the French auto industry.
It's plain and simple: for the last 10 years, any car produced in France has been (s)crap. Nothing else. US don't laugh, you're even worse (apart from the Corvette C6).
The French auto industry can't make a decent engine, except when partnering with other manufacturers (Ford for Diesel engines, BMW for petrol engines, since we talk about PSA here - for Renault, see Nissan) and have managed to increase the average weight of their vehicles by 40% (a 207 CC weighs as much as a full blown BMW 330i, damnit!), all this while turning the driving experience from "fun" (Peugeot 106 Rallye; CitroÃn Saxo VTS; Renault Clio Williams) to "dull" (Peugeot 207 RC; CitroÃn? Hah! Renault is the exception here: Megane and Clio "RS Team").
The only thing the French industry can provide excitement about today is concept cars, and WRC victories (which they don't even take advantage of to make an appealing road legal derivative - unlike Subaru, Mitsubishi, and even Ford, damnit!). Don't expect a CitroÃn like that on the roads in the foreseeable future. If ever.
IE7 has behaved like this since the beginning, and it didn't make it to Slashdot...
Heh, I remember my first "encounter" with this problem, with a user telling me that "webex doesn't work". Well, it turned out that it used a self signed cert, and the user blindingly clicked on the "green button" link, which expressly says "don't go to this web site" (or something, I'm not a IE user anyway). He didn't even read the damn text next to the buttons.
I remeber this one particulary well because in our internal support ticket system, there's a PEBKAC close option. This was the very first ticket which made it to that qualification.
Even IE6 did/does the same, even FF2 did/does the same. Only now it's scarier since IE7, and FF3 seems to have followed this trend. Too bad. But then it's yet another scary warning that people will soon ignore, and then it will be same ole, same ole.
Well, as a very long time package maker, I'd say, unlike you, that they do have a point.
The base rpm command lacks automatic dependency tracking but guess what, lots of tools have been made since then which make this easy (urpmi being the pioneer - I know that since I've been working for what was Mandrakesoft at the time, 8 _years_ ago -, and then there is yum, apt-rpm and whatnot).
The base rpm command can tell you what package a file belongs to, what a package provides, what it requires, _even when it is not installed_. Not one Debian command can do that. Several, separately, but not one.
The base RPM packaging can skip provides/requires (Autoreqprov: no). Debs cannot do that.
The base RPM packaging can bundle source packages, complete. Debs cannot do that: you must download patches separately. They can even bundle source packages without the actual sources (Nosrc). Debs cannot do that.
>How did this development fly under the radar for over two months without anybody noticing?
1. People browsing BestBuy on their Ubuntu-"enhanced" Firefox already have it installed. 2. Previous (7.x) Ubuntu users have already been offered an upgrade to 8.x already, via the update manager. 3. Ubuntu users already seem content with what they have and don't see any interest of upgrading, if they haven't done so already, see point 2. 4. It's not like Ubuntu has launched a mass ad campaign about their product, and told everyone "hey, get it on BestBuy!". 5. [pure personal intuition] Nowadays, mouth-to-mouth is still the best way to spread Ubuntu, or any Linux distro, and hey, the initial mouths know where to get it, and that won't be Best Buy. And that relates to your comment.
Curiously, some French politicians are brilliant, but they're not part of the French government.
A French "European deputy" (for lack of a better name) has opposed this three-strike legislation, arguing (rightly so imho) that "an industry that is not able to make do with new consumer habits [the Internet]" shouldn't impose its rules to the government. The French government hasn't listened.
Michel Rocard is famous for opposing software patents. The French government hasn't listened.
I just hope that Blizzard will NOT go down the route they have chosen to go with the latest d2x updates. That is, keep the best stuff (items) for online gaming.
This, essentially, sucks. What I want to do is play d2x, or d3 when it comes out, on my machine at home, with my characters on my computer, and not have to go online to create a character just to get this and that item, that I cannot get back to my homebrewn character. That just SUCKS.
As a result, I found myself using cheat packs that made such objects accessible to non bnet users. How pitiful is that?
I just DO NOT want to play online. That's not too much asking, is it?
Slashdot Mirror
Talk about an oxymoron.
And what about the _total_ cost of ownership?
I'm all for open source software, don't get me wrong, but switching from a known solution that Works For You(tm) even though it's horribly expensive to a $0 one but with a steep learning curve can be disastrous.
Would you replace Oracle with PostgreSQL if "all" you had in house were Oracle gurus?
I know, this is one example, others may not be that extreme. But taking this kind of decision has to be done with some caution.
Just a question, has any of you ever downloaded any French music in your lifetime?
People can't be that stupid, can they?
By Jeffrey Friedl's "Mastering Regular Expressions", O'Reilly. Read it from page 1 to the end until you understand.
Enough said.
> Ah, I get it. It's because you're using an OR '\|'.
In fact, an alternative ;) And you do NOT have to use an alternative inside parentheses. You may use it standalone, eg, 'cat\|dog'
As to grouping operators, \( and \) in vim, nothing prevents you from using them without ever using the captured text. And AFAIK, grouping does not preserve contents across regexes either.
Maybe vim has some special syntax to capture groupings in, say, registers, but if so I don't know of it.
> Curious....why do you use \( and \) in that?
[and \|]
Because for some reason, vim sticks to the vi regex dialect in many ways, at a time where (, ), |, +, ?, { and } were literals (unlike in more modern regex dialects).
You MUST put a backslash in front of all of those in order to make them have their "regex" meaning.
u to undo, C-r to redo. :w your file, C-z to suspend, try, fg to re-edit, use undo: GREAT for testing configuration files/scripts. :w /other/file/name, of course.
Stripping out ALL comments and empty lines from files where comments begin with hashes: :g/^\s*\(#\|$\)/d
The /c modifier to :s.
The 26 registers, a to z. The 26 marks, a to z.
Mark a, mark b. Substitute only on lines between a and b: :'a,'bs/what/ever/
I love vim.
While I've never contested the fact that any *BSD can be a decent desktop OS given enough time to fiddle with it, I'm downloading it for yet another reason: I've never tried any *BSD OS.
I'm a man of old habits and have been using Linux for 12 years now. Time to discover what's "out there" ;)
In fact, I've been looking into OpenBSD at some time, but was rebuked by its user community, which I found quite unhelpul (an OpenBSD IRC channel which I went on to gather information about the OS likened me to a "Gentoo ricer", since yes, I use Gentoo).
Hey, somehow like... You know... When a Windows user goes and asks for help on quite a few Linux IRC channels around the world...
Anyway, that's good news, and will certainly help spread the word.
NAT breaks the internet and is essentially an ugly workaround that results in the need for lots of other workarounds. If you think this isn't so then you need to get your head out of the sand/your ass (your choice) and pay better attention.
Sorry but no.
For a machine that only needs to access other machines on the Net, but MUST NOT be reached at all (think: typical enterprise workstation, but that's just one scenario), NAT is THE solution. There is no better way for a machine not to be reachable than giving this machine a non routable address.
There is a small but growing number of folks who think IPv6 may be stillborn. The rationale goes something like this:
1. It's very expensive to upgrade an infrastructure of non-trivial size to IPv6 and that's only one of the several serious disincentives against deploying IPv6.
2. IPv6's rate of deployment to date can only be described as an abysmal commercial failure.
3. IPv6 fails to solve the Internet's core routing problem (reference the IRTF Routing Research Group). It's possible that a protocol which does solve that problem will leapfrog IPv6's deployment.
4. 2^32 addresses IS enough for everybody, IF most client computers are behind a NAT firewall. The count is too low only if most client computers need their own globally-routable address. That most client computers need their own globally-routable address is a dubious claim in light of today's wide deployment of NAT.
I fail to understand point 1: at the hardware level, I see no reason why any hardware equipment needs modification to support IPv6, unless you rely on "firmware-accelerated" hardware (TCP offloaders and whatnot). At the upper layers, all you need is software which handles both protocols. They're pretty much universal today.
I agree and disagree with point 2:
* imho, the main problem is the "misdistribution" of the IPv4 space to begin with. Do you think it's normal that Hewlett Packard owns two (yes, two) A-class IP networks, yet certainly does not have 2*(2^24-2) reachable hosts? Or that, for instance (real life example!), a VPN, P as in private, for one of our clients, uses a 126.192.0.0/14 network mask?
* this very same poor address space distribution, on the other hand, incites so-called "developing" countries to embrace IPv6, especially in Asia: they just don't have enough unique IPv4 addresses to fulfill the current customer demand for Internet connections, so IPv6 is a reality over there already.
The IPv6 rate of deployment is abysmal in Europe and the US, maybe, but not in several other parts of the world - which happen to weigh more and more on the global state of things as time passes by.
I don't know about 3, so I won't comment.
As to point 4, I wholly agree that NAT won't go away. I'm not sure that even then, the IPv4 address space will be enough eventually.
To Leonard Boyarsky, lead world designer on Diablo III.
I've been playing Diablo 2 (and d2x in particular) for a long time and have been very much enjoying that game. But I've seen a very disturbing trend with d2x:
* Hell difficulty in single player is close to impossible, except with a few characters and very, very high-end equipment;
* some very good items are realm-only;
* some drops are way too rare, and the only chance you get to complete a BotD for instance (Breath of the Dying, VexHelElEldZodEth) is either to accumulate a four-digit-hours play time, use "item libraries" and edit your character, OR trade online.
The problem is, I don't play online, I don't WANT to play online, I'm not interested AT ALL in playing online, and I don't have 1000+ hours to spare, even for d2x. So, guess which solution I chose.
So, I'd like to know whether this trend will continue with Diablo 3, or if, at the opposite, there will be close to no difference in playability and good drops should you choose to play single or not.
> They're good, but they're only much use for driving fast on very very smooth fairly straight roads.
You should come to France some day, and you'll see that "very very smooth fairly straight roads" don't exist, except highways. And I don't drive on highways.
And yes, I enjoyed driving the beemer on "B roads", and no, it wasn't driving like a plank (BTW, I didn't have the sports suspension). It was even very, very comfortable, and I was not afraid to drive a tank-worth (450 miles) without stopping. The C5 gives me a backache after not even 200 miles. I make a difference between "smooth suspension" and "sloppy suspension". The C5 suspension is sloppy.
>Diablo wasn't significantly different in multiplayer. D2 was even less different.
D2X in single player is close to impossible in Hell difficulty. Only a few characters, with very high end equipment, can hope and complete the game.
Also, a lot of items were available in multiplayer only, and that's a pity. Like Smartcowboy, I very much prefer single player.
> Power isn't everything. The BMW needs a lot of power because you're constantly slowing down for corners - its handling and ride quality are *abysmal*
Bwaahaha*hrm*.
Sorry, but having had an E46 330d at the time, I can only laugh at that statement. There was just no car to compare it to at the time, and certainly not from France. The C5 felt sloppy compared to it. And no, the 330d didn't ride as a plank.
I now own an Opel Speedster Turbo, but it's because I don't drive 40k miles a yeat anymore, only 4k, if not less.
I think r_jensen11 was talking about the CitroÃn C6, not the Corvette C6.
If you're talking about the BMW 750i vs any C6, just one thing: go to a showroom and just get into the car. Guess which one feels better just being at the wheel.
And don't get me started on the engines. If you were to compare the most powerful C6 to the 7 series, then the 730i would be the one to compare it to. And the one with the better performance AND the better mileage would not be the C6.
Pitiful, really.
Yeah, I'm French, but I really have no respect at all for the French auto industry.
It's plain and simple: for the last 10 years, any car produced in France has been (s)crap. Nothing else. US don't laugh, you're even worse (apart from the Corvette C6).
The French auto industry can't make a decent engine, except when partnering with other manufacturers (Ford for Diesel engines, BMW for petrol engines, since we talk about PSA here - for Renault, see Nissan) and have managed to increase the average weight of their vehicles by 40% (a 207 CC weighs as much as a full blown BMW 330i, damnit!), all this while turning the driving experience from "fun" (Peugeot 106 Rallye; CitroÃn Saxo VTS; Renault Clio Williams) to "dull" (Peugeot 207 RC; CitroÃn? Hah! Renault is the exception here: Megane and Clio "RS Team").
The only thing the French industry can provide excitement about today is concept cars, and WRC victories (which they don't even take advantage of to make an appealing road legal derivative - unlike Subaru, Mitsubishi, and even Ford, damnit!). Don't expect a CitroÃn like that on the roads in the foreseeable future. If ever.
IE7 has behaved like this since the beginning, and it didn't make it to Slashdot...
Heh, I remember my first "encounter" with this problem, with a user telling me that "webex doesn't work". Well, it turned out that it used a self signed cert, and the user blindingly clicked on the "green button" link, which expressly says "don't go to this web site" (or something, I'm not a IE user anyway). He didn't even read the damn text next to the buttons.
I remeber this one particulary well because in our internal support ticket system, there's a PEBKAC close option. This was the very first ticket which made it to that qualification.
Even IE6 did/does the same, even FF2 did/does the same. Only now it's scarier since IE7, and FF3 seems to have followed this trend. Too bad. But then it's yet another scary warning that people will soon ignore, and then it will be same ole, same ole.
However, it disallows powering on VMs and using VMotion (I guess HA fails too).
And note also that previous ESX versions are NOT affected. My cluster still runs 3.5u1 and doesn't have this problem.
Comcast had... You know... Some kind of decent customer service or something...
Well, as a very long time package maker, I'd say, unlike you, that they do have a point.
The base rpm command lacks automatic dependency tracking but guess what, lots of tools have been made since then which make this easy (urpmi being the pioneer - I know that since I've been working for what was Mandrakesoft at the time, 8 _years_ ago -, and then there is yum, apt-rpm and whatnot).
The base rpm command can tell you what package a file belongs to, what a package provides, what it requires, _even when it is not installed_. Not one Debian command can do that. Several, separately, but not one.
The base RPM packaging can skip provides/requires (Autoreqprov: no). Debs cannot do that.
The base RPM packaging can bundle source packages, complete. Debs cannot do that: you must download patches separately. They can even bundle source packages without the actual sources (Nosrc). Debs cannot do that.
I wouldn't interpret it that way:
>How did this development fly under the radar for over two months without anybody noticing?
1. People browsing BestBuy on their Ubuntu-"enhanced" Firefox already have it installed.
2. Previous (7.x) Ubuntu users have already been offered an upgrade to 8.x already, via the update manager.
3. Ubuntu users already seem content with what they have and don't see any interest of upgrading, if they haven't done so already, see point 2.
4. It's not like Ubuntu has launched a mass ad campaign about their product, and told everyone "hey, get it on BestBuy!".
5. [pure personal intuition] Nowadays, mouth-to-mouth is still the best way to spread Ubuntu, or any Linux distro, and hey, the initial mouths know where to get it, and that won't be Best Buy. And that relates to your comment.
From the summary:
Fortunately, Dr. Li's proof fails alongside a respectable graveyard of previous attempts
Why? I'm probably missing something obvious, I'm not even a mathematician to start with, but...
I mean, we (the world) do want to prove it right (or wrong) one day or another, don't we?
Because I am.
Curiously, some French politicians are brilliant, but they're not part of the French government.
A French "European deputy" (for lack of a better name) has opposed this three-strike legislation, arguing (rightly so imho) that "an industry that is not able to make do with new consumer habits [the Internet]" shouldn't impose its rules to the government. The French government hasn't listened.
Michel Rocard is famous for opposing software patents. The French government hasn't listened.
French automobile club leaders, the least of which is not the president of the ACO (Automobile Club de l'Ouest, supervising the 24 hours of Le Mans) said that the pollution tax is a mistake, because one already exists and that's the TIPP (Taxe Intérieure sur les Produits Pétroliers, Internal Tax on Petrol-derived Goods, for lack of a batter name) that one pays for each centilitre of gasoline/Diesel in the tank, and that there's no reason than a guy driving only 3000 miles a year in his Ferrari should pay more than one driving ten times that in his Diesel Renault Logan. The French government doesn't listen.
Just, where has common sense gone?
I just hope that Blizzard will NOT go down the route they have chosen to go with the latest d2x updates. That is, keep the best stuff (items) for online gaming.
This, essentially, sucks. What I want to do is play d2x, or d3 when it comes out, on my machine at home, with my characters on my computer, and not have to go online to create a character just to get this and that item, that I cannot get back to my homebrewn character. That just SUCKS.
As a result, I found myself using cheat packs that made such objects accessible to non bnet users. How pitiful is that?
I just DO NOT want to play online. That's not too much asking, is it?