Then why are you using Linux in the first place?:)
Re:Why only one database language?
on
SQL in a Nutshell
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
There's even a choice of shell scripts: sh, csh, bash, ksh, zsh, etc.
Objection!
You use different shells for different interactive properties. Scripts should be written for #!/bin/sh. And yes, that's/bin/sh to you, no/bin/sh ==/bin/bash perversion.
But he uses R-A-I-D! R-A-I-D magically makes data bulletproof and immune to disaster as we all know.
Seriously, running a 3TB RAID with a buggy fs and applauding faster fsck times instead of wondering why the fs gets fucked up constantly must be the peak of idiocy.
So you used the "riskier" fs for / where you don't actually need the features it provides and used the "more stable" fs where features could actually be useful because app/fs developers couldn't agree on semantics?
I noticed that many Americans have this non-differentiating view and are unable to think about issues in different scales.
It's one thing to have your window open and a single bypasser peeking inside briefly. It's a whole different thing to have a corporation do this on a large scale backed by limitless computational resources and publishing the results on the Internet.
It's one thing to have J Random Clerk in the store next door see what you buy and like and recommending you a magazine for example. It's a whole different thing if a corporation tracks what you buy on a large scale backed by limitless computational resources and datamining the results to bombard you with ads. See where I'm going with this?
The parent is exactly right. There is no decency around anymore. Corporate fascists will do anything they can get away with. Respecting people is trumped by making quick bucks. Anything that's become technically possible must be done.
Americans seem to be particularly entrenched in this kind of view and it's sad indeed. I applaud the Greek people for telling Google to go fuck themselves.
If compression speeds things up for you, then it's your connections that's slowing you down, not the processing power of your device.
This sub-thread is pointless. The reply to the OP talked about pre-compiling so browsers wouldn't have to interpret every single time. The next reply suddenly mentions compressed HTML, which has got nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
I think that's _exactly_ the wrong way to go about this.
"Here, in order to stop your OS from doing stupid things that get you infected, download this FREE utility from an obscure site that's too hip to spell '4' as 'for'. It's harmless, I PROMISE!"
That's the other kind of attack vector that ends people in trouble with their machines.
And reading the other post above suggesting different obscure registry settings: EXCUSE ME, this is 2009 (almost), I thought we were _advancing_ on usability. This is just sick.
I don't suppose this leap second has been encoded into timezone information like daylight saving time has been.
So I would just run ntpd and expect the clock to step 1 second.
At second thought, I would expect ntpd to gradually slew system time since 1s is too small an offset to step the clock at once. Maybe it would be better to stop ntpd and restart it with -g or even delete its drift file since this second is not an error of the system clock but artificially introduced? Anyone know?
Software RAID (as in the OS manages the disks and has its own device layer doing the RAID) is actually superior to anything else in terms of flexibility and recoverability.
Got hardware involved doing your RAID parity computation? Good luck getting a replacement card some years down the road, since most have their own proprietary way of storing the signature that says "this disk is 1 of 5 of a RAID5".
And pure software RAID being slow is a thing of the past or a myth of people setting up their RAIDs wrong. >200MB/s reads and writes with barely any CPU load fast enough?
Why would it take much time to write anyway? I get over 200MB/s write speed to a 5-component RAIDframe RAID5 using NetBSD.
Write performance of RAID5 only sucks if you mess up stripe sizes and write block sizes of the upper layer. You want writes that don't require additional reads to compute the new checksum.
Slashdot Mirror
Having to think pisses you off. Entertainment != Intellect. Am I summarising your view correctly?
Why do I get the feeling that this is a growing trend?
Don't you have any rooms with two switches for the same light? As in, each one toggles the light regardless of its state?
172.16.0.0/12
I don't want first, I want stable.
Then why are you using Linux in the first place? :)
There's even a choice of shell scripts: sh, csh, bash, ksh, zsh, etc.
Objection!
You use different shells for different interactive properties. Scripts should be written for #!/bin/sh. And yes, that's /bin/sh to you, no /bin/sh == /bin/bash perversion.
They expect us, their elders to protect them from harm.
I thought they expect to be taught to handle unknown situations, if they expect anything at all yet.
Your situation is different, that's why it's apples and orange anyway as the guy above me said. Nevertheless, the paranoia in your post is alarming.
keeping the idea of the child's privacy in mind.
You can say that with a straight face after suggesting to track your kid with a GPS device?
It kinda dawns on me why governments have it so easy to trample upon rights. The citizens are preconditioned!
SSH
Actually, you are right with the last part. It's just that I wouldn't use ext4 for system partitions.
Even if you can restore the system easily, why risk it if you don't get any benefit?
No idea where you got your knowledge.
The BSDs support Ext2. Although personally, I wouldn't do anything write-related to an Ext2 fs on BSD, let alone use it for the system itself.
As for Ext3 or even Ext4, well, just no.
Come on, no Ubuntu LTS uses ext4 by default, nor Debian stable, nor OpenBSD AFAIK.
What has OpenBSD got to do with anything in this discussion?
But he uses R-A-I-D! R-A-I-D magically makes data bulletproof and immune to disaster as we all know.
Seriously, running a 3TB RAID with a buggy fs and applauding faster fsck times instead of wondering why the fs gets fucked up constantly must be the peak of idiocy.
So you used the "riskier" fs for / where you don't actually need the features it provides and used the "more stable" fs where features could actually be useful because app/fs developers couldn't agree on semantics?
Only on Linux...
May I present my method:
Visit this page and generate yourself a nice litte passphrase.
For every combination of login and domain/account/ do
echo "$login:$account:$iteration:$passphrase" | sha1
Tada, instant secure password. You only need to write down $login, $account and $iteration.
Then don't even do/suggest it.
Quick and dirty only gets dirtier and wastes the time you saved upfront and more later on.
I noticed that many Americans have this non-differentiating view and are unable to think about issues in different scales.
It's one thing to have your window open and a single bypasser peeking inside briefly. It's a whole different thing to have a corporation do this on a large scale backed by limitless computational resources and publishing the results on the Internet.
It's one thing to have J Random Clerk in the store next door see what you buy and like and recommending you a magazine for example. It's a whole different thing if a corporation tracks what you buy on a large scale backed by limitless computational resources and datamining the results to bombard you with ads. See where I'm going with this?
The parent is exactly right. There is no decency around anymore. Corporate fascists will do anything they can get away with. Respecting people is trumped by making quick bucks. Anything that's become technically possible must be done.
Americans seem to be particularly entrenched in this kind of view and it's sad indeed. I applaud the Greek people for telling Google to go fuck themselves.
If compression speeds things up for you, then it's your connections that's slowing you down, not the processing power of your device.
This sub-thread is pointless. The reply to the OP talked about pre-compiling so browsers wouldn't have to interpret every single time. The next reply suddenly mentions compressed HTML, which has got nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
Sigh, can we let the uninformed posts die please? NAT has got nothing to do with a packet filter.
You can do NAT without a packet filter, you can do filtering without NAT.
What prevents you from using a stateful packet filter with IPv6? Exactly, nothing.
That's the most retarded thing I've ever seen.
If $10K over 8 YEARS is a problem, the project can't be important enough to justify HA.
Try BSD man pages.
Apparently, the DOE doesn't even know ISO date formats. 12-23-2008 looks like the attempt to say 2008-12-23 but it ended up as bullshit.
I think that's _exactly_ the wrong way to go about this.
"Here, in order to stop your OS from doing stupid things that get you infected, download this FREE utility from an obscure site that's too hip to spell '4' as 'for'. It's harmless, I PROMISE!"
That's the other kind of attack vector that ends people in trouble with their machines.
And reading the other post above suggesting different obscure registry settings: EXCUSE ME, this is 2009 (almost), I thought we were _advancing_ on usability. This is just sick.
I don't suppose this leap second has been encoded into timezone information like daylight saving time has been.
So I would just run ntpd and expect the clock to step 1 second.
At second thought, I would expect ntpd to gradually slew system time since 1s is too small an offset to step the clock at once. Maybe it would be better to stop ntpd and restart it with -g or even delete its drift file since this second is not an error of the system clock but artificially introduced? Anyone know?
Software RAID (as in the OS manages the disks and has its own device layer doing the RAID) is actually superior to anything else in terms of flexibility and recoverability.
Got hardware involved doing your RAID parity computation? Good luck getting a replacement card some years down the road, since most have their own proprietary way of storing the signature that says "this disk is 1 of 5 of a RAID5".
And pure software RAID being slow is a thing of the past or a myth of people setting up their RAIDs wrong. >200MB/s reads and writes with barely any CPU load fast enough?
Why would it take much time to write anyway? I get over 200MB/s write speed to a 5-component RAIDframe RAID5 using NetBSD.
Write performance of RAID5 only sucks if you mess up stripe sizes and write block sizes of the upper layer. You want writes that don't require additional reads to compute the new checksum.