I don't think this is completely accurate, at least as far as the wording of your statement is concerned. "Settlements" are usually not handled in-court, and this is not part of that process. This is the in-court case and has nothing to do with some other out-of-court agreement that the DOJ and MS may come to outside of court. If they do come to some sort of agreement then the court would approve the agreement, but this is not part of that.
Wrong. I'm a software engineer and I worked for a fabless semiconductor company for a couple years. You have no idea how similar the disciplines of SW and silicon engineering are. And, yes, if you have the talent, you can design chips at home for "effectively nil." Just like for SW, all you need is GCC and Make, with all the free stuff available for silicon dev, the same is true. Ya, you can spend millions on QuickTurn boxes and proprietairy development tools, but you don't have to.
Well, I certainly wouldn't claim that I know everything there is to know about chip design, but I do know the basics. I still believe that it would cost significant money for the hobbiest to get involved in chip design. ANY expense over that of the standard computer is too much, IMHO. With software design, I can get involved with zero additional cost. With chip design I'd at least need to purchase a FPGA and possibly additional stuff.
Wrong again. Have you ever heard of FPGA's? (Field Programmable Gate Arrays like Xilinx, Altera,...)
Yes, I have. But what use are they to me personally? Can I plug one into my Pentium II slot on my motherboard and have it run? I'd need to purchase the chips themselves and presumably a board or some other device to program them, right? How much would that cost? I'd think it would be pretty expensive, as compared to the cost of a PC. You can purchase a relatively decent PC for $1000 now, and be able to get involved in OSS for $0 additional cost. How much are all the tools and hardware you'd need to get involved in FPGA's, and what use would it be when you're done? I admit I don't know the answers to these questions, and that's why I'm asking them, but I would expect the answer to be significant (meaning over $100 for EVERYTHING that you'd need).
While there are circuit and CPU emulators that help work with chip design that's pretty useless to the end-user/programmer. Wrong yet again. Do you really have no clue on how chips are designed? SW Emulators/Simulators are exactly the tools that would allow the guy at home to design, test, and debug his own chip. So chip development can be done on the cheap. The outsourcing of the fabbing is the only expensive part but there are ways around this. Some schools have small volume educational fabbing deals with some universities, and going to a venture capitalist with a finished proven design is more likely to equal investment than a slick sales pitch by itself.
I don't think you got my point. Even if you could take an OSS chip design and tweak it, what use would a FPGA be to the average hobbiest? Unless you could plug it into a standard motherboard to replace your "normal" CPU it's pretty useless in my view. Plus, you'd have the extra cost of the FPGA chips and any other required equipment as mentioned before. My point is that "on the cheap" is not equivalent to "free" or no cost.
Nope, hardware and software design are exactly the same, you just don't have the background/experience to realize this.
I admit I don't have the background or experience with hardware design, but it seems like common sense to realize that the cost involved and the benefit obtained from OS hardware as opposed to OS software are nowhere near the same.
I'm not quite sure how calling the Rio a "peripheral" excludes it from this law. In fact, I'm not quite sure how you can call the Rio a peripheral, since it's actually useful even without a computer, as opposed to a printer, scanner, modem, etc. Nonetheless, this law seems to apply as easily to Winamp and RealJukebox as it does to the Rio (after all, is software not a device, albeit not a physical one?)
NO! Software is not a device. It's thinking like this that has put us into the horrible mess with software patents and such. If anything, software should be copyrighted at most. Where have you been the last five years? Have you paid any attention?
Well I have 256MB RAM and I haven't swapped yet. That's with a 33MB X server, 35MB Netscape, KDE, a couple 10MB mySql severs, and all the "normal" services.
It only used 60MB with all this running and doing a full kernel compile with -j on my SMP box. (load up to 35, yikes). I did get some "gcc: vfork: Resource temporarily unavailable" messages during the make -k modules, but I had plenty of swap left so it must have been processes or something. Had to limit the concurent jobs to get it to go.
I'd say, tentatively, that if you have 256MB RAM you probably don't need more than 128MB unless you're doing some serious number crunching. And, you'll probably run into other issues also. I've got two 127MB partitions on separate SCSI channels just to be sure...
Er, if you have two swap partitions on the same disk just use different priorities and Linux will fill one up before trying to use the other. If you have them on different disks, use the same priority so that it load balances between the disks (even better if you have them on dual SCSI channels like I do:-)
Beggars cannot be choosers. Basically, linux needs every single bit of help it can get from Apple and every other commercial company.
Um, we are not beggars. We don't need every single bit of help we can get from any commercial companies.
I don't think you understand. We got to where we are without any commercial companies help. Once we reached the level of stability and reliability that was acceptable to commercial companies they started comming to us. Yes, we do "sign" petitions to let companies know that there are a significant number of people out there that would pay for their software if it was ported to Linux. I don't see this as begging at all. It's more like doing those companies a favor by clueing them in on an untapped market.
You know, Apple.. if they wanted to.. could really screw linux to the wall in a commercial sence by just porting MacOS X to Intel.
And how would they do that? Would they make the complete OS open source? Would they still charge for their OS? Why would small businesses (those that are primarily using Linux now such as "mom and pop" ISP's) switch to using a proprietary (at least parts) OS that they'd have to pay out the wazoo (relatively speaking) for when they can get a stable, reliable, OS that does what they need done for free?
"Why bother with the diffulticies of Linux when you can have the power of UNIX with the ease of use of the Macintosh. - Now on your Intel PC"
That may work for the desktop, but not for servers. And, as I said above, it wouldn't sway the majority of current Linux users. Actually, I don't personally care if Linux ever makes major inroads in the "desktop" market. I use it on my desktop, and I have all the programs that I have a need for. If others have issues with using Linux on the desktop, use another OS. Or wait until it is made more "user friendly." So for all I care, let MacOS X "take over the desktop."
It probably wont happen any time soon... but it could... so be affraid.
Er, afraid of Apple?!?
Ummm... which rules are these? Are these the rules that say you have to give away millions of dollars worth of R&D away for free, with no hope of renumeration? No Thanks. Those rules suck.
It is clear that we each must deal with any other as that other would deal with us. Microsoft choose to deal by the laws of commerce which exist as and when they conduct their actions.
It is also plainly clear that the majority, no vast majority, of people believe that it is just to deal with Microsoft in the way we are. I presume that they believe (I certainly do) that it would be just for someone else to deal with me in the same manner.
As far as the server Linux port goes, and speaking from several years of familiarity with Notes/Domino, I'm not really that interested. Lotus' track record for Unix versions hasn't been great; the AIX and Solaris version have been buggy, slow, or they require a _very_ specific set of OS patches/configuration to run efficiently... By analogy, that would mean that the Linux version may run on the 2.2.7 kernel (for example), but not, say, 2.2.9 . (And don't dare try putting it on a development kernal)
Well if that's the case they shouldn't even waste their time with a server port...
Er, if you have gcc you should have g++. They come in the same package, so I don't know why someone would build it without the C++ language.
A more valid test would be: #include int main(void) { printf("hellow world"); return 0; }
This compiled with gcc (egcs) turns out to be 3012 bytes when stripped on Linux-ix86 with -Os and 2976 with g++ (after changing filename to hello.cpp).
A more realistic test is to compile with -O6 -march=pentiumpro, which are the options I use all the time. In this test, a stripped C compile is 3012 (oops, must no be much to optimize there!) and a stripped C++ compile is 4028 (probably due to alignment for pentiumpro optimizations or something).
Er, I think the previous poster was surmizing that in the future they will have a card or chip in your PC's that can encrypt anything. Sure you could use it for encrypting a network link, but you could also use it to encrypt email, hard disk partitions, or anything else you wrote the program for. Kinda what others were saying about being able to encrypt a 10G HD in 8 seconds (I don't know if this is true, I haven't done the math).
Even so, it's probably a moot point. Even "personal" encryption software such as the PGP from network associates includes a "corporate" key in their commercial version of the product. In essence, it encrypts with the public corporate key that is setup by the network administrators before the product is made available to the users. Then, the corporate IT staff could decrypt any email they wanted with "proper" authority.
So, even if this thing turns into a device that could be used as a generic encryption box for any applicatoin I don't see applications getting a corporate blessing unless they get to tag on their public key also.
Here's a question: With the way the DOJ v. Microsoft trial has been going do you think corporations are starting to/will rethink their policy on reading email and not letting employees encrypt their email without them having a key. Seems that, if Bill Gates and the other players encrypted their email it would be kinda hard for the DOJ to argue forcing them to give up the key. If Microsoft the corporation had the key they might have had a little more luck. So does anyone forsee a relaxation of corporate policy here?
> Would you not expect that setting up a web server with at least software RAID would allow for > faster responses, especially if there were databases on the same box on RAID devices?
Not necessarily. If the entire dataset fits into the RAM cache anyway, there won't be any disk activity for most web serving events. Databases + RAID sounds like a better application, but most web sites don't use databases.
Most sites that I go to DO have a database, or at least I assume so./. certainly does. The "portal" sites must (to store your user preferences and also the stories/articles that are displayed based on your login ID). I assume Freshmeat does. I would think that other "news" sites that list abstracts of stories do (do you really think someone custom makes each and every news story, or they just store the text/page in a database?) Certainly financial sites do that store news for companies and chat areas.
In fact, I can't think of a web site that should not use a database that I would regularly visit. If they don't, then the content can't change that much and it's not worth "regularly" visiting. For those types of sites (static, not changing regularly) you're probably better of using Netscape's or IE's ability to check for changes and notify you than constantly pulling it up manually.
> I suppose the reason this was not tested is because, IMHO, RedHat screwed up and included a > non-integrated version of the RAID code in their kernels.
RedHat included a working version of software RAID. AFAIK, the RAID code in the plain 2.2 tree is not as recent/stable as the code shipped with RedHat.
What RedHat included was not what I considered production quality (even though I'm using it now). I HAD a RAID setup and when I installed ended up deleting the partitions and remaking the RAID volumes because there was no "warning" that RedHat needed the special upgrade force command to migrate the disks. Plus, they give you no way of installing on a RAID device anyway, so why did they feel the need to include a "non-standard" kernel anyway (you have to install on a "regular" partition, drop to single user, unmount almost everything, setup your RAID devices, copy over the data, and reboot in order to get "standard" directories like/usr and/var on a RAID with RedHat 6.0) If they were interested in giving their users the heads up on the much improved RAID support they should have included the standard RAID drivers that come with the kernel and put a note in to let their customers make the decision to use a non-integrated patch or not.
> Ever wonder why RedHat has not posted a 2.2.10 kernel?
Maybe because there are still some filesystem-corrupting bugs in it?
There were in 2.2.9, but AFAIK 2.2.10 is stable. AND it fixes several security bugs which I can't protect against because of my RAID situation. To include "custom" (meaning not part of the official kernel as released by Linus et.al.) kernel patches, even if publically available, is irresponsible for a company like RedHat IF they don't take the responsibility to keep those patches (even if they didn't create the original) up to date so that it can be applied to the production kernel as new releases come out.
> I guess we'll just have to wait for mingo to create the patch for 2.2.10.
Ingo is working on a new version of RAID for Linux 2.3, the last I heard.
Last I heard he was also supposed to be working on the patches against the 2.2 series kernel also. At least I and a bunch of other people on the linux-raid list hope so...
Limit the burst rate to 150% of the "CIR" or whatever the customer is paying for. That would keep the users "happy."
I don't know the breezecom stuff, but if it can't handle much more than 1Mb then I wouldn't sell that speed. Wireless is a shared technology. Unless you can garentee that they will always be able to get 1Mb at a minimum then I would bump the top speed you "sell" to maybe 512Kb and let them burst to 150%, or 768Kb.
I have questions about the RAID support in Linux and if this could not have been used to obtain better results. Specifically, I'm talking about software raid and not hardware RAID solutions.
Does *BSD have software RAID? How does it compare to Linux's software RAID? Would you not expect that setting up a web server with at least software RAID would allow for faster responses, especially if there were databases on the same box on RAID devices?
I suppose the reason this was not tested is because, IMHO, RedHat screwed up and included a non-integrated version of the RAID code in their kernels. Ever wonder why RedHat has not posted a 2.2.10 kernel? If you loaded up RedHat 6.0 and created software RAID filesystems you can't upgrade because you can't patch the later kernels with the new raid code.
Yes, I follow linux-raid and there is supposed to be a way you can apply the patch to later kernels, ignore the rejects, manually make a few changes in some files, and supposedly be "safe" to run your new-style RAID disks. However, even though I have a DAT drive and can backup everything I'm not taking that chance on a "production" kernel. If it was 2.3.x I would not be complaining. I guess we'll just have to wait for mingo to create the patch for 2.2.10.
Yes, this is a troll, but I'm hopeing that it will put a fire under someone's but at RedHat to provide some assistance. No, I don't plan on making any contributions and fixing the code myself. If I tried, you would probably find your disks fried beyond repair because I don't know the code base yet. (But the way it's going I may have a good chance of getting up to speed before a patch comes out:-)
Anyway, that's why they could not have tested software RAID even if they wanted to. Thanks for letting me flame, downgrade me if you must...
Er, lots of places loose power at the same time on a regular basis, or so I would think.
Millville is having thunderstorms and the high was supposed to be 97 today. I'd say it's probably a combination of those thunderstorms and brownout because of too many people cranking thier AC's.
Cape May is similar, with thunderstorms and a high of 95.
Fullshear is having thunderstorms all the way through Thursday... (ever hear of lightning striking a power distribution field?).
Riyadh/Khaled has a high of 109 - holly crap! but "plain old" Riyadh is only 32 - must be celcius... Besides, I don't know enough about their power systems to trust it anyway.
Get a life, and a clue. If you took five minutes to check out the weather at these locations you can see that there is a pretty good expectation that they would loose power at this time.
Now you go to bed with no cookie and no fireworks (Since 75% of your sites were in the USA I figured you're in the USA and would have been able to watch them if you behaved properly).
All right, this is the second comment that I've seen that I would personally classify as FUD. I wish I had moderator rights at the time so I could downgrade the comment.
If you read the RFC's you will see that they have addressed all of the concerns you list above. There are already two other comments listing some specific responses to your concerns, but I humbly suggest you visit the 6bone and read the friggin RFC's yourself.
I thought this site was supposed to be "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." I also thought the "nerdy" thing to do would be to read up on a topic before making senseless comments. May be that's the "old nerd" way of doing things.
I wonder how many (what percentage of) people on/. even know what a RFC is anymore...
Actually, I believe this is "taken care of" in the IPV6 standard. It's my understanding that there is a "provider" part of the address and a end-user part of the address. There has also been some talk on the 6bone list within the past month or two about how the organization that will be/is handing out addresses is setup and functions.
As far as routing, that's in the IPV6 "standard." They can't use the same routing protocols as in use today.
While I'm not sure that my statements are 100% acurate, I do believe that they are somewhat more than yours. You should at least know something about a topic before posting...
Check out RFC2472, it describes how IPV6 addresses SHOULD be chosen for PPP links. It appears to me that if a node (your home PC) has any EUI-48 or EUI64 address configured on any interface, it should use these addresses in "suggesting" an IPV6 address to the PPP peer in the config request. So, if your PC has an Ethernet card, as mine does, then you should use your Ethernet MAC as part of the IPV6 address (the "interface" part). There is even a method for turning the 48-bit MAC into the 64-bit interface ID.
Well, I guess this answers my questions in comment #3!
But, how accurate is this going to be? How often will the mix of dynamic/static content be updated to reflect current statistics? Are the ratios changeable within the benchmark and will testers use the changeable parameters to show their server/OS/hardware is "better" than the competition.
Besides, who wants to pay $800 for a friggin benchmark test?
Web servers are frequently asked to send users static Web pages.
With all these web benchmarks coming out using static web pages, I'm wondering if there are some statistics available somewhere that can either confirm or deny this.
I know/. is heavily dynamic (are there any pages that are static?). I know my homepages are netscape and yahoo are dynamic. All search engines serve dynamic content. Certainly web sites designed for E-Commerce, the market for IBM's web servers, are dynamic (searching for products, filling out order forms, etc).
For some reason I don't think the statement in IBM's release is totally accurate. Why not create a new benchmark or modify an existing one that had a mix of dynamic content that matched certain typical uses for web servers. A search engine server, a portal server, an e-commerce server, etc. This would give more accurate real-world results, IMHO.
You don't get it. In the USA a company can't advertise that they will provide a certain level of service and then not provide it. When they do it on purpose, it's called fraud. I don't know how it works in Sweden, but in the USA companies can get into a lot of trouble for doing this.
I'm actually really not sure what kind of response you are expecting. I'll hence have to assume that your post is a troll.
Re:"This car is crap, it crashed into a wall!"
on
Scott Hacker Responds
·
· Score: 1
Er, this sounds like a versioning problem with the library creators. If there is that many differences between libjpeg 6.0 and 6.0b that could possibly break a program then they should have different version numbers.
You can also specify exactly what version of the library you want dynamically linked into your program. You don't have to rely on the symbolic links and only link to "libc.so.6" you can instead link directly to libc-2.1.1.so or libc-2.1.0.so or whatever floats your boat.
Of course, this assumes one knows what one is doing. There's not a whole lot you can do if you are working with binary rpm's, but if you are working with the original source code for the packages, you can massage the source to link with the correct library version it needs and not screw with the "standard" version of the library that everything else on your system needs. If you are using a distribution instead of making your own system, I would not recommend upgrading any system libraries until the vendor of said distributions makes them "officially" available. You can still install a new library version, but do it in a different location and change your LD_LIBRARY_PATH or put in the appropriate linker search path so you don't overwrite the system libraries.
What if the entire world was democratic like the United States?
Well, I hope that the reason that you didn't say "a Democracy like the United States" was because you realize it's not. We are a representative republic. There are democratic like parts to our system, such as the ability to vote for your representative, but we are in no shape or form a true democracy.
In a representative republic the people vote for a representative who is supposed to know more about the topics that are getting voted on and make a more informed decision on what should be law and not. The people have a mechanism of taking a representative out of office if they do not accurately represent the values and beliefs of their consituents.
This is possibly what the Linux community needs. Just like in the good ol U.S. of A. there are idiots and members of the community that don't share the values of the majority. However, even if they are in the minority, their views and the ability to express them must be protected. We should, however, have members of our community that we "vote" on to represent us. I don't honestly believe that anyone who "volunteered" for such a role would be one to go around and say idiotic things or put users of other OS's down just because they are not using Linux. If so, we could always vote them out of "office" and let others know that they no longer represent the Linux community.
If this were to work, there would have to be a way of tracking votes, and every Linux centric site would have to have a link to a central site that would be where votes are tallied. Or, if that can not be arranged, we could at least have an official Slashdot representative that we vote on here. If other community groups, such as Freshmeat or even portal sites such as Netcenter, Yahoo, etc, want to participate they can "vote" for their own representative. Together all the representatives can "vote" for the one representative to the industry, or they can all talk directly to the industry themselves.
Of course, in the true American spirit, this in no way restricts free speach. Anyone on Slashdot or any other forum can say whatever they want. If they don't like what our representative is saying and they are convincing enough, they could get him/her ousted and replaced by a more appropriate person. I don't think any representative should have an official "term of office." The community should be able to take a vote at any time and kick anyone out for any reason. This would more accurately represent the fast moving pace of our community. Similarly, I don't think there should be "term limits" as there is no "term" to start off with. If any one person thought that it was about time to get another rep, simply put up a web page, rally the people, and convince CmdrTaco to put up another vote.
Am I crazy, or what?
Re:"This car is crap, it crashed into a wall!"
on
Scott Hacker Responds
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, but this is just bashing. Sure, it may not have been in the cleanest state out there, but the point is that it had got into that state in the hands of someone who has enough of a clue about computers to have at least two OSs installed. That doesn't make him a God, but it gives us an indication that he's no moron.
The point is that, for whatever reason, a simple upgrade killed his machine. That shouldn't happen, whatever the reasons.
Sorry, but I don't think many people realize that you have to be a little above the "no moron" level to be messing around with Linux programs that are beta or similar level. He didn't say what particular program needed the new libraries, but I would hazard a guess that it wasn't even at the 1.0 level yet.
No, Linux is not ready for the masses to be messing with pre 1.0 versions of software. But that's the beauty of the system. It gives more "advanced" users - ones who actually can program and understand how libraries work - the ability to do so. That's something I don't believe the "journalist" and computer "experts" that people look for reviews of products understand. Probably because the "journalist" and "experts" don't understand it themselves.
Simply because you can do something with Linux does not mean you should. One has to learn self restraint with a Linux system. Now, if you want to learn something and go in knowing that you may screw up your system then you are welcome to. But don't complain that it's too hard to install pre-1.0 software that requires special, just released, versions of libraries when they are not ready for end-users yet.
The only defense to the point I'm trying to make that I can think of at the moment would be if the program he was trying to install was at the 1.0 level. If that's the case, it should not have been.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think this is completely accurate, at least as far as the wording of your statement is concerned. "Settlements" are usually not handled in-court, and this is not part of that process. This is the in-court case and has nothing to do with some other out-of-court agreement that the DOJ and MS may come to outside of court. If they do come to some sort of agreement then the court would approve the agreement, but this is not part of that.
It would take a MAJOR CRASH in the stock market for Al Gore to lose
What the hell do you think is going on right now? It's not all happening in one day but it still has the same result.
Wrong. I'm a software engineer and I worked for a fabless semiconductor company for a couple years. You have no idea how similar the disciplines of SW and silicon engineering are. And, yes, if you have the talent, you can design chips at home for "effectively nil." Just like for SW, all you need is GCC and Make, with all the free stuff available for silicon dev, the same is true. Ya, you can spend millions on QuickTurn boxes and proprietairy development tools, but you don't have to.
...)
Well, I certainly wouldn't claim that I know everything there is to know about chip design, but I do know the basics. I still believe that it would cost significant money for the hobbiest to get involved in chip design. ANY expense over that of the standard computer is too much, IMHO. With software design, I can get involved with zero additional cost. With chip design I'd at least need to purchase a FPGA and possibly additional stuff.
Wrong again. Have you ever heard of FPGA's? (Field Programmable Gate Arrays like Xilinx, Altera,
Yes, I have. But what use are they to me personally? Can I plug one into my Pentium II slot on my motherboard and have it run? I'd need to purchase the chips themselves and presumably a board or some other device to program them, right? How much would that cost? I'd think it would be pretty expensive, as compared to the cost of a PC. You can purchase a relatively decent PC for $1000 now, and be able to get involved in OSS for $0 additional cost. How much are all the tools and hardware you'd need to get involved in FPGA's, and what use would it be when you're done? I admit I don't know the answers to these questions, and that's why I'm asking them, but I would expect the answer to be significant (meaning over $100 for EVERYTHING that you'd need).
While there are circuit and CPU emulators that help work with chip design that's pretty useless to the end-user/programmer. Wrong yet again. Do you really have no clue on how chips are designed? SW Emulators/Simulators are exactly the tools that would allow the guy at home to design, test, and debug his own chip. So chip development can be done on the cheap. The outsourcing of the fabbing is the only expensive part but there are ways around this. Some schools have small volume educational fabbing deals with some universities, and going to a venture capitalist with a finished proven design is more likely to equal investment than a slick sales pitch by itself.
I don't think you got my point. Even if you could take an OSS chip design and tweak it, what use would a FPGA be to the average hobbiest? Unless you could plug it into a standard motherboard to replace your "normal" CPU it's pretty useless in my view. Plus, you'd have the extra cost of the FPGA chips and any other required equipment as mentioned before. My point is that "on the cheap" is not equivalent to "free" or no cost.
Nope, hardware and software design are exactly the same, you just don't have the background/experience to realize this.
I admit I don't have the background or experience with hardware design, but it seems like common sense to realize that the cost involved and the benefit obtained from OS hardware as opposed to OS software are nowhere near the same.
I'm not quite sure how calling the Rio a "peripheral" excludes it from this law. In fact, I'm not
quite sure how you can call the Rio a peripheral, since it's actually useful even without a
computer, as opposed to a printer, scanner, modem, etc. Nonetheless, this law seems to
apply as easily to Winamp and RealJukebox as it does to the Rio (after all, is software not a
device, albeit not a physical one?)
NO! Software is not a device. It's thinking like this that has put us into the horrible mess with software patents and such. If anything, software should be copyrighted at most. Where have you been the last five years? Have you paid any attention?
Well I have 256MB RAM and I haven't swapped yet. That's with a 33MB X server, 35MB Netscape, KDE, a couple 10MB mySql severs, and all the "normal" services.
It only used 60MB with all this running and doing a full kernel compile with -j on my SMP box. (load up to 35, yikes). I did get some "gcc: vfork: Resource temporarily unavailable" messages during the make -k modules, but I had plenty of swap left so it must have been processes or something. Had to limit the concurent jobs to get it to go.
I'd say, tentatively, that if you have 256MB RAM you probably don't need more than 128MB unless you're doing some serious number crunching. And, you'll probably run into other issues also. I've got two 127MB partitions on separate SCSI channels just to be sure...
Er, if you have two swap partitions on the same disk just use different priorities and Linux will fill one up before trying to use the other. If you have them on different disks, use the same priority so that it load balances between the disks (even better if you have them on dual SCSI channels like I do :-)
Beggars cannot be choosers. Basically, linux needs every single bit of help it can get from Apple and every other
commercial company.
Um, we are not beggars. We don't need every single bit of help we can get from any commercial companies.
I don't think you understand. We got to where we are without any commercial companies help. Once we reached the level of stability and reliability that was acceptable to commercial companies they started comming to us. Yes, we do "sign" petitions to let companies know that there are a significant number of people out there that would pay for their software if it was ported to Linux. I don't see this as begging at all. It's more like doing those companies a favor by clueing them in on an untapped market.
You know, Apple.. if they wanted to.. could really screw linux to the wall in a commercial sence by just porting
MacOS X to Intel.
And how would they do that? Would they make the complete OS open source? Would they still charge for their OS? Why would small businesses (those that are primarily using Linux now such as "mom and pop" ISP's) switch to using a proprietary (at least parts) OS that they'd have to pay out the wazoo (relatively speaking) for when they can get a stable, reliable, OS that does what they need done for free?
"Why bother with the diffulticies of Linux when you can have the power of UNIX with the ease of use of the
Macintosh. - Now on your Intel PC"
That may work for the desktop, but not for servers. And, as I said above, it wouldn't sway the majority of current Linux users. Actually, I don't personally care if Linux ever makes major inroads in the "desktop" market. I use it on my desktop, and I have all the programs that I have a need for. If others have issues with using Linux on the desktop, use another OS. Or wait until it is made more "user friendly." So for all I care, let MacOS X "take over the desktop."
It probably wont happen any time soon... but it could... so be affraid.
Er, afraid of Apple?!?
Ummm... which rules are these? Are these the rules that say you have to give away millions of dollars worth of
R&D away for free, with no hope of renumeration? No Thanks. Those rules suck.
Well, welcome to the real world!
It is clear that we each must deal with any other as that other would deal with us. Microsoft choose to deal by the
laws of commerce which exist as and when they conduct their actions.
It is also plainly clear that the majority, no vast majority, of people believe that it is just to deal with Microsoft in the way we are. I presume that they believe (I certainly do) that it would be just for someone else to deal with me in the same manner.
As far as the server Linux port goes, and speaking from several years of familiarity with Notes/Domino, I'm not
really that interested. Lotus' track record for Unix versions hasn't been great; the AIX and Solaris version have
been buggy, slow, or they require a _very_ specific set of OS patches/configuration to run efficiently... By analogy,
that would mean that the Linux version may run on the 2.2.7 kernel (for example), but not, say, 2.2.9 . (And don't
dare try putting it on a development kernal)
Well if that's the case they shouldn't even waste their time with a server port...
Er, if you have gcc you should have g++. They come in the same package, so I don't know why someone would build it without the C++ language.
A more valid test would be:
#include
int main(void)
{
printf("hellow world");
return 0;
}
This compiled with gcc (egcs) turns out to be 3012 bytes when stripped on Linux-ix86 with -Os and 2976 with g++ (after changing filename to hello.cpp).
A more realistic test is to compile with -O6 -march=pentiumpro, which are the options I use all the time. In this test, a stripped C compile is 3012 (oops, must no be much to optimize there!) and a stripped C++ compile is 4028 (probably due to alignment for pentiumpro optimizations or something).
Damn, I wish < and > worked!!!
Er, I think the previous poster was surmizing that in the future they will have a card or chip in your PC's that can encrypt anything. Sure you could use it for encrypting a network link, but you could also use it to encrypt email, hard disk partitions, or anything else you wrote the program for. Kinda what others were saying about being able to encrypt a 10G HD in 8 seconds (I don't know if this is true, I haven't done the math).
Even so, it's probably a moot point. Even "personal" encryption software such as the PGP from network associates includes a "corporate" key in their commercial version of the product. In essence, it encrypts with the public corporate key that is setup by the network administrators before the product is made available to the users. Then, the corporate IT staff could decrypt any email they wanted with "proper" authority.
So, even if this thing turns into a device that could be used as a generic encryption box for any applicatoin I don't see applications getting a corporate blessing unless they get to tag on their public key also.
Here's a question: With the way the DOJ v. Microsoft trial has been going do you think corporations are starting to/will rethink their policy on reading email and not letting employees encrypt their email without them having a key. Seems that, if Bill Gates and the other players encrypted their email it would be kinda hard for the DOJ to argue forcing them to give up the key. If Microsoft the corporation had the key they might have had a little more luck. So does anyone forsee a relaxation of corporate policy here?
> Would you not expect that setting up a web server with at least software RAID would allow
/. certainly does. The "portal" sites must (to store your user preferences and also the stories/articles that are displayed based on your login ID). I assume Freshmeat does. I would think that other "news" sites that list abstracts of stories do (do you really think someone custom makes each and every news story, or they just store the text/page in a database?) Certainly financial sites do that store news for companies and chat areas.
/usr and /var on a RAID with RedHat 6.0) If they were interested in giving their users the heads up on the much improved RAID support they should have included the standard RAID drivers that come with the kernel and put a note in to let their customers make the decision to use a non-integrated patch or not.
for
> faster responses, especially if there were databases on the same box on RAID devices?
Not necessarily. If the entire dataset fits into the RAM cache anyway, there won't be any disk
activity for most web serving events. Databases + RAID sounds like a better application, but
most web sites don't use databases.
Most sites that I go to DO have a database, or at least I assume so.
In fact, I can't think of a web site that should not use a database that I would regularly visit. If they don't, then the content can't change that much and it's not worth "regularly" visiting. For those types of sites (static, not changing regularly) you're probably better of using Netscape's or IE's ability to check for changes and notify you than constantly pulling it up manually.
> I suppose the reason this was not tested is because, IMHO, RedHat screwed up and
included a
> non-integrated version of the RAID code in their kernels.
RedHat included a working version of software RAID. AFAIK, the RAID code in the plain 2.2
tree is not as recent/stable as the code shipped with RedHat.
What RedHat included was not what I considered production quality (even though I'm using it now). I HAD a RAID setup and when I installed ended up deleting the partitions and remaking the RAID volumes because there was no "warning" that RedHat needed the special upgrade force command to migrate the disks. Plus, they give you no way of installing on a RAID device anyway, so why did they feel the need to include a "non-standard" kernel anyway (you have to install on a "regular" partition, drop to single user, unmount almost everything, setup your RAID devices, copy over the data, and reboot in order to get "standard" directories like
> Ever wonder why RedHat has not posted a 2.2.10 kernel?
Maybe because there are still some filesystem-corrupting bugs in it?
There were in 2.2.9, but AFAIK 2.2.10 is stable. AND it fixes several security bugs which I can't protect against because of my RAID situation. To include "custom" (meaning not part of the official kernel as released by Linus et.al.) kernel patches, even if publically available, is irresponsible for a company like RedHat IF they don't take the responsibility to keep those patches (even if they didn't create the original) up to date so that it can be applied to the production kernel as new releases come out.
> I guess we'll just have to wait for mingo to create the patch for 2.2.10.
Ingo is working on a new version of RAID for Linux 2.3, the last I heard.
Last I heard he was also supposed to be working on the patches against the 2.2 series kernel also. At least I and a bunch of other people on the linux-raid list hope so...
Think Frame Relay.
Limit the burst rate to 150% of the "CIR" or whatever the customer is paying for. That would keep the users "happy."
I don't know the breezecom stuff, but if it can't handle much more than 1Mb then I wouldn't sell that speed. Wireless is a shared technology. Unless you can garentee that they will always be able to get 1Mb at a minimum then I would bump the top speed you "sell" to maybe 512Kb and let them burst to 150%, or 768Kb.
I have questions about the RAID support in Linux and if this could not have been used to obtain better results. Specifically, I'm talking about software raid and not hardware RAID solutions.
:-)
Does *BSD have software RAID? How does it compare to Linux's software RAID? Would you not expect that setting up a web server with at least software RAID would allow for faster responses, especially if there were databases on the same box on RAID devices?
I suppose the reason this was not tested is because, IMHO, RedHat screwed up and included a non-integrated version of the RAID code in their kernels. Ever wonder why RedHat has not posted a 2.2.10 kernel? If you loaded up RedHat 6.0 and created software RAID filesystems you can't upgrade because you can't patch the later kernels with the new raid code.
Yes, I follow linux-raid and there is supposed to be a way you can apply the patch to later kernels, ignore the rejects, manually make a few changes in some files, and supposedly be "safe" to run your new-style RAID disks. However, even though I have a DAT drive and can backup everything I'm not taking that chance on a "production" kernel. If it was 2.3.x I would not be complaining. I guess we'll just have to wait for mingo to create the patch for 2.2.10.
Yes, this is a troll, but I'm hopeing that it will put a fire under someone's but at RedHat to provide some assistance. No, I don't plan on making any contributions and fixing the code myself. If I tried, you would probably find your disks fried beyond repair because I don't know the code base yet. (But the way it's going I may have a good chance of getting up to speed before a patch comes out
Anyway, that's why they could not have tested software RAID even if they wanted to. Thanks for letting me flame, downgrade me if you must...
Er, lots of places loose power at the same time on a regular basis, or so I would think.
Millville is having thunderstorms and the high was supposed to be 97 today. I'd say it's probably a combination of those thunderstorms and brownout because of too many people cranking thier AC's.
Cape May is similar, with thunderstorms and a high of 95.
Fullshear is having thunderstorms all the way through Thursday... (ever hear of lightning striking a power distribution field?).
Riyadh/Khaled has a high of 109 - holly crap! but "plain old" Riyadh is only 32 - must be celcius... Besides, I don't know enough about their power systems to trust it anyway.
Get a life, and a clue. If you took five minutes to check out the weather at these locations you can see that there is a pretty good expectation that they would loose power at this time.
Now you go to bed with no cookie and no fireworks (Since 75% of your sites were in the USA I figured you're in the USA and would have been able to watch them if you behaved properly).
Wellfleet - er - Bay - er - Nortel has IPV6 capabilities on thier routers. Are you telling me that cisco does not support IPV6 in their latest IOS?
All right, this is the second comment that I've seen that I would personally classify as FUD. I wish I had moderator rights at the time so I could downgrade the comment.
/. even know what a RFC is anymore...
If you read the RFC's you will see that they have addressed all of the concerns you list above. There are already two other comments listing some specific responses to your concerns, but I humbly suggest you visit the 6bone and read the friggin RFC's yourself.
I thought this site was supposed to be "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." I also thought the "nerdy" thing to do would be to read up on a topic before making senseless comments. May be that's the "old nerd" way of doing things.
I wonder how many (what percentage of) people on
Actually, I believe this is "taken care of" in the IPV6 standard. It's my understanding that there is a "provider" part of the address and a end-user part of the address. There has also been some talk on the 6bone list within the past month or two about how the organization that will be/is handing out addresses is setup and functions.
As far as routing, that's in the IPV6 "standard." They can't use the same routing protocols as in use today.
While I'm not sure that my statements are 100% acurate, I do believe that they are somewhat more than yours. You should at least know something about a topic before posting...
Check out RFC2472, it describes how IPV6 addresses SHOULD be chosen for PPP links. It appears to me that if a node (your home PC) has any EUI-48 or EUI64 address configured on any interface, it should use these addresses in "suggesting" an IPV6 address to the PPP peer in the config request. So, if your PC has an Ethernet card, as mine does, then you should use your Ethernet MAC as part of the IPV6 address (the "interface" part). There is even a method for turning the 48-bit MAC into the 64-bit interface ID.
All IPV6 related RFC's are available via 6bone
Well, I guess this answers my questions in comment #3!
But, how accurate is this going to be? How often will the mix of dynamic/static content be updated to reflect current statistics? Are the ratios changeable within the benchmark and will testers use the changeable parameters to show their server/OS/hardware is "better" than the competition.
Besides, who wants to pay $800 for a friggin benchmark test?
Web servers are frequently asked to send users static Web pages.
/. is heavily dynamic (are there any pages that are static?). I know my homepages are netscape and yahoo are dynamic. All search engines serve dynamic content. Certainly web sites designed for E-Commerce, the market for IBM's web servers, are dynamic (searching for products, filling out order forms, etc).
With all these web benchmarks coming out using static web pages, I'm wondering if there are some statistics available somewhere that can either confirm or deny this.
I know
For some reason I don't think the statement in IBM's release is totally accurate. Why not create a new benchmark or modify an existing one that had a mix of dynamic content that matched certain typical uses for web servers. A search engine server, a portal server, an e-commerce server, etc. This would give more accurate real-world results, IMHO.
You don't get it. In the USA a company can't advertise that they will provide a certain level of service and then not provide it. When they do it on purpose, it's called fraud. I don't know how it works in Sweden, but in the USA companies can get into a lot of trouble for doing this.
I'm actually really not sure what kind of response you are expecting. I'll hence have to assume that your post is a troll.
Er, this sounds like a versioning problem with the library creators. If there is that many differences between libjpeg 6.0 and 6.0b that could possibly break a program then they should have different version numbers.
You can also specify exactly what version of the library you want dynamically linked into your program. You don't have to rely on the symbolic links and only link to "libc.so.6" you can instead link directly to libc-2.1.1.so or libc-2.1.0.so or whatever floats your boat.
Of course, this assumes one knows what one is doing. There's not a whole lot you can do if you are working with binary rpm's, but if you are working with the original source code for the packages, you can massage the source to link with the correct library version it needs and not screw with the "standard" version of the library that everything else on your system needs. If you are using a distribution instead of making your own system, I would not recommend upgrading any system libraries until the vendor of said distributions makes them "officially" available. You can still install a new library version, but do it in a different location and change your LD_LIBRARY_PATH or put in the appropriate linker search path so you don't overwrite the system libraries.
HTH
What if the entire world
was democratic like the United States?
Well, I hope that the reason that you didn't say "a Democracy like the United States" was because you realize it's not. We are a representative republic. There are democratic like parts to our system, such as the ability to vote for your representative, but we are in no shape or form a true democracy.
In a representative republic the people vote for a representative who is supposed to know more about the topics that are getting voted on and make a more informed decision on what should be law and not. The people have a mechanism of taking a representative out of office if they do not accurately represent the values and beliefs of their consituents.
This is possibly what the Linux community needs. Just like in the good ol U.S. of A. there are idiots and members of the community that don't share the values of the majority. However, even if they are in the minority, their views and the ability to express them must be protected. We should, however, have members of our community that we "vote" on to represent us. I don't honestly believe that anyone who "volunteered" for such a role would be one to go around and say idiotic things or put users of other OS's down just because they are not using Linux. If so, we could always vote them out of "office" and let others know that they no longer represent the Linux community.
If this were to work, there would have to be a way of tracking votes, and every Linux centric site would have to have a link to a central site that would be where votes are tallied. Or, if that can not be arranged, we could at least have an official Slashdot representative that we vote on here. If other community groups, such as Freshmeat or even portal sites such as Netcenter, Yahoo, etc, want to participate they can "vote" for their own representative. Together all the representatives can "vote" for the one representative to the industry, or they can all talk directly to the industry themselves.
Of course, in the true American spirit, this in no way restricts free speach. Anyone on Slashdot or any other forum can say whatever they want. If they don't like what our representative is saying and they are convincing enough, they could get him/her ousted and replaced by a more appropriate person. I don't think any representative should have an official "term of office." The community should be able to take a vote at any time and kick anyone out for any reason. This would more accurately represent the fast moving pace of our community. Similarly, I don't think there should be "term limits" as there is no "term" to start off with. If any one person thought that it was about time to get another rep, simply put up a web page, rally the people, and convince CmdrTaco to put up another vote.
Am I crazy, or what?
Sorry, but this is just bashing. Sure, it may not have been in the cleanest state out there, but the point is that it had got into that state in the hands of
someone who has enough of a clue about computers to have at least two OSs installed. That doesn't make him a God, but it gives us an indication that
he's no moron.
The point is that, for whatever reason, a simple upgrade killed his machine. That shouldn't happen, whatever the reasons.
Sorry, but I don't think many people realize that you have to be a little above the "no moron" level to be messing around with Linux programs that are beta or similar level. He didn't say what particular program needed the new libraries, but I would hazard a guess that it wasn't even at the 1.0 level yet.
No, Linux is not ready for the masses to be messing with pre 1.0 versions of software. But that's the beauty of the system. It gives more "advanced" users - ones who actually can program and understand how libraries work - the ability to do so. That's something I don't believe the "journalist" and computer "experts" that people look for reviews of products understand. Probably because the "journalist" and "experts" don't understand it themselves.
Simply because you can do something with Linux does not mean you should. One has to learn self restraint with a Linux system. Now, if you want to learn something and go in knowing that you may screw up your system then you are welcome to. But don't complain that it's too hard to install pre-1.0 software that requires special, just released, versions of libraries when they are not ready for end-users yet.
The only defense to the point I'm trying to make that I can think of at the moment would be if the program he was trying to install was at the 1.0 level. If that's the case, it should not have been.