No, you are wrong, you still dont understand slackware...
if YOU want to *learn*, you MUST get the hands dirty and do the needed things... research, read scripts, read man pages and howtos, even compile.... slackware is perfect for that!
if you dont want to to learn about the details, then slackware is not for you, no matter how "c00l" it might make you look!
if you want a distro to use and dont care how things work, use ubuntu, mint, mandriva and use the mouse, bullets and drop-down boxes
if i want to learn how a car work, you have to pick your ass up, release the steering wheel and go check the engine, the bottom of the car, the breaks, the gears, fuses, etc... if you feel like it, disassemble the motor!! no matter what, you will need to get your hands dirty.
a blinking oil lamp and break lights might be easy, but is not enough to "learn how stuff works". so you dont want to lean how a car works? fine, don't mess with the engine, please!
but they could have resources to attack Gibraltar, entering Spain in the war as a agreement to reclaim Gibraltar. After that the axis would close the Mediterranean to the Brithish and the Allies, helping the all war to the axis field and making things harder for the British
Of course, that would mean that Spain would finally try to take Portugal (the oldest British ally treaty in Europe), the Brititsh would invade/help Portugal (doesnt matter if they wanted help or not), forcing the axis to help Spain (it was weaker than Italy, specially after the civil war). History tells that Portugal is hard to conqueror and keep and would be very useful foothold for a ally invasion to
If Portugal fall in to axis hands, Europe would be a locked in in the axis hands, the the allies would invade Azores to secure a key strategic point in the Atlantic and then probably, the North of Africa would be easy to take from the British. Most middle east were anti-British, so easily for the axis to gain more allies if the British started to lose. Taking the oil from the middle east, the axis would gain a new force and could even attack the URSS from 2 fronts without the easy access to the rest of the colonies and oil, the British would lose its strength. Argentina and other central and south America countries, more related to the Hitler regime, might even try to take British lands, making it even weaker.
it would then be a matter of the US, URSS, the rest of British "lands" (specially India and Australia) and China against the Axis
if Portugal didnt fall, Spain would be a "new" Italy, using axis resources needed elsewhere and at very least, German troops passing by the "free" France zone would be targed by the resistance
In war, small changes may make huge difference in the outcome of the battles, so this is all "what if"!
the problem is that the SSD gives you *NO* way to really defrag a file!!
when you tell the SSD to move sector 120 to sector 32 (so it keep close with the begin of a file on sector 31), the SSD will move the data to the next free sector because of the wear levelling.
even if you ask to write on the same sector 120, the SSD WILL MOVE the data to the next free sector.
So defrag a SSD not only is a waste of time, but burns faster the SSD writes cycles and may probably INCREASE the fragmentation (if the free sectors arent continuous)
reading fragmented files on the SSD isnt a problem... writing small fragmented files on a SSD DOES take a performance hit if there is not enough free sectors. TRIM will keep the free sector count high enough so this doesnt became a bigger problem.
Of course, users should not fill up a SSD, as it needs the free space to work well... the more free space, the better:)
one more reason to use only free software... closed apps, abandoned software, obsolete apps, etc are set to disappear with time, its the survival of the strongest and being free software is huge strength. being a closed and bad app is half way to die, even if popular (see the flash, attacked by all sides, is set to be replaced and irrelevant sooner of later)
but hey, nothing forbids closed apps builds of building a repository
i'm not saying that switching to open source is more expensive, for most things i dont believe its true... but even if was true, for most countries this doesnt matter much, because keeping the proprietary software sends most of the money to another country (if not all) and investing in open source you are supporting the local IT companies (that do the local support and implementation)... the investment in the local business improves the local economy, generating more taxes and wealth
i also have a atom (dual core) and works fine with kde4... actually, its slower with gnome than with kde4 (it been ages since gnome was lighter than kde, nautilus and evolution are the worst, dog slow)
yes, isnt as fast as a top CPU, but works pretty well and i dont see the cpu being used too much, os its still free for other apps.
As all atoms, just dont open too many apps at same time, the lack of memory and cpu power adds up a lot faster
i used it to have nfs from a linux server and worked by several months... then one day the nfs stop worked...all others unix servers could work with the nfs, only the SFU one stop working...
after 2 days trying to debug and solve the problem, openned a service request at microsoft. 2 weeks later and after several tests, reinstalls, reboots and such still didnt work.
the MS support were always saying that they had little experience with SFU, that no one used it, etc, etc
i finally gave up and workaround with a samba server exporting a nfs share... ugly, but at least works
He should learn the most basic rule of nettiquete: dont do to others what you dont want other to do it to you.
If there is no problem, then we all would like to know all his internet usage and maybe even his private life... he should publish it every day, if he doesnt have anything to hide...
Its called privacy, because is private, not because its bad
I also had problems with a CDMA usb modem (still unsolved) and a huwaei 3G usb modem... so i had no network... i had to wait for another computer to connect to the internet and search about the problems. Also, network manager edit windows gives a "access denied" popup, but mostly works...or maybe not...
But what i see as the worst thing might have been the lack of waning for the known problems for those installing/upgrading. The ubuntu release notes are hidden in the site, the update release notes warn about anything, so users think its OK to upgrade where its a "dangerous" thing to do.
IMHO, after reading all the foruns and bugs, its clear that there where too many critical open bugs (video not working, DSL not connection, 3G cards faiiling, etc), not solved because it was already in freeze state. Most of this bugs had a fix, other still dont have.
Canonical have also done what commercial software is always doing and failing, deliver a buggy product just to because its the "release date". Almost all people prefer to wait one, 2 or even more months to fix the critical issues than updating or installing and have a not working system. Not entering in the X11 and lack of network are very critical problems, as make the system unusable for most people.
We all can accept problems not found in Release candidates, but most of this were already reported before the release and many had fix waiting for the "release" to enter the proposed packages. There is no excuse for delivering a software, knowing that will not work for many of its users and that could be fixed by delaying a little the release.
Canonical and Ubuntu have lost a lot more by delivering on time a broken system than by delaying the release. They could always say that the quality of the release is more important than the release date, that unlike most closed source software, Ubuntu prefers quality over artificial deadlines.
Unfortunately they have sent the wrong message with this release. Canonical didnt learned with the past and failed on this one.
ps: for those thinking that the release could be postpone forever to fix all bugs, you are not forced to wait to fix a broken package, you can always revert to the previous working version. the same thing could be said about the ubuntu release for users, but only for new installs, for upgrades, if there is no warning for the users before the upgrade, reverting isnt that easy.
"Then your system admin is an idiot. Plain and simple. There is absolutely no other reason for that being possible."
Its called security hole... any system can have then, but windows always had more, its usually easier to break by design (but its getting better designed in each release) and the lusers are usually alot simpler to trick doing the wrong thing
"WTF? There's a clickable link right there for "Add Programs", where your admin can advertise available programs through Active Directory."
yep, everyone knows how to work with AD, its plain simple in usability!! NOT!!
you are trying to compare windows and linux, yet you use both sides for windows ( home user and enterprise ) yet only home user for linux for comparing
if you are a home user, you have a set of problems for both OS, in enterprise you have others... example: text files and installing programs in linux on a enterprise is almost totally blocked for users in a enterprise, a decent admin will do all that and the user just use the machine... just like windows Linux admin for a home user might look harder than windows, but in a enterprise its the oposite
Finally, there are the false issues, linux for home user arent really that different from windows to admin... linux have a lot more choice/flexibility, that might confuse some users, it have advanced apps that are always hard to config and manage, but windows also have its own problems! to start, most of then arent administrated at all, the most common administration action in windows is to reinstall. then a user have to install many apps in windows to make it useful... then update then manually to fix security problems. If you use apps that are build for that system, everything is fine... if you try to use things not designed for that system, you are screwed!... this for BOTH OS in any case, users/admin must know what they are doing, not knowing, searching, reading, learning will only lead to complains that it "doesnt work"
>- As we start running out of IPv4 addresses, ISPs will start selling them to each other. Suddenly, we'll start using IP addresses wisely.
problem: routing... isnt that easy to "move" IPv4 blocks
>- There are only 111 million active domain names. Most of those point to shared IPs on virtual hosts and domain name squatters.
problem: yes, only servers need IP...NOT! clients also need IPs, nat can work for a few apps, but if the use of nat increase you turn the internet as a "one way" communication channel... if all people used NAT, even local address would start to became full on the ISP side
>- With so few actual required IP addresses, the IPv6 transition will never happen.
problem: we all need one IP... again, NAT fake that you have one IP, in reality you are sharing it with many others... enforce NAT and you will need to solve the communication between peers... do that and you will saturate the NAT with millions of p2p connections... it might even work, but the ipv6 is the clean solution and sooner or later will happend... remember that ARPNET was disconnect only a few years ago, it took time also to deploy ipv4
>- Consider UTF-16 and UTF-32. They basically delayed multi-language support world-wide until UTF-8 made it painless for developers, allowing them to continue using 'char' data types in C for strings.
UTF-8 is already the better thing... there are still many people using local codepages (windows fault mostly), but UTF-8 is here and each day more apps use it. UTF-16 and UTF-32 fail because are alot more heavier, just to support a few more people (5 languages? 8? not the hundred supported by UTF8 )
>- NAT may have been invented by geeks for various cool reasons. However, it dominates the web because our ISPs like to charge extra money for multiple IP addresses, and we consumers like to dick them out of it.
NAT is a hack that mostly works... ISP like it also... but ISP also would like to better manage routing... the main reason they dont deploy IPV6 is the older hardware support (or lack of) and lack of request... if windows didnt support it, no one would request it... now that MS start to support IPV6, we will see a increase of the IPv6 deploy... more people start to use ipv6, the faster it will grow
>- ISPs dynamically switch our IP addresses to protect us. A dynamically changing network is far harder to attack, especially when consumers know virtually nothing about security. On a drive through South Carolina recently, I found about 80% of all WiFi points were wide open!
bull sh*t... when dynamic IPs increase security? it you have a open, insecure port, find it , exploit it and install the rootkit... if IP changes, it will still call home... it can only increase the security if the IP change during the attack (little probability) and increase a little the time to scan ( retry offline in static IP vs retry all in dynamic IP), but zombies network dont care about that... with IPv6 is even harder to scan for holes, as the IP space is HUGE
but if you (or the ISP) want, change your IP in ipv6 whenever you want, if that makes you happy...
>- ISPs would love to force customers onto another level of NAT. They could kill a ton of P2P traffic, with a great excuse for the FCC: "I ran out of addresses!"
most ISP dont really care about P2P, other than eating their bandwidth... also, with static IP of ipv6
>- The SIP protocol was designed by committee, like IPv6. It basically doesn't work across NATs worth a damn, and it's slowed VoIP adoption by years.
all 2 way communication have problems with NAT... some work better than others, most need external servers to "proxy" or coordinate the NAT transversal, but that require servers for all protocols and limit the traffic to UDP
yes, ipv6 is not perfect, its taking ages to deploy, but in the end will win, just like ipv4 won over all other protocols
people managing the network and dns will know its network address, just like ipv4,... its always the same and isnt different from memorizing a phone number, a address, a name... yes, its bigger than the ipv4 one, but not hard to memorize, its just different and new
then it comes to the host block, that as you should know, its by default the mac address... so if they have to create a DHCP mapping, they already need to "know" the MAC (or a easy way to know it)... the ipv6 IP is just merging the 2 parts... if you dont manage the dhcp, you still have to know some way/app to map a MAC to a machine,
dont like to memorize MAC? simples, dont use then and use small numbers for the machines, just like ipv4... but really, why memorize IPs? i know some IPs on my work network (ipv4), but not even near to 1%, and i know then because in some servers its faster to write the ip than the dns
Its simple... when asked for your IM address, say you use gtalk/gmail/jabber/xmpp and that you dont have MSM (you cant, you dont like, you dont agree with the MS policy, etc), then ask back if they have gmail or any other xmpp based service.If they complain that dont want to have 2 IM open, say they can install multiprotocol clients.
in the start, you will be joked, later you will see some people starting to use other IM networks and when reach the critical mass, you will see that people start using both network, and even later msn will slowly lose people because of the virus/spam/etc
yes, in the start you will not be able to talk with many people, but that is required to force others to open up, if sooner or later they want to talk with you, they will have to open one account and after that is easier...
I too use backuppc to a external HD to backup my main computer and my family systems
it do data deduplication (file level, not block level) and compression... its easy to use and works perfect.
i swap HDs every week
now backuppc needs to add a option for block level deduplication (usually is a little more efficient in size for many files) and, more important, upgrade its rsync protocol (the latest versions of rsync improved alot the protocol, faster and smarter)
hey, you also have IE in Mac... does anybody use it? does it even work with any site today?
does it even work in recent MaOSX?
silverlight on mac is just like IE, it is just one excuse to say isnt windows dependent and stop any monopoly process... it will always be late, obsolete and full of bugs/incomplete features... after winning the market, they will discontinue it.
ohh well... nothing new here... nothing to see, move along...
Ask your admins to change the proxy PAC to not using the isInNet function, as this requires the DNS to check if every domain/hostname exists before deciding what proxy to use... isnt easy to solve...
you are right, i didnt wrote that well... the corrent samba 3 have the AD mode is just as client
it have PDC mode, where he is the domain master and authentication server, that linked with a LDAP servers is the reallity the same as the windows AD , minus the domain policy
Samba also do the have the AD mode, central authentication and profiles, no need to run samba as workgroup... so no need for a windows server for AD
- Have easy central printer queues useless... its faster and safer to directly use a printserver and configure the clients to use it. If the server goes down, you can still print... but if you really want centralized queues, cups already do that, no need for a windows server
- Have easy central file shares with easy to apply security
ooh good... samba do this since... ever... no need for a windows server
- Install WSUS on the server. It's a free addon. Poof! Microsoft patch management! (...) Works well and can't beat the price.
yes you can... you still have to pay for a windows server... this ones are free:
depending on what you want, just save bandwidth? try http://update-accelerator.advproxy.net/ or even a plain squid with lots of HD space. this is what most small companies want.
want full control of patchs and all packages/updates installed? check the http://wpkg.org/
as a bonus, something that windows doesnt give you, unattended windows installations, with full patchs and software: http://unattended.sourceforge.net/
beat this price!
- Group Policy (install/update software, apply software settings, lock down security on all systems, etc.)
Ok, this one you cant still do with samba3, but samba4 will have this.
if you really need this, check the http://www.nitrobit.com/grouppolicy.html, it can be configures to use samba and a openldap server, but it costs money (but hey, still less than a windows server)
most small companies dont use GPO anyway and most of the more important things can be controled by the local policy (and pushing the.pol file to each client)
- Login scripts (and have install or apply updates to any updates to programs that don't do updates via WSUS and Group Policy, e.g. Firefox, Java, etc.)
ooh good again... check above... no need for a windows server
- Oh, and yeah, install your antivirus server here too.
most of then can be installed in any windows, no need for a windows server
Current multicore designs have too small cache, and too slow memory bandwidth
No, this is a intel problem, not a multicore design fault... AMD cpus/cores require less cache than intel and have internal memory access and controlers, so they havent the memory bandwidth problems of intel
we have about 4 machines with 2 quadcore running ESX and about 100 machines (many linux and windows) and 64GB of ram in each esx node... and we have still about 50% of resources free
so grab one quad core machine, with lots of ram (for oracle RAC+ASM+DB you will need at least about 4GB for the 3 RAC nodes, the more the better)
as this is for testing, i would but a plain quadcore PC, with 6 to 8 Gb of ram, install a linux 64bit with xen or vmware esxi
if you have more money, you can buy more ram or even cpu, but you dont really need a blade nor a server, a plain PC will do
ohh i forgot... HD, buy at least 2 HD, to spread the IO load, if you want raid, then you need 4 HD for a raid10... you can also try iscsi with a openfiler based nas/san (another PC, with lot of HDs and several gigabit network card)... of course, the server also need several gigabit network card to increase the IO bandwidth of iscsi
Slashdot Mirror
No, you are wrong, you still dont understand slackware...
if YOU want to *learn*, you MUST get the hands dirty and do the needed things... research, read scripts, read man pages and howtos, even compile.... slackware is perfect for that!
if you dont want to to learn about the details, then slackware is not for you, no matter how "c00l" it might make you look!
if you want a distro to use and dont care how things work, use ubuntu, mint, mandriva and use the mouse, bullets and drop-down boxes
if i want to learn how a car work, you have to pick your ass up, release the steering wheel and go check the engine, the bottom of the car, the breaks, the gears, fuses, etc... if you feel like it, disassemble the motor!! no matter what, you will need to get your hands dirty.
a blinking oil lamp and break lights might be easy, but is not enough to "learn how stuff works".
so you dont want to lean how a car works? fine, don't mess with the engine, please!
but they could have resources to attack Gibraltar, entering Spain in the war as a agreement to reclaim Gibraltar. After that the axis would close the Mediterranean to the Brithish and the Allies, helping the all war to the axis field and making things harder for the British
Of course, that would mean that Spain would finally try to take Portugal (the oldest British ally treaty in Europe), the Brititsh would invade/help Portugal (doesnt matter if they wanted help or not), forcing the axis to help Spain (it was weaker than Italy, specially after the civil war). History tells that Portugal is hard to conqueror and keep and would be very useful foothold for a ally invasion to
If Portugal fall in to axis hands, Europe would be a locked in in the axis hands, the the allies would invade Azores to secure a key strategic point in the Atlantic and then probably, the North of Africa would be easy to take from the British. Most middle east were anti-British, so easily for the axis to gain more allies if the British started to lose. Taking the oil from the middle east, the axis would gain a new force and could even attack the URSS from 2 fronts
without the easy access to the rest of the colonies and oil, the British would lose its strength. Argentina and other central and south America countries, more related to the Hitler regime, might even try to take British lands, making it even weaker.
it would then be a matter of the US, URSS, the rest of British "lands" (specially India and Australia) and China against the Axis
if Portugal didnt fall, Spain would be a "new" Italy, using axis resources needed elsewhere and at very least, German troops passing by the "free" France zone would be targed by the resistance
In war, small changes may make huge difference in the outcome of the battles, so this is all "what if"!
the problem is that the SSD gives you *NO* way to really defrag a file!!
when you tell the SSD to move sector 120 to sector 32 (so it keep close with the begin of a file on sector 31), the SSD will move the data to the next free sector because of the wear levelling.
even if you ask to write on the same sector 120, the SSD WILL MOVE the data to the next free sector.
So defrag a SSD not only is a waste of time, but burns faster the SSD writes cycles and may probably INCREASE the fragmentation (if the free sectors arent continuous)
reading fragmented files on the SSD isnt a problem... writing small fragmented files on a SSD DOES take a performance hit if there is not enough free sectors. TRIM will keep the free sector count high enough so this doesnt became a bigger problem.
Of course, users should not fill up a SSD, as it needs the free space to work well... the more free space, the better :)
this is 100% correct, not more, not less
one more reason to use only free software...
closed apps, abandoned software, obsolete apps, etc are set to disappear with time, its the survival of the strongest and being free software is huge strength.
being a closed and bad app is half way to die, even if popular (see the flash, attacked by all sides, is set to be replaced and irrelevant sooner of later)
but hey, nothing forbids closed apps builds of building a repository
i'm not saying that switching to open source is more expensive, for most things i dont believe its true... but even if was true, for most countries this doesnt matter much, because keeping the proprietary software sends most of the money to another country (if not all) and investing in open source you are supporting the local IT companies (that do the local support and implementation)... the investment in the local business improves the local economy, generating more taxes and wealth
try it...
i also have a atom (dual core) and works fine with kde4... actually, its slower with gnome than with kde4 (it been ages since gnome was lighter than kde, nautilus and evolution are the worst, dog slow)
yes, isnt as fast as a top CPU, but works pretty well and i dont see the cpu being used too much, os its still free for other apps.
As all atoms, just dont open too many apps at same time, the lack of memory and cpu power adds up a lot faster
*COOF* NSA *COOF*? ;)
and it works like sh*t...
i used it to have nfs from a linux server and worked by several months... then one day the nfs stop worked...all others unix servers could work with the nfs, only the SFU one stop working...
after 2 days trying to debug and solve the problem, openned a service request at microsoft. 2 weeks later and after several tests, reinstalls, reboots and such still didnt work.
the MS support were always saying that they had little experience with SFU, that no one used it, etc, etc
i finally gave up and workaround with a samba server exporting a nfs share... ugly, but at least works
He should learn the most basic rule of nettiquete: dont do to others what you dont want other to do it to you.
If there is no problem, then we all would like to know all his internet usage and maybe even his private life... he should publish it every day, if he doesnt have anything to hide...
Its called privacy, because is private, not because its bad
I also had problems with a CDMA usb modem (still unsolved) and a huwaei 3G usb modem... so i had no network... i had to wait for another computer to connect to the internet and search about the problems. Also, network manager edit windows gives a "access denied" popup, but mostly works...or maybe not...
But what i see as the worst thing might have been the lack of waning for the known problems for those installing/upgrading. The ubuntu release notes are hidden in the site, the update release notes warn about anything, so users think its OK to upgrade where its a "dangerous" thing to do.
IMHO, after reading all the foruns and bugs, its clear that there where too many critical open bugs (video not working, DSL not connection, 3G cards faiiling, etc), not solved because it was already in freeze state. Most of this bugs had a fix, other still dont have.
Canonical have also done what commercial software is always doing and failing, deliver a buggy product just to because its the "release date". Almost all people prefer to wait one, 2 or even more months to fix the critical issues than updating or installing and have a not working system. Not entering in the X11 and lack of network are very critical problems, as make the system unusable for most people.
We all can accept problems not found in Release candidates, but most of this were already reported before the release and many had fix waiting for the "release" to enter the proposed packages. There is no excuse for delivering a software, knowing that will not work for many of its users and that could be fixed by delaying a little the release.
Canonical and Ubuntu have lost a lot more by delivering on time a broken system than by delaying the release.
They could always say that the quality of the release is more important than the release date, that unlike most closed source software, Ubuntu prefers quality over artificial deadlines.
Unfortunately they have sent the wrong message with this release. Canonical didnt learned with the past and failed on this one.
ps: for those thinking that the release could be postpone forever to fix all bugs, you are not forced to wait to fix a broken package, you can always revert to the previous working version. the same thing could be said about the ubuntu release for users, but only for new installs, for upgrades, if there is no warning for the users before the upgrade, reverting isnt that easy.
"Then your system admin is an idiot. Plain and simple. There is absolutely no other reason for that being possible."
Its called security hole...
any system can have then, but windows always had more, its usually easier to break by design (but its getting better designed in each release) and the lusers are usually alot simpler to trick doing the wrong thing
"WTF? There's a clickable link right there for "Add Programs", where your admin can advertise available programs through Active Directory."
yep, everyone knows how to work with AD, its plain simple in usability!! NOT!!
you are trying to compare windows and linux, yet you use both sides for windows ( home user and enterprise ) yet only home user for linux for comparing
if you are a home user, you have a set of problems for both OS, in enterprise you have others...
example: text files and installing programs in linux on a enterprise is almost totally blocked for users in a enterprise, a decent admin will do all that and the user just use the machine... just like windows
Linux admin for a home user might look harder than windows, but in a enterprise its the oposite
Finally, there are the false issues, linux for home user arent really that different from windows to admin... linux have a lot more choice/flexibility, that might confuse some users, it have advanced apps that are always hard to config and manage, but windows also have its own problems! to start, most of then arent administrated at all, the most common administration action in windows is to reinstall. then a user have to install many apps in windows to make it useful... then update then manually to fix security problems. If you use apps that are build for that system, everything is fine... if you try to use things not designed for that system, you are screwed! ... this for BOTH OS
in any case, users/admin must know what they are doing, not knowing, searching, reading, learning will only lead to complains that it "doesnt work"
>- As we start running out of IPv4 addresses, ISPs will start selling them to each other. Suddenly, we'll start using IP addresses wisely.
problem: routing... isnt that easy to "move" IPv4 blocks
>- There are only 111 million active domain names. Most of those point to shared IPs on virtual hosts and domain name squatters.
problem: yes, only servers need IP...NOT! clients also need IPs, nat can work for a few apps, but if the use of nat increase you turn the internet as a "one way" communication channel... if all people used NAT, even local address would start to became full on the ISP side
>- With so few actual required IP addresses, the IPv6 transition will never happen.
problem: we all need one IP... again, NAT fake that you have one IP, in reality you are sharing it with many others... enforce NAT and you will need to solve the communication between peers... do that and you will saturate the NAT with millions of p2p connections... it might even work, but the ipv6 is the clean solution and sooner or later will happend... remember that ARPNET was disconnect only a few years ago, it took time also to deploy ipv4
>- Consider UTF-16 and UTF-32. They basically delayed multi-language support world-wide until UTF-8 made it painless for developers, allowing them to continue using 'char' data types in C for strings.
UTF-8 is already the better thing... there are still many people using local codepages (windows fault mostly), but UTF-8 is here and each day more apps use it. UTF-16 and UTF-32 fail because are alot more heavier, just to support a few more people (5 languages? 8? not the hundred supported by UTF8 )
>- NAT may have been invented by geeks for various cool reasons. However, it dominates the web because our ISPs like to charge extra money for multiple IP addresses, and we consumers like to dick them out of it.
NAT is a hack that mostly works... ISP like it also... but ISP also would like to better manage routing... the main reason they dont deploy IPV6 is the older hardware support (or lack of) and lack of request... if windows didnt support it, no one would request it... now that MS start to support IPV6, we will see a increase of the IPv6 deploy... more people start to use ipv6, the faster it will grow
>- ISPs dynamically switch our IP addresses to protect us. A dynamically changing network is far harder to attack, especially when consumers know virtually nothing about security. On a drive through South Carolina recently, I found about 80% of all WiFi points were wide open!
bull sh*t... when dynamic IPs increase security? it you have a open, insecure port, find it , exploit it and install the rootkit... if IP changes, it will still call home... it can only increase the security if the IP change during the attack (little probability) and increase a little the time to scan ( retry offline in static IP vs retry all in dynamic IP), but zombies network dont care about that... with IPv6 is even harder to scan for holes, as the IP space is HUGE
but if you (or the ISP) want, change your IP in ipv6 whenever you want, if that makes you happy...
>- ISPs would love to force customers onto another level of NAT. They could kill a ton of P2P traffic, with a great excuse for the FCC: "I ran out of addresses!"
most ISP dont really care about P2P, other than eating their bandwidth... also, with static IP of ipv6
>- The SIP protocol was designed by committee, like IPv6. It basically doesn't work across NATs worth a damn, and it's slowed VoIP adoption by years.
all 2 way communication have problems with NAT... some work better than others, most need external servers to "proxy" or coordinate the NAT transversal, but that require servers for all protocols and limit the traffic to UDP
yes, ipv6 is not perfect, its taking ages to deploy, but in the end will win, just like ipv4 won over all other protocols
people managing the network and dns will know its network address, just like ipv4,... its always the same and isnt different from memorizing a phone number, a address, a name... yes, its bigger than the ipv4 one, but not hard to memorize, its just different and new
then it comes to the host block, that as you should know, its by default the mac address... so if they have to create a DHCP mapping, they already need to "know" the MAC (or a easy way to know it)... the ipv6 IP is just merging the 2 parts... if you dont manage the dhcp, you still have to know some way/app to map a MAC to a machine,
dont like to memorize MAC? simples, dont use then and use small numbers for the machines, just like ipv4... but really, why memorize IPs? i know some IPs on my work network (ipv4), but not even near to 1%, and i know then because in some servers its faster to write the ip than the dns
Its simple... when asked for your IM address, say you use gtalk/gmail/jabber/xmpp and that you dont have MSM (you cant, you dont like, you dont agree with the MS policy, etc), then ask back if they have gmail or any other xmpp based service.If they complain that dont want to have 2 IM open, say they can install multiprotocol clients.
in the start, you will be joked, later you will see some people starting to use other IM networks and when reach the critical mass, you will see that people start using both network, and even later msn will slowly lose people because of the virus/spam/etc
yes, in the start you will not be able to talk with many people, but that is required to force others to open up, if sooner or later they want to talk with you, they will have to open one account and after that is easier...
the change start with you
I too use backuppc to a external HD to backup my main computer and my family systems
it do data deduplication (file level, not block level) and compression... its easy to use and works perfect.
i swap HDs every week
now backuppc needs to add a option for block level deduplication (usually is a little more efficient in size for many files) and, more important, upgrade its rsync protocol (the latest versions of rsync improved alot the protocol, faster and smarter)
mozy == No Linux support
until that happends, its trash for most of us
tomboy: heavy bloated crap
Banshee: slow and heavy
f-spot: thats ok, a little heavy, bug digikam is better
Beagle: worst slow, heavy crap
most, if not all C# apps are slow and heavy... not very different from java (that at least runs well in more platforms, always! and is now GPL)
hey, you also have IE in Mac... does anybody use it? does it even work with any site today?
does it even work in recent MaOSX?
silverlight on mac is just like IE, it is just one excuse to say isnt windows dependent and stop any monopoly process... it will always be late, obsolete and full of bugs/incomplete features... after winning the market, they will discontinue it.
ohh well... nothing new here... nothing to see, move along...
Ask your admins to change the proxy PAC to not using the isInNet function, as this
requires the DNS to check if every domain/hostname exists before deciding what proxy
to use... isnt easy to solve...
i work around with this:
if ( shExpMatch(url, "*127.0.0*") ||
shExpMatch(url, "*192.168.*") ||
shExpMatch(url, "*10.15.*") ||
shExpMatch(url, "*10.16.*") ||
shExpMatch(url, "*10.17.*")
){ if ( isInNet(host, "127.0.0.0", "255.0.0.0") ||
isInNet(host, "192.168.0.0", "255.255.0.0") ||
isInNet(host, "10.15.0.0", "255.255.0.0") ||
isInNet(host, "10.16.0.0", "255.255.0.0") ||
isInNet(host, "10.17.0.0", "255.255.0.0")
) { return "DIRECT"; }
else { return "PROXY 192.168.1.10:3128"; }
}
this way it just use the "bad" function if there is a IP in the URL...
all rest, its defined using domains/hostnames, no need for the isInNet
good luck
you are right, i didnt wrote that well...
the corrent samba 3 have the AD mode is just as client
it have PDC mode, where he is the domain master and authentication server, that linked with a LDAP servers is the reallity the same as the windows AD , minus the domain policy
Samba also do the have the AD mode, central authentication and profiles, no need to run samba as workgroup... so no need for a windows server for AD
- Have easy central printer queues
useless... its faster and safer to directly use a printserver and configure the clients to use it.
If the server goes down, you can still print... but if you really want centralized queues, cups already do that, no need for a windows server
- Have easy central file shares with easy to apply security
ooh good... samba do this since... ever... no need for a windows server
- Install WSUS on the server. It's a free addon. Poof! Microsoft patch management! (...) Works well and can't beat the price.
yes you can... you still have to pay for a windows server... this ones are free:
depending on what you want, just save bandwidth? try http://update-accelerator.advproxy.net/ or even a plain squid with lots of HD space. this is what most small companies want.
want full control of patchs and all packages/updates installed? check the http://wpkg.org/
as a bonus, something that windows doesnt give you, unattended windows installations, with full patchs and software:
http://unattended.sourceforge.net/
beat this price!
- Group Policy (install/update software, apply software settings, lock down security on all systems, etc.)
Ok, this one you cant still do with samba3, but samba4 will have this.
if you really need this, check the http://www.nitrobit.com/grouppolicy.html, it can be configures to use samba and a openldap server, but it costs money (but hey, still less than a windows server)
most small companies dont use GPO anyway and most of the more important things can be controled by the local policy (and pushing the .pol file to each client)
- Login scripts (and have install or apply updates to any updates to programs that don't do updates via WSUS and Group Policy, e.g. Firefox, Java, etc.)
ooh good again... check above... no need for a windows server
- Oh, and yeah, install your antivirus server here too.
most of then can be installed in any windows, no need for a windows server
So no, there is no need for a AD server
Current multicore designs have too small cache, and too slow memory bandwidth
No, this is a intel problem, not a multicore design fault... AMD cpus/cores require less cache than intel and have internal memory access and controlers, so they havent the memory bandwidth problems of intel
we have about 4 machines with 2 quadcore running ESX and about 100 machines (many linux and windows) and 64GB of ram in each esx node... and we have still about 50% of resources free
so grab one quad core machine, with lots of ram (for oracle RAC+ASM+DB you will need at least about 4GB for the 3 RAC nodes, the more the better)
as this is for testing, i would but a plain quadcore PC, with 6 to 8 Gb of ram, install a linux 64bit with xen or vmware esxi
if you have more money, you can buy more ram or even cpu, but you dont really need a blade nor a server, a plain PC will do
ohh i forgot... HD, buy at least 2 HD, to spread the IO load, if you want raid, then you need 4 HD for a raid10... you can also try iscsi with a openfiler based nas/san (another PC, with lot of HDs and several gigabit network card)... of course, the server also need several gigabit network card to increase the IO bandwidth of iscsi
have fun
icab didnt invented ad block... i used junkbuster at least in 1997 IIRC and AdBuster in 1998