I hate to flame, but what exactly does this have to do with system administration? This is more like 'a teenage (nothing wrong with that) linux user's desktop eye candy and mp3 playing tools'. Why exactly, is this a story?
In any case, here is my sysadmin tools (and this is somebody with four years system administration experience, but no means an "aged expert" but no neophyte): 1. Perl. The Swiss army knife of most *any* UNIX task. Self explanatory. (Most useful Perl modules for a sysadmin would be Net:: anything and a rather nifty one is Text::Tmpl, which is a very powerful text [not html specific] templating system. I've used to generate everything: from httpd configs to DNS zones to HTML). 2. rsync - no other file transfer tool ever comes close. 3. rrdtool - will graph anything you give it, which makes diagnosing bottle necks a lot simpler (once there's visual data to go use). 4. netcat (nc) - makes it extremely simple and fast to test network service, setup ad-hoc proxies. 5. tcpdump/ethereal - packet sniffers: self explanatory. Makes it easy to diagnose rather complicated issues. 6. lsof - "list open files". Great for figuring out what is using which files (excellent way to resolve deadlocks). 7. strace - diagnoses system calls. Helps to see why something isn't working the way it should be. 8. gdb - self explanatory, but there's tons of peoples who wouldn't know what to do with a coredump 9. netsaint (now nagios) - easy to setup, easy to deploy on a large network. 10. cvs/svn - useful even for a sys admin, since it allows you to keep track of any scripts/config files in a centralized repository. 11. (not needed for all sys admins, yet still extremely useful): minicom or kermit. For serial console.
Some of these are rather obvious, but this is more what I expected when I hear 'sys admin toolbox', instead of 'list of X11 applications which look cute'.
There's also problems with Ajax, that I myself have found that the article fails to mention explicitly -- although definitely hints at them. First is that Ajax violates the principle of separating design (e.g. the presentation layer -- that is the webpage that you see) from business logic(e.g. the domain layer). Some of the MVCs with Ajax support attempt to remedy it (e.g. Ruby on Rails), but overall Ajax does fly against the very idea the MVCs try to implement (that is, they allow for strict separation of the three layers of architecture). Finally, the use of XML by Ajax (the X in Ajax) also brings in the storage aspect (e.g. the persistence layer). Thus you end up with code that is *hard* to maintain: if you, for instance, need to have a mobile version of an Ajax site (or a GUI app, etc..), you will need to re-implement the logic (and possibly the storage) aspects as they're far too mixed up with the design.
Second idea is somewhat hinted of by their discussion of the back button: that is that Ajax violated the atomic ``transaction'' based character of the web. The web functions best when I make a *single* query and receive a *single* response. This is very much a batch system: we can compare CGI get/post requests (sent from specific forms on the site as a *whole*) with punch cards being fed into a card reader and the resulting page as either a new card or a print out on a line printer. Or alternatively, you can compare it with an SQL query (or a transaction with an rDBMS) -- or with a *fixed* amount of queries (and not dynamic queries). In other words, the web isn't meant for real-time interaction.
There are of course good applications for Ajax: anything geographical or spatial is a good application (e.g.: maps) as are tools such as spell-checking for web-forms in real time (ala gmail); but there are places where I wouldn't like to see Ajax (e.g.: on a purchase form of an e-commerce site, on a class registration page for a university) -- namely because I want those sites to have a *clear* and simple architecture and design (and work as intended), be accessible from everywhere and give me a clear result (either I registered for CS 345 or I didn't; either I purchased a book, or I didn't).
You can use MOP (the vax network boot) to install NetBSD onto it -- I've done that before and it worked very well (install from the network and onto the HD). NetBSD ran okay, though of course it was far slower than OpenVMS.
It *requires the ISP*. It is the parents' responsibility, however, to either choose an ISP which gives them this option (they are not entitled to it, and shouldn't be) or install these filters themselves.
This is the responsibility of the parent, not the state. There's miriads of [even free] software you could set up to block access to sites you deem pornographic -- and the best solution is to simply have the computer in the living room where *you* can see and make decisions about what sites your children visit.
The state can't make those decisions for you. You can more than bet that they will deem accessing art that includes nudes (photographic or not) to be pornography, but not accessing quasi-pornographic sexual innuendo laced garbage from the MTV web site as such.
I guess its because of all the distributions/linux fanboys claiming Linux is ready for the desktop, when it clearly *isn't* quite there yet for most people who just want to use the OS as a *desktop* tool, rather than something to play system admin with.
There you go. Personally I am ok using Linux for a desktop, but that is because I am a system administrator and am willing to go through the tasks of that. I use Linux on the desktop, FreeBSD on the laptop and am quite as happy.
I am very happy that OS X exists and is a viable alternative for people to use who don't wish to be system administrators. I think the problem is indeed is that Linux evangelists have over-evangelized Linux to users who simply aren't willing to do what is needed to maintain a Linux machine. Luckily that doesn't happen with FreeBSD -- since it is over hyped. As a result, community spends a dispropritionate amount of time categoring to the new influx of (likely temprorary) desktop user, rather than fixing bugs and improving features which far more relevant to the fields where Linux/BSD are far more likely to suceed -- in the server field, as well as in computer science education (or any other place where a set of workstations that are *centrally administered* are use).
Seems to be that JWZ's gripe is that Linux requires an one to have at least some skill as a *System Administrator* to well, *administer* a machine. Mice features aren't plug and play (I am assuming he refers to the fact that a scroll mouse still needs to be configured before the scroll wheel must be used -- USB mice *are* essentially plug and play with most all recent versions of Xorg), is that really a bad thing on a *UNIX* machine? Of course you are supposed to configure your system software (and X11 certain counts as such), not the system for you -- on a professionally oriented OS like Linux or BSD?
It is precisely this desire to accomodate a user who is wants to a) admin a full featured UNIX machine b) not have any system administration skill that is has ruined most *all* Linux distributions (note: all Gentoo fanboys replying to this will be deported to Siberia) -- and which is why I use FreeBSD wherever I can (the only reason I wouldn't use FreeBSD is a specific application or hardware support -- such as on amd64 machines, at least for now).
There's also nothing wrong with OS X and before that Irix -- which JWZ *does* seem to be fond off -- for gearing themselves to developers/designers rather than system administrators, that should be encourage -- and users who wish to use a Linux machine *without* being willing to read documentation should be more than encouraged to switch. OS X is an excellent system for that user -- they still have the power of a UNIX shell, etc...
Yet, people will remember how insecure IRIX is out of the box (and to all the IRIX bashers -- it *can* be made secure) -- and especially how expensive and hard to obtain the OS is! -- those are all prices you pay for being able to plug and play *AND* have a "cool" UNIX shell.
So essentially, to JWZ and the rest of the crowd -- the same people for whom garbage like GNOME/KDE/linuxconf was created -- don't let the door kick you on the way out.
[On a side note, what esd (enlightenment sound daemon -- which is still used by GNOME junk afaik) has been doing what jwz was trying to do since *at least* 1999; It amazes me how such talented developers can't do even the simplest administration tasks, I've worked with people holding M.S. and Ph.D degrees in computer science (or math or EE, but you get the idea), who couldn't use vi and used *TELNET OVER WIFI*; I also know *many* graduates of the famed Berkeley EECS program, some of them now in graduate schools, who can't manage to write a makefile or extract a tar file]
This is only a semi-"arrogant UNIXoid rant" -- I don't see anything wrong with OS X (or IRIX), it's just that users *shouldn't* demand mainstream Linux distributions (and BSD flavors) act like it.I also find it entirely acceptable for people to be developers and *not* be system administrators -- indeed, this is how I get jobs:-)
I think the author meant something else...
on
Tokyo's Geek Ghetto
·
· Score: 1
Not in that geeks aren't black, but in that I can't recall geeks being lynched, enslaved, denied entrance into universities and good high schools, segregated against by law or even simply being worse off economically.
That's also where the comparison to homosexuals fails: as shocking and unnerving as some of the ``hellmouth'' stories of geeks are (and I by the way, had experienced *much* of that -- in terms of being daly denigrated by peers *and* educators in high school and junior high), none of them come close to the Alan Turing's story (a war hero and the one of the century's most brilliant mathematicians as well and a founding father of computer science being driven to suicide by forced hormone injections due to his homosexuality).
I am not a PC victimhood fetishist by any means (to the contrary, I tend to learn to the conservative or libertarian spectrum) and I definately concurr that geeks are treated unfairly, especially in high school -- yet we tend to also be the ones who excel in college and in the job market.
I will also be the first to admit that I am ``anti-social'' (which of course is completely the wrong meaning of that word, but I'll use it in the accepted terminology), but so what? The salary I enjoyed as a junior *in high school* more than compensated for my lack of a prom date.
(Some will accuse me of equating financial or academic success with happyness -- which is a fair comment -- but from the point of *tangible* measures of degradation, it simply isn't fair to call whatever geeks (myself included) endure[d] persecution).
As for my last comment, the whole persecution complex is also somewhat reminiscent of both Jesse Jackson's ilk (who argue that his chronies not getting a contract is persecution) and fundamentalist Christians who argue that removing the Ten Commandments from courthouses is persecution (and even have the gall to compare it to the Roman persecution of Christians in 100-300AD).
Somewhat of off-topic, but did anyone else catch a mention of OpenBSD in a late issue of Forbes magazine? (Url is hnya)., in the context of a young enterpreuner selling wifi access point / firewall combos, hoping to compete with Cisco? Granted OpenBSD was mentioned once [as opposed to a whole centerfold and a cover story they had on Linux several years ago], but it's still not bad for a mainstream publication.
Not to defend this idiot, but the name Iran is derived from the word "arian" and Iranians are far closer related to the original arians than Germans (and North Europeans) could ever be. The persian language Farsi(as well as several Indian languages) are also Indo-European. So in short, he probably has more of a right to call himself an Arian than Hitler ever had.
I remember reading a story about Jew growing up in Shah era Iran (for all its flaws, Iran had actual religious and ethnic tolerance under the Shah) and reciting, each day in class, some sort of a national pride song which went something along the lines "we are the proud arians".
I wasn't aware that the z-series (the S/390 ancestor?) was using a PPC. I knew that the iSERIES were using some sort of a RISC chip now, but wasn't sure whether this was a PPC or something more proprietary, now that I see this it does make a great deal of sense.
Given how this is the setup being used on the S/390 (with Linux and Z/OS being able to run concurrently, including multiple Linux partions), and possibly (though I'm not certain about this one) the AS400.
A multi-cored CPU, or a CPU which has a technology similar to Intel's Hyper Threading would be very well suited to this task.
Of course if tools such as VMWARE and Xen virtualization already offer such capabilities in software, I wonder if it's even needed or desireable to use CPU-specific features for this, couldn't this be simply done at the BIOS level (or by simply porting IBM's VM from the S/390 to the PPC?).
Monta Vista HS, in Cupertino (read: the bad driver capitol of bay area, by all means) taught driver end while I attended (class of 2002).
I do agree with you, that getting a license is *far* too easy. I could have easily passed the driving test, and gotten the needed amount of hours (with an in instructor - some amount *is* required for you to able to get a license, but its tiny) without learning how to drive. Luckily, I got tons of practice with my dad, but I've known far too many other people my age (back then) who were totally unprepared for the road and got into horrible accidents.
In the end, the GPS idea is to put it mildly, retarded. All it does is make the teen angry (just what we need, more teen angst on the roads) and scam parents out of more money.
First, on the topic of Christian Science Monitor, being the source: if you read the ``about'' section on their site, you will see that the newspaper is secular (except for a single religion column, written daily) but is merely published by the CS church -- this isn't a religious right rag, by any means. Not to mention, the study is merely published by them, not conducted. Now Christian Science itself, is a rather spooky cult (they believe that reality is merely a figment of imagination, hate to insult anyone's religious views, but have they heard of Monsieur Descartes?), but is quite different from evangelical Christianity(what is normally termed as fundies).
Secondly, my own responses. The ways in use of a computer can hurt learning is two fold: - The first is the television symptome. Much like television, the computer if used inapproriately *will* turn a child into someone who is bored, unless a tape of images scrolls in front of their eyes. - It can, however, also expose the child to far more advanced topics and thus make what he learns in school boring -- this is likely to happen in HS or Junior high.
My own story, is basically this. I've come to the United States first at the age 11, and then at the age 13. At the age 11, I wasn't spending much time behind a computer - in fact, I barely had a functioning computer that I could use. I learned English very quickly, so that wasn't an issue when I later came at 13. At that point, I can only remember myself spending mos tof my day in front of a computer. I was seldom into games, but I quickly found my two main addictions: UNIX and IRC. I've had a functional Linux install at barely 14 years of age.
I managed to pass classes in Junior High and High school. I attended what has been termed the #1 non-magnet public school (may be not so, now) in California. At this point I was spending the entire day, when not in school, in front of a computer. I've been running my own mail, DNS, www etc.. all from my parents living room at that point. School was pure boredom for me, I barely had the ability to keep my attention span. My social life was virtually nil. I only got two A's throughout my high school -- and this is where the point comes in -- those were in AP US History and AP Computer Science, by *no means* hard easy classes. In addition, while I didn't do spectalarly in actually classes, I passed the AP Calculus and AP Biology tests. (The reasons, by the way, why I got into AP classes, is because the school waved any pre-requites.. you could sign up for any class you wished). I scored 1320 on the SAT, nothing too spectacular but decent, given the very little prepartion I put in (first and only try). Given the high academic standing of the school and the competition I faced, I had no chance of being nowhere near top of my class, nor did I even fill all the pre-reqs for most univerisities, having otten too many D's in classes I found boring. So I went to a community college after HS, where given my AP credits I quickly transfered to a reputable 4-year university as a Computer Science major and am steadily on the way to graduation with a FAR higher GPA than anything I've had in high school.
And all, while still spending considerable time in front of a computer. The moral of the story: yeah, I did horribly in high school, and laregly because of my excessive computer useage. So yes, it intervened with my schooling, but it didn't intervene -- in fact, far from it -- it greatly helped my education. At the same time, I'd also like to mention that I've held two systems administrator job (and am still holding the latest one), since Junior year of high school.
Of course my parents (both of whom are Math. Ph.Ds) were also instrumental that I use the computer as a means of learning: they've introduced me to programming, to UNIX, to the Internet, etc...
My advice for parents? If the computer merely serves as an interactive television set (I by the way, grew up entirely without television), then yes limit it by all means if it hurts the child's education. But be sure to be able to identify the kind of relationship the child has with the computer and understand the dichotomy between schooling an education.
Somewhat reminds me of a local tech paper's editor. Back in 1997/1998 he wrote a rather angry, extremely ignorant and mocking reply to a letter to an editor which spoke about Linux, mocking Linux as being old technology and of no use (and for the letter writer's gall to criticize AOL!).
Then, I remember in about 2001/2002 he was waxing poetic about Linux and answerting Linux questions right and left.
That's of course about the time I went to BSD (in situations where it isn't masochistic), hype serves no purpose.
While I predict the same general trend is going to hold for SATs as well, why did you choose to use ACT instead, given how SATs are more widely taken? Was similar data simply not available for SAT scores?
Newer generation (Above 9200) Radeon cards aren't supported by XFree 4.3.0, which is what came with Fedora Core 1. You need to either use proprietary ATI drivers (haven't used them, they don't have native drivers for AMD64, which is what I use), or use XFree 4.4 (which doesn't support 3d acceleration with those cards, but will work). I'm currently using XFree 4.4, with an ATI Radeon 9600SE and it's very stable.
I haven't tried Core 2 Test 3 yet, but since they're using XOrg, the newer-Radeon problems may be rectified since I do believe XOrg is based on XF 4.4 -- but again, no acceleration unless you use ATI's proprietary drivers.
Another option you may want to try, if you can't use the proprietary drivers for some reason, is just to play use VesaFB.
VMS is actually younger than UNIX (1978 vs. 1970). And what's most importantly, most of the technologies that were added on to UNIX and other OS's were there from the start in VMS.
Access Control Lists (only became a standart part of FreeBSD in 5.x.. correct me if I'm wrong) were long a part of VMS, while clustering has existed far before Slashdot fanboys were posting about Beowulf clusters.
POSIX compatibility? Yep, exists in OpenVMS (hence the prefix Open) -- many major UNIX apps were ported to OpenVMS. X11, yep -- complete with Motif. Hell, there's a Mozilla port these days too.
As for a cluster of peecee's.. they're great when you're say rendering a part of Titanic (bad example actually, as that was done on Alpha.. but you get the idea), but a beowulf cluster is pretty useless when say you're managing a large bank, or a university's registration database: when speed isn't an issue, but fault tolerance and stability is.
The lifetime of an average PeeCee is about 3 years.. yet as I'm typing there's 20 year old VAXen still handling crucial tasks. So while it may be cheaper to do the initial purchase, there's no need to repeat the purchase cycle.
Overhyped? I see no one hyping OpenVMS, but I do see a lot of people hyping clusters of PeeCee's running Linux. Incompatible: see the first few paragraphs of my post. Expensive? Ok, you may have a point there.. but so are its competitors. You can, however, get a hobbyist license of VMS for free, if you're interested.
Artifact junk? Again, see the part of my post about clustering and ACL's.
It's fine for you to dislike VMS or criticize it, or not use it, but don't call it obsolete or incompatible, or claim that stability isn't required.
Re:Did anyone notice...
on
239 MPG Car
·
· Score: 1
No. L1 is the name of the car (named for 1L/100 km, or something along those lines), WOB is the German licenseplate code for Wolfsburg (where VW head quarters are). Though I realize you're joking:-) As for stability, VW CEO, himself, drove that car to a corporate meeting, to demonstrate it's realism and feasibility.
There's replacement EEPROMS for various cars with digital ignition (as opposed to a distributor) available on the market, some of them may even be installed by your dealership (depends on the dealership of course). They've also been on the market for quite a while and aren't a novelty. If I'm correct, on non-digital-ignition automobiles, you can use MSD's system to retard or advance your ignition timing. Also, this is not a very safe way to increase your engine's power, as advancing ignition, raises the cylinder pressure far more than any other modification, in propotion to the gain (usually no more than 15 hp).
Actually the Audi TT 225 engine uses larger turbo chargers to achieve the 225 hp, not just more psi from the stock K03 turbo. Also the Mk.4 platform cars (Golf, Jetta, Seat Leon, Skoda Fabia, TT, Audi A3/S3) use a transverse mount 1.8T, whearse B5/B5.5/B6 platforms (majority of Audi's, passats) use a longtitudal mount 1.8T. Also, when you increase the boost up to 1.1 or 1.0 bar using a chip, on the Passat,you'll also blow your diverter valve, and you need to replace that as well by a stronger after market one. You also void your waranty, but that's a trade off. VW's and Audi's in general, are very tuneable, cars, and are a great advice for someone who wants a Budget BMW. The only thing the $10,000 more expensive BMW 3-series has, that I wish I had on my Jetta is rear wheel drive. Everything else, including the choice of two beefy engines (VR6 or 1.8T), leather interior, multi-function trip computer, power heated seats can be ordered as an option on almost any VW.
1998+ VW Passat (4-cylinder model), and 1998+ Audi A4 1.8T, as well was 2000+ VW Jetta, Golf,GTI and Beetle 1.8T can gain at least 40 (!) horsepowers, by installing after market software, which controls the turbo charger/intercooler induction system. There's a large market for such "chip tuning", and several brands are available. One such brand is APR, which even offers a switch that let's you set different turbo charger operation mode (stock, higher performance, and 100 Octane gas modes), check their website here.
Most other recent cars (except a few highly tuned cars like the Toyota Celica GT-S), can also benefit from a chip which bumps up the redline and changes fuel management setup. Almost any major tuner that's affiliated with a certain brand of vehicles, will offer such a chip. Yes, they're detectable (in most cases) and will void your waranty. But it's still possible to hack your ECU, and there's people making money from it. Also OBD-2 scan tools are available on the market, for use by individuals. One such tool is VAG-Com, which can be used for all Audi, Volkswagen, Seat and Skoda cars.
well, no. a turbo does not exactly work of the exhaust, it uses exhaust to rotate a turbo which in turn forces air into the engine, increasing the pressure all the PV=nRT things you learned about in chemistry happen. while it does give car more of a run for its engine without using any fuel (audi for instance uses a turbo-charged 1.8l engine to achieve up to 225 horses), it doesn't "reuse" the exhaust, power is not available immediately (turbo takes a while to "spool up", build exhaust pressure), and the power curve of a turbo engine is not as smooth as that of a super charged or naturally aspirated engine. also most diesels these days are already turbo-charged.
Not really. ESR is a libertarian. He doesn't believe in tax breaks, he believes taxes are wrong, period, goverment shouldn't coerce people into "being compasionate". Although, I fundamentaly disagree, I'd like to point this out. And libertarians are pretty much the way republicans were in the days of Hoover, not what they have turned into these days. I however, do not think taxes are fundamentaly wrong, and do not find property rights to be natural and on the same level or above Human Rights. Yet, I am pointing out that current 2-party system no longer stands for its original values, and is merely rule by moneyed interest groups.
BSD is not a desktop system, it's not a server system, it's not a work station system. It's an operating system. It's flexible, and powerfull and can be configured for any task possible. Linux borrows a great deal of code from BSD's, while MacoSX has a solid BSD base under it -- both of these are arguably ready for mainstream desktop consumption.
The more classic BSD's: BSDi, FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD all have their own miniroles. BSDi is a rock solid commercial system, ready for embeded systems market and commercial UNIX systems. FreeBSD is a full-featured work station-type UNIX, complete with easy installation and quick access to a desktop environment; OpenBSD is rock solid stable, and security-audited. Both OpenBSD (at least partially) and NetBSD feature extremely elegant code base, and even if at the current moment they lack features, any type of feature addition is possible, and when those features are implement they will neither increase the size, nor the speed, nor the elegancy of those operating systems. NetBSD is also highly portable, and due to its extremely organized code-base, rock-solid stability etc.. had been put to use by NASA.
My personal favorite is OpenBSD. I can choose what I want with it. And from my UNIX machines, I want a small, minimalisitic installation, each and every component of it I can monitor, control and see the source to. And, security should not pre-empt usability, which is why I use OpenBSD. Yet if I wanted anything else, I'd be confident that either one of the mainstream BSD's or one of their derivates like Linux and MacOSX will do it.
BSD is a what-ever-you-want type operating systems. Oh yeah, and we also believe in features without the hype.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate to flame, but what exactly does this have to do with system administration? This is more like 'a teenage (nothing wrong with that) linux user's desktop eye candy and mp3 playing tools'. Why exactly, is this a story?
In any case, here is my sysadmin tools (and this is somebody with four years system administration experience, but no means an "aged expert" but no neophyte):
1. Perl. The Swiss army knife of most *any* UNIX task. Self explanatory. (Most useful Perl modules for a sysadmin would be Net:: anything and a rather nifty one is Text::Tmpl, which is a very powerful text [not html specific] templating system. I've used to generate everything: from httpd configs to DNS zones to HTML).
2. rsync - no other file transfer tool ever comes close.
3. rrdtool - will graph anything you give it, which makes diagnosing bottle necks a lot simpler (once there's visual data to go use).
4. netcat (nc) - makes it extremely simple and fast to test network service, setup ad-hoc proxies.
5. tcpdump/ethereal - packet sniffers: self explanatory. Makes it easy to diagnose rather complicated issues.
6. lsof - "list open files". Great for figuring out what is using which files (excellent way to resolve deadlocks).
7. strace - diagnoses system calls. Helps to see why something isn't working the way it should be.
8. gdb - self explanatory, but there's tons of peoples who wouldn't know what to do with a coredump
9. netsaint (now nagios) - easy to setup, easy to deploy on a large network.
10. cvs/svn - useful even for a sys admin, since it allows you to keep track of any scripts/config files in a centralized repository.
11. (not needed for all sys admins, yet still extremely useful): minicom or kermit. For serial console.
Some of these are rather obvious, but this is more what I expected when I hear 'sys admin toolbox', instead of 'list of X11 applications which look cute'.
There's also problems with Ajax, that I myself have found that the article fails to mention explicitly -- although definitely hints at them. First is that Ajax violates the principle of separating design (e.g. the presentation layer -- that is the webpage that you see) from business logic(e.g. the domain layer). Some of the MVCs with Ajax support attempt to remedy it (e.g. Ruby on Rails), but overall Ajax does fly against the very idea the MVCs try to implement (that is, they allow for strict separation of the three layers of architecture). Finally, the use of XML by Ajax (the X in Ajax) also brings in the storage aspect (e.g. the persistence layer). Thus you end up with code that is *hard* to maintain: if you, for instance, need to have a mobile version of an Ajax site (or a GUI app, etc..), you will need to re-implement the logic (and possibly the storage) aspects as they're far too mixed up with the design.
Second idea is somewhat hinted of by their discussion of the back button: that is that Ajax violated the atomic ``transaction'' based character of the web. The web functions best when I make a *single* query and receive a *single* response. This is very much a batch system: we can compare CGI get/post requests (sent from specific forms on the site as a *whole*) with punch cards being fed into a card reader and the resulting page as either a new card or a print out on a line printer. Or alternatively, you can compare it with an SQL query (or a transaction with an rDBMS) -- or with a *fixed* amount of queries (and not dynamic queries). In other words, the web isn't meant for real-time interaction.
There are of course good applications for Ajax: anything geographical or spatial is a good application (e.g.: maps) as are tools such as spell-checking for web-forms in real time (ala gmail); but there are places where I wouldn't like to see Ajax (e.g.: on a purchase form of an e-commerce site, on a class registration page for a university) -- namely because I want those sites to have a *clear* and simple architecture and design (and work as intended), be accessible from everywhere and give me a clear result (either I registered for CS 345 or I didn't; either I purchased a book, or I didn't).
You can use MOP (the vax network boot) to install NetBSD onto it -- I've done that before and it worked very well (install from the network and onto the HD). NetBSD ran okay, though of course it was far slower than OpenVMS.
It *requires the ISP*. It is the parents' responsibility, however, to either choose an ISP which gives them this option (they are not entitled to it, and shouldn't be) or install these filters themselves.
This is the responsibility of the parent, not the state. There's miriads of [even free] software you could set up to block access to sites you deem pornographic -- and the best solution is to simply have the computer in the living room where *you* can see and make decisions about what sites your children visit.
The state can't make those decisions for you. You can more than bet that they will deem accessing art that includes nudes (photographic or not) to be pornography, but not accessing quasi-pornographic sexual innuendo laced garbage from the MTV web site as such.
There you go. Personally I am ok using Linux for a desktop, but that is because I am a system administrator and am willing to go through the tasks of that. I use Linux on the desktop, FreeBSD on the laptop and am quite as happy.
I am very happy that OS X exists and is a viable alternative for people to use who don't wish to be system administrators. I think the problem is indeed is that Linux evangelists have over-evangelized Linux to users who simply aren't willing to do what is needed to maintain a Linux machine. Luckily that doesn't happen with FreeBSD -- since it is over hyped. As a result, community spends a dispropritionate amount of time categoring to the new influx of (likely temprorary) desktop user, rather than fixing bugs and improving features which far more relevant to the fields where Linux/BSD are far more likely to suceed -- in the server field, as well as in computer science education (or any other place where a set of workstations that are *centrally administered* are use).
Seems to be that JWZ's gripe is that Linux requires an one to have at least some skill as a *System Administrator* to well, *administer* a machine. Mice features aren't plug and play (I am assuming he refers to the fact that a scroll mouse still needs to be configured before the scroll wheel must be used -- USB mice *are* essentially plug and play with most all recent versions of Xorg), is that really a bad thing on a *UNIX* machine? Of course you are supposed to configure your system software (and X11 certain counts as such), not the system for you -- on a professionally oriented OS like Linux or BSD?
:-)
It is precisely this desire to accomodate a user who is wants to a) admin a full featured UNIX machine b) not have any system administration skill that is has ruined most *all* Linux distributions (note: all Gentoo fanboys replying to this will be deported to Siberia) -- and which is why I use FreeBSD wherever I can (the only reason I wouldn't use FreeBSD is a specific application or hardware support -- such as on amd64 machines, at least for now).
There's also nothing wrong with OS X and before that Irix -- which JWZ *does* seem to be fond off -- for gearing themselves to developers/designers rather than system administrators, that should be encourage -- and users who wish to use a Linux machine *without* being willing to read documentation should be more than encouraged to switch. OS X is an excellent system for that user -- they still have the power of a UNIX shell, etc...
Yet, people will remember how insecure IRIX is out of the box (and to all the IRIX bashers -- it *can* be made secure) -- and especially how expensive and hard to obtain the OS is! -- those are all prices you pay for being able to plug and play *AND* have a "cool" UNIX shell.
So essentially, to JWZ and the rest of the crowd -- the same people for whom garbage like GNOME/KDE/linuxconf was created -- don't let the door kick you on the way out.
[On a side note, what esd (enlightenment sound daemon -- which is still used by GNOME junk afaik) has been doing what jwz was trying to do since *at least* 1999; It amazes me how such talented developers can't do even the simplest administration tasks, I've worked with people holding M.S. and Ph.D degrees in computer science (or math or EE, but you get the idea), who couldn't use vi and used *TELNET OVER WIFI*; I also know *many* graduates of the famed Berkeley EECS program, some of them now in graduate schools, who can't manage to write a makefile or extract a tar file]
This is only a semi-"arrogant UNIXoid rant" -- I don't see anything wrong with OS X (or IRIX), it's just that users *shouldn't* demand mainstream Linux distributions (and BSD flavors) act like it.I also find it entirely acceptable for people to be developers and *not* be system administrators -- indeed, this is how I get jobs
Not in that geeks aren't black, but in that I can't recall geeks being lynched, enslaved, denied entrance into universities and good high schools, segregated against by law or even simply being worse off economically.
That's also where the comparison to homosexuals fails: as shocking and unnerving as some of the ``hellmouth'' stories of geeks are (and I by the way, had experienced *much* of that -- in terms of being daly denigrated by peers *and* educators in high school and junior high), none of them come close to the Alan Turing's story (a war hero and the one of the century's most brilliant mathematicians as well and a founding father of computer science being driven to suicide by forced hormone injections due to his homosexuality).
I am not a PC victimhood fetishist by any means (to the contrary, I tend to learn to the conservative or libertarian spectrum) and I definately concurr that geeks are treated unfairly, especially in high school -- yet we tend to also be the ones who excel in college and in the job market.
I will also be the first to admit that I am ``anti-social'' (which of course is completely the wrong meaning of that word, but I'll use it in the accepted terminology), but so what? The salary I enjoyed as a junior *in high school* more than compensated for my lack of a prom date.
(Some will accuse me of equating financial or academic success with happyness -- which is a fair comment -- but from the point of *tangible* measures of degradation, it simply isn't fair to call whatever geeks (myself included) endure[d] persecution).
As for my last comment, the whole persecution complex is also somewhat reminiscent of both Jesse Jackson's ilk (who argue that his chronies not getting a contract is persecution) and fundamentalist Christians who argue that removing the Ten Commandments from courthouses is persecution (and even have the gall to compare it to the Roman persecution of Christians in 100-300AD).
Somewhat of off-topic, but did anyone else catch a mention of OpenBSD in a late issue of Forbes magazine? (Url is hnya).,
in the context of a young enterpreuner selling wifi access point / firewall combos, hoping to compete with Cisco? Granted OpenBSD was mentioned once [as opposed to a whole centerfold and a cover story they had on Linux several years ago], but it's still not bad for a mainstream publication.
Not to defend this idiot, but the name Iran is derived from the word "arian" and Iranians are far closer related to the original arians than Germans (and North Europeans) could ever be. The persian language Farsi(as well as several Indian languages) are also Indo-European. So in short, he probably has more of a right to call himself an Arian than Hitler ever had.
I remember reading a story about Jew growing up in Shah era Iran (for all its flaws, Iran had actual religious and ethnic tolerance under the Shah) and reciting, each day in class, some sort of a national pride song which went something along the lines "we are the proud arians".
I wasn't aware that the z-series (the S/390 ancestor?) was using a PPC. I knew that the iSERIES were using some sort of a RISC chip now, but wasn't sure whether this was a PPC or something more proprietary, now that I see this it does make a great deal of sense.
Given how this is the setup being used on the S/390 (with Linux and Z/OS being able to run concurrently, including multiple Linux partions), and possibly (though I'm not certain about this one) the AS400.
A multi-cored CPU, or a CPU which has a technology similar to Intel's Hyper Threading would be very well suited to this task.
Of course if tools such as VMWARE and Xen virtualization already offer such capabilities in software, I wonder if it's even needed or desireable to use CPU-specific features for this, couldn't this be simply done at the BIOS level (or by simply porting IBM's VM from the S/390 to the PPC?).
Monta Vista HS, in Cupertino (read: the bad driver capitol of bay area, by all means) taught driver end while I attended (class of 2002).
I do agree with you, that getting a license is *far* too easy. I could have easily passed the driving test, and gotten the needed amount of hours (with an in instructor - some amount *is* required for you to able to get a license, but its tiny) without learning how to drive. Luckily, I got tons of practice with my dad, but I've known far too many other people my age (back then) who were totally unprepared for the road and got into horrible accidents.
In the end, the GPS idea is to put it mildly, retarded. All it does is make the teen angry (just what we need, more teen angst on the roads) and scam parents out of more money.
First, on the topic of Christian Science Monitor, being the source: if you read the ``about'' section on their site, you will see that the newspaper is secular (except for a single religion column, written daily) but is merely published by the CS church -- this isn't a religious right rag, by any means. Not to mention, the study is merely published by them, not conducted. Now Christian Science itself, is a rather spooky cult (they believe that reality is merely a figment of imagination, hate to insult anyone's religious views, but have they heard of Monsieur Descartes?), but is quite different from evangelical Christianity(what is normally termed as fundies).
Secondly, my own responses. The ways in use of a computer can hurt learning is two fold:
- The first is the television symptome. Much like television, the computer if used inapproriately *will* turn a child into someone who is bored, unless a tape of images scrolls in front of their eyes.
- It can, however, also expose the child to far more advanced topics and thus make what he learns in school boring -- this is likely to happen in HS or Junior high.
My own story, is basically this. I've come to the United States first at the age 11, and then at the age 13. At the age 11, I wasn't spending much time behind a computer - in fact, I barely had a functioning computer that I could use. I learned English very quickly, so that wasn't an issue when I later came at 13. At that point, I can only remember myself spending mos tof my day in front of a computer. I was seldom into games, but I quickly found my two main addictions: UNIX and IRC. I've had a functional Linux install at barely 14 years of age.
I managed to pass classes in Junior High and High school. I attended what has been termed the #1 non-magnet public school (may be not so, now) in California. At this point I was spending the entire day, when not in school, in front of a computer. I've been running my own mail, DNS, www etc.. all from my parents living room at that point. School was pure boredom for me, I barely had the ability to keep my attention span. My social life was virtually nil. I only got two A's throughout my high school -- and this is where the point comes in -- those were in AP US History and AP Computer Science, by *no means* hard easy classes. In addition, while I didn't do spectalarly in actually classes, I passed the AP Calculus and AP Biology tests. (The reasons, by the way, why I got into AP classes, is because the school waved any pre-requites.. you could sign up for any class you wished). I scored 1320 on the SAT, nothing too spectacular but decent, given the very little prepartion I put in (first and only try). Given the high academic standing of the school and the competition I faced, I had no chance of being nowhere near top of my class, nor did I even fill all the pre-reqs for most univerisities, having otten too many D's in classes I found boring. So I went to a community college after HS, where given my AP credits I quickly transfered to a reputable 4-year university as a Computer Science major and am steadily on the way to graduation with a FAR higher GPA than anything I've had in high school.
And all, while still spending considerable time in front of a computer. The moral of the story: yeah, I did horribly in high school, and laregly because of my excessive computer useage. So yes, it intervened with my schooling, but it didn't intervene -- in fact, far from it -- it greatly helped my education. At the same time, I'd also like to mention that I've held two systems administrator job (and am still holding the latest one), since Junior year of high school.
Of course my parents (both of whom are Math. Ph.Ds) were also instrumental that I use the computer as a means of learning: they've introduced me to programming, to UNIX, to the Internet, etc...
My advice for parents? If the computer merely serves as an interactive television set (I by the way, grew up entirely without television), then yes limit it by all means if it hurts the child's education. But be sure to be able to identify the kind of relationship the child has with the computer and understand the dichotomy between schooling an education.
Somewhat reminds me of a local tech paper's editor. Back in 1997/1998 he wrote a rather angry, extremely ignorant and mocking reply to a letter to an editor which spoke about Linux, mocking Linux as being old technology and of no use (and for the letter writer's gall to criticize AOL!).
Then, I remember in about 2001/2002 he was waxing poetic about Linux and answerting Linux questions right and left.
That's of course about the time I went to BSD (in situations where it isn't masochistic), hype serves no purpose.
While I predict the same general trend is going to hold for SATs as well, why did you choose to use ACT instead, given how SATs are more widely taken? Was similar data simply not available for SAT scores?
Newer generation (Above 9200) Radeon cards aren't supported by XFree 4.3.0, which is what came with Fedora Core 1. You need to either use proprietary ATI drivers (haven't used them, they don't have native drivers for AMD64, which is what I use), or use XFree 4.4 (which doesn't support 3d acceleration with those cards, but will work). I'm currently using XFree 4.4, with an ATI Radeon 9600SE and it's very stable.
I haven't tried Core 2 Test 3 yet, but since they're using XOrg, the newer-Radeon problems may be rectified since I do believe XOrg is based on XF 4.4 -- but again, no acceleration unless you use ATI's proprietary drivers.
Another option you may want to try, if you can't use the proprietary drivers for some reason, is just to play use VesaFB.
VMS is actually younger than UNIX (1978 vs. 1970). And what's most importantly, most of the technologies that were added on to UNIX and other OS's were there from the start in VMS.
Access Control Lists (only became a standart part of FreeBSD in 5.x.. correct me if I'm wrong) were long a part of VMS, while clustering has existed far before Slashdot fanboys were posting about Beowulf clusters.
POSIX compatibility? Yep, exists in OpenVMS (hence the prefix Open) -- many major UNIX apps were ported to OpenVMS. X11, yep -- complete with Motif. Hell, there's a Mozilla port these days too.
As for a cluster of peecee's.. they're great when you're say rendering a part of Titanic (bad example actually, as that was done on Alpha.. but you get the idea), but a beowulf cluster is pretty useless when say you're managing a large bank, or a university's registration database: when speed isn't an issue, but fault tolerance and stability is.
The lifetime of an average PeeCee is about 3 years.. yet as I'm typing there's 20 year old VAXen still handling crucial tasks. So while it may be cheaper to do the initial purchase, there's no need to repeat the purchase cycle.
Overhyped? I see no one hyping OpenVMS, but I do see a lot of people hyping clusters of PeeCee's running Linux. Incompatible: see the first few paragraphs of my post. Expensive? Ok, you may have a point there.. but so are its competitors. You can, however, get a hobbyist license of VMS for free, if you're interested.
Artifact junk? Again, see the part of my post about clustering and ACL's.
It's fine for you to dislike VMS or criticize it, or not use it, but don't call it obsolete or incompatible, or claim that stability isn't required.
No. L1 is the name of the car (named for 1L/100 km, or something along those lines), WOB is the German licenseplate code for Wolfsburg (where VW head quarters are). Though I realize you're joking :-) As for stability, VW CEO, himself, drove that car to a corporate meeting, to demonstrate it's realism and feasibility.
There's replacement EEPROMS for various cars with digital ignition (as opposed to a distributor) available on the market, some of them may even be installed by your dealership (depends on the dealership of course). They've also been on the market for quite a while and aren't a novelty. If I'm correct, on non-digital-ignition automobiles, you can use MSD's system to retard or advance your ignition timing. Also, this is not a very safe way to increase your engine's power, as advancing ignition, raises the cylinder pressure far more than any other modification, in propotion to the gain (usually no more than 15 hp).
Actually the Audi TT 225 engine uses larger turbo chargers to achieve the 225 hp, not just more psi from the stock K03 turbo. Also the Mk.4 platform cars (Golf, Jetta, Seat Leon, Skoda Fabia, TT, Audi A3/S3) use a transverse mount 1.8T, whearse B5/B5.5/B6 platforms (majority of Audi's, passats) use a longtitudal mount 1.8T. Also, when you increase the boost up to 1.1 or 1.0 bar using a chip, on the Passat,you'll also blow your diverter valve, and you need to replace that as well by a stronger after market one. You also void your waranty, but that's a trade off. VW's and Audi's in general, are very tuneable, cars, and are a great advice for someone who wants a Budget BMW. The only thing the $10,000 more expensive BMW 3-series has, that I wish I had on my Jetta is rear wheel drive. Everything else, including the choice of two beefy engines (VR6 or 1.8T), leather interior, multi-function trip computer, power heated seats can be ordered as an option on almost any VW.
1998+ VW Passat (4-cylinder model), and 1998+ Audi A4 1.8T, as well was 2000+ VW Jetta, Golf,GTI and Beetle 1.8T can gain at least 40 (!) horsepowers, by installing after market software, which controls the turbo charger/intercooler induction system. There's a large market for such "chip tuning", and several brands are available. One such brand is APR, which even offers a switch that let's you set different turbo charger operation mode (stock, higher performance, and 100 Octane gas modes), check their website here.
Most other recent cars (except a few highly tuned cars like the Toyota Celica GT-S), can also benefit from a chip which bumps up the redline and changes fuel management setup. Almost any major tuner that's affiliated with a certain brand of vehicles, will offer such a chip. Yes, they're detectable (in most cases) and will void your waranty. But it's still possible to hack your ECU, and there's people making money from it. Also OBD-2 scan tools are available on the market, for use by individuals. One such tool is VAG-Com, which can be used for all Audi, Volkswagen, Seat and Skoda cars.well, no. a turbo does not exactly work of the exhaust, it uses exhaust to rotate a turbo which in turn forces air into the engine, increasing the pressure all the PV=nRT things you learned about in chemistry happen. while it does give car more of a run for its engine without using any fuel (audi for instance uses a turbo-charged 1.8l engine to achieve up to 225 horses), it doesn't "reuse" the exhaust, power is not available immediately (turbo takes a while to "spool up", build exhaust pressure), and the power curve of a turbo engine is not as smooth as that of a super charged or naturally aspirated engine. also most diesels these days are already turbo-charged.
Not really. ESR is a libertarian. He doesn't believe in tax breaks, he believes taxes are wrong, period, goverment shouldn't coerce people into "being compasionate". Although, I fundamentaly disagree, I'd like to point this out. And libertarians are pretty much the way republicans were in the days of Hoover, not what they have turned into these days. I however, do not think taxes are fundamentaly wrong, and do not find property rights to be natural and on the same level or above Human Rights. Yet, I am pointing out that current 2-party system no longer stands for its original values, and is merely rule by moneyed interest groups.
BSD is not a desktop system, it's not a server system, it's not a work station system. It's an operating system. It's flexible, and powerfull and can be configured for any task possible. Linux borrows a great deal of code from BSD's, while MacoSX has a solid BSD base under it -- both of these are arguably ready for mainstream desktop consumption.
The more classic BSD's: BSDi, FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD all have their own miniroles. BSDi is a rock solid commercial system, ready for embeded systems market and commercial UNIX systems. FreeBSD is a full-featured work station-type UNIX, complete with easy installation and quick access to a desktop environment; OpenBSD is rock solid stable, and security-audited. Both OpenBSD (at least partially) and NetBSD feature extremely elegant code base, and even if at the current moment they lack features, any type of feature addition is possible, and when those features are implement they will neither increase the size, nor the speed, nor the elegancy of those operating systems. NetBSD is also highly portable, and due to its extremely organized code-base, rock-solid stability etc.. had been put to use by NASA.
My personal favorite is OpenBSD. I can choose what I want with it. And from my UNIX machines, I want a small, minimalisitic installation, each and every component of it I can monitor, control and see the source to. And, security should not pre-empt usability, which is why I use OpenBSD. Yet if I wanted anything else, I'd be confident that either one of the mainstream BSD's or one of their derivates like Linux and MacOSX will do it. BSD is a what-ever-you-want type operating systems. Oh yeah, and we also believe in features without the hype.