Except a 4000+ and a 3200+ are the exact same chip. The 4000+ has just been certified to run at a higher clock.
The implication being that if the 3200 is working as hard as the 4000 is, the 4000 should be able to run slower with less work.
These tables seem to confirm that. Look at the Winchesters on page 13. The 3000 runs at 1.8GHz with a TDP of 67W. The 3500 (2.2GHz) can be run at 1.8GHz with a TDP of 46W.
Has this ever been independently and scientifically confirmed? I would be very interested in the results.
I hear ya. We've been cloning our labs with dump/restore over the net for years. Works on everything: Solaris, *BSD, Linux. Wrapper scripts make it a one line command.
I know some Linux distros don't come with dump/restore. Maybe that's why more people don't use it.
Similar experience here. Our compsci building has lights and air controlled by one of these "smart" systems. It's a new-ish building and we've been suffering since we moved in. Lights turning themselves off when we aren't moving enough is bad, but the worst is the cooling. Apparently the idiots who setup the system didn't think labs full of P4s running 24x7 needed to be cooled when there is no one jogging around the room.
Well, it's Friday at 1730 as I type this. I'm about to download 2.4.29-rc1 (which has a fix). Then I'll shoe horn some oddball patchballs into it (they haven't applied cleanly in a few kernel revs), config, make and test. If all goes well I'll be rolling it out and rebooting our ~150 Linux boxes by 1900.
In short, this one is too big (too exploitable, too public) to wait until Monday.
My life would be so much easier if profs didn't have such a hard on for Linux and let us admins install OpenBSD. Good thing I get paid overtime. Oh wait, I don't.
We use spamd at my workplace. We had some stupid spammer sitting in the tarpit for over 46 hours. Highly amusing and very effective when combined with greylisting.
The BSD would be at the lower right on that grid. BSD gives complete freedom to the *developer*, but I wouldn't consider it FULLY free because it allows the coder to take derivative works and place them under different licensing (closed OR open). The "rights of the code" are granted and revoked at the whim of the developer who creates or "steals" the code. Microsoft took all freedom away from BSD-licensed code when it incorporated it into Windows NT/2K/XP/2K3.
What are you smoking? When did "code" become sentient and deserving of rights? Information is a thing, no different than a rock or a chair. I want a license that says "Here, feel free to make and use a copy of my chair. Make sure you give me credit. I offer no warranty for the chair." You are suggesting that is not enough, that I must somehow insist that rights and protections be given to copies of the chair. Who cares? It's a fscking inanimate object. Stick it in a wood chipper for all I care.
He also fails to point out the leadership qualities that OpenBSD has brought to the BSD buffet: OpenSSH, Darren Reed's packet filter...
Eeek. Major faux pas. The new (actually a few years old now) OpenBSD firewall is PF, originally created by Daniel Hartmeier. It replaced Darren Reed's IPF (which was yanked due to license issues).
In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really
good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change
their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really
do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are
human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot
recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.
This whole "this is a good desktop distro" thing is crap. I admin a couple hundred *nix boxes (Slackware, Solaris, OpenBSD) I can tell you that it takes very little work to get a nice desktop running across all the platforms. The idea that RedHat is a desktop OS and Solaris (or OpenBSD) are for servers only is nonsense. You just need to take the time to install the shiny software. Anyone with a little skill can take a Slack box and get it to match or beat any other distro in the eye-candy department.
As an admin the main issue for me is ease of administration. It takes me a few days to get an OS up to scratch eye-candy-wise, but I have to maintain it for the rest of the year. In those terms OpenBSD and Solaris top Slack, with the other Linux distros following.
What a concidence, I'm in the middle of upgrading from Slack 9 to 10 as I type this. Maybe someone here can answer this question: is it possible to do Blowfish passwords on Slackware? I did find a few patches out there (glibc and shadow) and I'm building them now. Maybe it will work. Has anybody out there tried anything like this? Remember, Slackware doesn't use PAM.
Is there a location that has info on how to tweak OpenBSD to be a good Desktop system? There seems to be a lot of work to get OpenBSD working as a decent Desktop system. It would be nice if somebody had all the steps needed on some website in a concise list.
Well, it depends on what you mean by "a good desktop system". I think OpenBSD is a great desktop system pretty much straight out of the box (use it as my desktop at work and home). Pretty much everything you need you will find in the ports tree (most will have pre-built packages on the CDs). I've used Linux and OpenBSD side by side for some time and the only things I can do with Linux that I can't do with OpenBSD are: hardware 3D acceleration (no OpenBSD drivers) and running certain binary only Linux apps. I think the high security of OpenBSD is at least as important on the desktop as in firewalls these days. Imagine how much less spam and worms we would have floating around if everyone had nice hardened desktops.
Here's what I do for my OpenBSD desktop:
install the msttcorefonts package (from ports tree) for nice fonts
install Mozilla (again, ports tree)
install my mp3 and ogg utilities (ditto)
install mplayer (ditto ditto)
I really don't need much else. To see a full list of my packages look here. If you want a pretty desktop I recommend installing the latest FVWM (2.5.?) and FVWM Themes from fvwm.org. Then hand tune your fvwm rcfiles.
I wonder if BSD would benefit from changing to a similar development model as Linux. There sem to be relatively few active BSD developers, and although they do a good job, they must have a bad time trying to keep up with the latest hardware and technologies available.
The development models (it would be more accurate to refer to them as "developer management styles") are, in practice, quite similar. For all the talk of "the bazaar" model, the core of Linux is largely created by a small number of highly skilled developers. The BSDs just formalize this fact by publicly identifying "core" teams. Both have a cloud of lesser developers contributing. By identifying a core team the BSDs seem to have more control over the cloud, everybody knows where patches are supposed to go, patches are accepted and rejected, etc.
So much of this comes down to psychology so I could be way off base. In my opinion the more formal approach of the BSDs has lead to higher quality, with only a small delay in hardware support.
And then there are issues that are less obvious, like how voter convenience plays a part in turnout, and having long lines waiting for paper ballots turns people away. It is easy to see how an e-vote could speed things up. Voter turnout (i think most will agree) is a good thing.
It's suddenly not such an easy answer is it?
Good point. No wait, my bad, it is still an easy answer. I have never been in a lineup to vote in Canada. And I've been to a few for each level of government now. Before work, during lunch, after work (different elections of course!). Credit to the election volunteers to keep things running smoothly.
So I highly doubt that e-voting will have any impact on voter turnout. Turnout has been dropping for years in Canada and voting here could not be simpler. If you ask people why they don't vote the reason is usually related to general dissatisfaction with politicians.
Anyway, your system would be a huge step backwards over what we have in most of the US, paper ballots which are electronically counted.
Could someone explain the difference between a paper ballot counted by machine and an electronic ballot counted by machine with a receipt? It is still a machine counting with a paper fallback. What guarantee is there that the machine is counting correctly?
The guarantee is by hand counting the ballots/receipts. In which case why not just count them by hand in the first place?
Yes, I know there is a subtle difference. And yes, I know about random recounts for verification. I have answered these points in further detail here and here.
Sounds to me like Canadians go in and vote for one thing: their parliamentary representative. Otherwise, separating the ballots into "piles" which are then counted wouldn't really be possible. Like you say, this method is totally unsuitable for the US, where one can end up voting for (in one november election on a single multi-page ballot) President, a senator, a house representative, state governor, lieutenant governor, a state senator, state assemblyman, state treasurer, member of the county board of supervisors, county sheriff, mayor, city councilman, a bunch of judges, bond measures at state/county/city levels, and a whole raft of propositions. I'd like to see one o' them smug Canadians deal with that kind of mess by having "people at each polling station manually count the collected paper slips"
Easy. Don't vote for all of them at once. Vote for federal stuff in the federal election, provincial stuff in the provincial election and municipal stuff in the municipal election. Have the elections on different days. Fixed election days lead to everything being done on one day for "efficiency". Bad, bad, bad. Keep the number of questions to under a handful per election. People cannot make informed choices otherwise.
Our system could cope with multiple questions per election. Just have multiple ballots (colour coded maybe). Drop each into the proper box. Count by hand a per usual. It will either take more time to count, or will require more volunteers. I'm sure Elections Canada can find lots of counters for $100 a pop.
Again, you are talking out of your ass. You talk about complexity (I do know what it means), but fail to explain how it affects America differently from Canada. Just saying "America is bigger" is not sufficient to prop up your argument. Tell me specifically how, if Canada's population were to double OVERNIGHT, our system would break.
Every example you state applies to Canada as well. We are not homogeneous. There are vast differences, both legal and cultural, between provinces. Example: Quebec and Alberta. Hell, there are significant language differences. There are even differences between cities in the same province. Just compare Calgary and Edmonton. Three hour drive apart, but politically and economically very different.
I forgot to mention that at least one province has moved to a fixed election day. Fellow Canucks, this is BAD! Oppose this if it starts getting discussed in your province!
Canada has 1/10th the number of people as the USA. Not only is the scale of votes greater, but consequently the complexity of relationships among the people, therefore the political groupings and representations.
Blah, blah, polysyllabic blah. You talk big but offer no facts. Show me how America has greater "complexity of relationships" than Canada (but tell me what that means first). Show me how an American city is, from an electoral perspective, any different from a Canadian city with the same population size.
As well as the laws in proposition ballots. Part of the American complexity is the difference in ballot styles and subjects in different jurisdictions, like different states, as well as the deeper hierarchy for intergovernance. Moreover, Canada's party/parliament system produces more politicians by appointment, like members of the Candian "Senate", and the Prime Minister, than in the USA, where ballots must determine those.
Congratulations, you have found one of only two fundamental differences in our voting systems. Yes, for federal elections we only need one ballot. But there is no reason we could not have several. A grey ballot for the MP, green for Senator, etc.
The other difference is when we have elections. In America there is a set day for elections (first Tuesday in November?). Every level of government is voted for on that day. In Canada every level of government is elected on different days. And these days change from election to election and region to region. All of Canada votes on the same day for a federal election. On that day we take care of federal stuff and nothing else. Each province will have an election whenever they choose, and on that day everyone in that province will vote for provincial level stuff and nothing else. Likewise for every city.
I'm sure to Americans this sounds like a madhouse in which we are constantly voting. Well, yes and no. Yes, chances are somewhere in Canada people might be voting for something today. But I don't really care because I don't live there. I will usually have to vote only three times in every four years.
There are two benefits to this. First, when we do vote it is easier to focus on the issues at hand. For example, municipal races and issues do not get overwhelmed by federal campaigns. Each election voters will only have to deal with a small number questions. Think of it as democracy in small bites. The second benefit is more subtle. Staggering elections across the country leads to stability. We don't get massive national shifts in government every four years. If things are shifting it will show up in one province, then another, then maybe federally, and so on.
I'm not even going respond to the rest of unsubstantiated drivel you posted.
3) Speed. We're an impatient country. If we can be told the vote totals right after elections close, we're happier.
What, a few hours is too long to wait? Impatience is not a virtue; elections are one case where you want to do things right the first time, even if it takes a little longer.
Hey, why not have the vote totals before the election! That would save everybody the trouble of taking time to vote!
Slashdot Mirror
The implication being that if the 3200 is working as hard as the 4000 is, the 4000 should be able to run slower with less work.
These tables seem to confirm that. Look at the Winchesters on page 13. The 3000 runs at 1.8GHz with a TDP of 67W. The 3500 (2.2GHz) can be run at 1.8GHz with a TDP of 46W.
Has this ever been independently and scientifically confirmed? I would be very interested in the results.
Just do a Google image search.
I hear ya. We've been cloning our labs with dump/restore over the net for years. Works on everything: Solaris, *BSD, Linux. Wrapper scripts make it a one line command.
I know some Linux distros don't come with dump/restore. Maybe that's why more people don't use it.
Similar experience here. Our compsci building has lights and air controlled by one of these "smart" systems. It's a new-ish building and we've been suffering since we moved in. Lights turning themselves off when we aren't moving enough is bad, but the worst is the cooling. Apparently the idiots who setup the system didn't think labs full of P4s running 24x7 needed to be cooled when there is no one jogging around the room.
In short, this one is too big (too exploitable, too public) to wait until Monday.
My life would be so much easier if profs didn't have such a hard on for Linux and let us admins install OpenBSD. Good thing I get paid overtime. Oh wait, I don't.
We use spamd at my workplace. We had some stupid spammer sitting in the tarpit for over 46 hours. Highly amusing and very effective when combined with greylisting.
What are you smoking? When did "code" become sentient and deserving of rights? Information is a thing, no different than a rock or a chair. I want a license that says "Here, feel free to make and use a copy of my chair. Make sure you give me credit. I offer no warranty for the chair." You are suggesting that is not enough, that I must somehow insist that rights and protections be given to copies of the chair. Who cares? It's a fscking inanimate object. Stick it in a wood chipper for all I care.
It takes even less energy to pull down some decent shades.
The Dope cover of it is actually pretty good.
Eeek. Major faux pas. The new (actually a few years old now) OpenBSD firewall is PF, originally created by Daniel Hartmeier. It replaced Darren Reed's IPF (which was yanked due to license issues).
The media companies' solution.
This whole "this is a good desktop distro" thing is crap. I admin a couple hundred *nix boxes (Slackware, Solaris, OpenBSD) I can tell you that it takes very little work to get a nice desktop running across all the platforms. The idea that RedHat is a desktop OS and Solaris (or OpenBSD) are for servers only is nonsense. You just need to take the time to install the shiny software. Anyone with a little skill can take a Slack box and get it to match or beat any other distro in the eye-candy department.
As an admin the main issue for me is ease of administration. It takes me a few days to get an OS up to scratch eye-candy-wise, but I have to maintain it for the rest of the year. In those terms OpenBSD and Solaris top Slack, with the other Linux distros following.
What a concidence, I'm in the middle of upgrading from Slack 9 to 10 as I type this. Maybe someone here can answer this question: is it possible to do Blowfish passwords on Slackware? I did find a few patches out there (glibc and shadow) and I'm building them now. Maybe it will work. Has anybody out there tried anything like this? Remember, Slackware doesn't use PAM.
Ooh, ooh, ooh, don't forget greylisting! It totally rocks (decimated my spam intake).
Well, it depends on what you mean by "a good desktop system". I think OpenBSD is a great desktop system pretty much straight out of the box (use it as my desktop at work and home). Pretty much everything you need you will find in the ports tree (most will have pre-built packages on the CDs). I've used Linux and OpenBSD side by side for some time and the only things I can do with Linux that I can't do with OpenBSD are: hardware 3D acceleration (no OpenBSD drivers) and running certain binary only Linux apps. I think the high security of OpenBSD is at least as important on the desktop as in firewalls these days. Imagine how much less spam and worms we would have floating around if everyone had nice hardened desktops.
Here's what I do for my OpenBSD desktop:
- install the msttcorefonts package (from ports tree) for nice fonts
- install Mozilla (again, ports tree)
- install my mp3 and ogg utilities (ditto)
- install mplayer (ditto ditto)
I really don't need much else. To see a full list of my packages look here. If you want a pretty desktop I recommend installing the latest FVWM (2.5.?) and FVWM Themes from fvwm.org. Then hand tune your fvwm rcfiles.The development models (it would be more accurate to refer to them as "developer management styles") are, in practice, quite similar. For all the talk of "the bazaar" model, the core of Linux is largely created by a small number of highly skilled developers. The BSDs just formalize this fact by publicly identifying "core" teams. Both have a cloud of lesser developers contributing. By identifying a core team the BSDs seem to have more control over the cloud, everybody knows where patches are supposed to go, patches are accepted and rejected, etc.
So much of this comes down to psychology so I could be way off base. In my opinion the more formal approach of the BSDs has lead to higher quality, with only a small delay in hardware support.
You sir, are a troll.
It's suddenly not such an easy answer is it?
Good point. No wait, my bad, it is still an easy answer. I have never been in a lineup to vote in Canada. And I've been to a few for each level of government now. Before work, during lunch, after work (different elections of course!). Credit to the election volunteers to keep things running smoothly.
So I highly doubt that e-voting will have any impact on voter turnout. Turnout has been dropping for years in Canada and voting here could not be simpler. If you ask people why they don't vote the reason is usually related to general dissatisfaction with politicians.
Could someone explain the difference between a paper ballot counted by machine and an electronic ballot counted by machine with a receipt? It is still a machine counting with a paper fallback. What guarantee is there that the machine is counting correctly?
The guarantee is by hand counting the ballots/receipts. In which case why not just count them by hand in the first place?
Yes, I know there is a subtle difference. And yes, I know about random recounts for verification. I have answered these points in further detail here and here.
Easy. Don't vote for all of them at once. Vote for federal stuff in the federal election, provincial stuff in the provincial election and municipal stuff in the municipal election. Have the elections on different days. Fixed election days lead to everything being done on one day for "efficiency". Bad, bad, bad. Keep the number of questions to under a handful per election. People cannot make informed choices otherwise.
Our system could cope with multiple questions per election. Just have multiple ballots (colour coded maybe). Drop each into the proper box. Count by hand a per usual. It will either take more time to count, or will require more volunteers. I'm sure Elections Canada can find lots of counters for $100 a pop.
Every example you state applies to Canada as well. We are not homogeneous. There are vast differences, both legal and cultural, between provinces. Example: Quebec and Alberta. Hell, there are significant language differences. There are even differences between cities in the same province. Just compare Calgary and Edmonton. Three hour drive apart, but politically and economically very different.
I forgot to mention that at least one province has moved to a fixed election day. Fellow Canucks, this is BAD! Oppose this if it starts getting discussed in your province!
Blah, blah, polysyllabic blah. You talk big but offer no facts. Show me how America has greater "complexity of relationships" than Canada (but tell me what that means first). Show me how an American city is, from an electoral perspective, any different from a Canadian city with the same population size.
As well as the laws in proposition ballots. Part of the American complexity is the difference in ballot styles and subjects in different jurisdictions, like different states, as well as the deeper hierarchy for intergovernance. Moreover, Canada's party/parliament system produces more politicians by appointment, like members of the Candian "Senate", and the Prime Minister, than in the USA, where ballots must determine those.
Congratulations, you have found one of only two fundamental differences in our voting systems. Yes, for federal elections we only need one ballot. But there is no reason we could not have several. A grey ballot for the MP, green for Senator, etc.
The other difference is when we have elections. In America there is a set day for elections (first Tuesday in November?). Every level of government is voted for on that day. In Canada every level of government is elected on different days. And these days change from election to election and region to region. All of Canada votes on the same day for a federal election. On that day we take care of federal stuff and nothing else. Each province will have an election whenever they choose, and on that day everyone in that province will vote for provincial level stuff and nothing else. Likewise for every city.
I'm sure to Americans this sounds like a madhouse in which we are constantly voting. Well, yes and no. Yes, chances are somewhere in Canada people might be voting for something today. But I don't really care because I don't live there. I will usually have to vote only three times in every four years.
There are two benefits to this. First, when we do vote it is easier to focus on the issues at hand. For example, municipal races and issues do not get overwhelmed by federal campaigns. Each election voters will only have to deal with a small number questions. Think of it as democracy in small bites. The second benefit is more subtle. Staggering elections across the country leads to stability. We don't get massive national shifts in government every four years. If things are shifting it will show up in one province, then another, then maybe federally, and so on.
I'm not even going respond to the rest of unsubstantiated drivel you posted.
What, a few hours is too long to wait? Impatience is not a virtue; elections are one case where you want to do things right the first time, even if it takes a little longer.
Hey, why not have the vote totals before the election! That would save everybody the trouble of taking time to vote!