I'm troubled why people still run 2.4 server. I remember the time when I was reluctant to upgrade to 2.6, and I used prefer the older 2.4, which felt more comfortable than 2.6, regardless of how tempting the new changes sounded. But now I don't see any reason I would run this anywhere, even my router runs 2.6. Especially on newer hardware, 2.4 is really really too old.
I know there are people who probably still run Linux 2.2, but that are probably systems that are running some task well enough to require any changes, and leaving them as they are is the best. Servers are usually not like that. They need security updates, upgrades to catch up with the times, and many other changes required by the circumstances (for example, adding snapshot abilities, for which some person asked recently on Slashdot). Most production servers are not systems that you just leave running, so upgrades to the kernel are also expected and highly recommended. Not to mention that most recent distributions require 2.6.
If they are indeed regular partitions, he can't use LVM snapshots. However, the best solution is to convert from partitions to LVM volumes. It's a little effort to do so, but switching is worth it. Second best is to wait until btrfs is more usable. As a ZFS user, I can say that filesystem-level snapshot are much nicer than LVM snapshots in lots of ways.
Another possibility is to abuse hardlinks. You can create a copy of a directory with cp -al, and then overwrite (not modify) files on the original, you'd have copy-on-write copy. If you make your backups with rsync, you can configure rsync to never write to existing files and always overwrite, then use cp -al each weak or day, to store "incremental" backups for weeks and maybe more. I personally found this solution nice, but then I installed Solaris on the backup machine and used ZFS snapshots which do the same safer, simpler and more efficiently. If the backups are stored on a separate machine, switching it to Solaris is an option.
Another thing that can be done is to keep the LVM snapshots on a separate machine, and leave the current partitions as they are. It can be done with rsync, or a drdb device can be used to sync with the server (it can be created without reformatting the partitions, but you still need to make some changes like shrinking and/or moving the data, which might destroy the data if you don't know what you're doing).
You meant poor performance on all hardware. I'm using it on a Intel Core 2 Q6600 with 8 GB RAM and it is slow as hell compared to KDE 3.5 on my old Athlon XP 2100+, and even GTK+ on the same Athlon XP. And I badmouthed GTK+ about its slowness then. How wrong have I been?
I have no intention of reading blog posts that are trying to convince me that the biggest pieces of crap in computing were *needed*. They are there because the KDE developers want them, and think they are cool. And they don't care that they are slow, annoying, broken and take the system and its functionality together with them. When you're trying to convince me that software, which only feature is to annoy the user, is useful, you need to shut the fuck up.
File sharing is more or less like any other new thing that we've encountered that we didn't know how to deal with, and like all of them, it shouldn't be solved by looking for analogies and copying the solution, but by inventing a new one. And your black hole example is a bit flawed, because the problem we have here is solvable. I'm certain you could find better analogies in human history.
I'm certain you can find a lot of partially analogous situations to learn from (which would be at least better than your black hole one), but the solution would have to be innovative. Here's another bad space one: space travel. Space travel is something that's good for all of us, and for some of us it also serves as entertainment. In fact, during its most thriving years, it relied mostly on its entertainment value. And for those of us who don't have to pay taxes, it is completely free. There are space endeavours which give me more soulfood than a movie, and probably cost more, and I paid nothing for them. And there are no money in space travel as of now, so in theory there shouldn't be any. The time when there will be money in space travel are far ahead of us.
Things we can do about it: 1. Taxes. Both space travel and entertainment are good for us all, makes us more happy, and even maybe more productive, so they are things we should encourage, even directly. 2. Added value. A lot of people would pay to get memorabilia, or to get the real thing (souvenirs from Mars, merchandise from the bands, taking a space vacation, going to a concert, buying a physical album (signed), etc.)
A company isn't a human entity, so its goodness can be judged almost only by its actions. If Microsoft are becoming less evil because they are scared, they are still becoming less evil. In the end, the only way to have non-evil big companies, even those built around good intentions, is to force them. So whatever the reason is, Microsoft has helped Samba, and that's a good thing, and Microsoft are currently behaving less evil than Apple.
Hey, a strawman logical fallacy is a logical fallacy only when you use it to draw a conclusion. I don't see a conclusion here - just an assumption that the grand grandparent is a Apple fanboy based on his reaction, which might be inconsiderate, but nevertheless likely. Anyway...
Saying that checking user agent string was standard is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I'm not sure if a page can be considered standard compliant if it does this, but even if it can, it is compliant only on paper. Such checks go completely against the intent of the standards. A page that only works if your user agent has a certain value isn't standard. Period. That's almost like saying that a page that is complete gibberish on anything but IE, but otherwise passes fine on all validators, is standard.
The Hurt Locker for me was just a bunch of well-scripted, well-acted and well-directed tense sequences. The first half hour or so was really promising and absorbing, but it was all downhill from there. The story line wasn't that interesting, and the absurdity of the events was getting more and more (it was a hilariously unrealistic depiction of the US army). I enjoyed every single moment of it, but this is not enough to make a fantastic movie. It wasn't memorable, it didn't engage my mind during its whole duration, it didn't make me disconnect from reality and feel part of it, it didn't show me anything to awe me, it didn't do anything to make me consider it more than a normal good movie.
I don't think it deserves its award, given that fantastic movies were in the nominated, and even better ones weren't even nominated. Moon, Up in the Air, Inglorious Basterds, and even Up were miles ahead of it. And Avatar, with its bad script and acting, did much more to me than The Hurt Locker - I was completely submerged into it it when I saw it and the bad parts just flew past me. I don't know how a work of art could be "intelligent", but I'd rather call Avatar that way than The Hurt Locker. On all accounts, but mostly because it was a work of art.
It's a morally disgusting one. And won't work. But I couldn't say I didn't like reading it. Copyright enforcement has become so ridiculous that it is expected to inspire violence in many people.
Did you even read the article? I know this is something despised around here, but you could at least pretend you tried. You even assert that we are more safer in your own post, after you say that we aren't. I'm not aware of any successful major terrorist attack after 9/11, if you do, will you please share it with us?
Yeah, I heard about that and I got an iPad. But for some reason I can't get this stupid Linux to work. No wonder nobody uses Linux when it is so hard to use.
You can stick whatever codec you want in HTML 5. The available choices depend on what the other parties are supporting. So yeah, these two are the only feasible choices right now, although some would say that Theora isn't, other would say that H.264 isn't, or that both aren't. But Google could push VP8, which would be much more likely than pushing Theora.
DRM will always need to be bypassed as long as it exist.
The people responsible for the DRM are hoping that this need won't apply to the average consumer, who doesn't want to make backups, to utilize their fair use rights on the movie, or to play it on Linux. And while I feel bad for everyone that got fucked up by the DRM now, I'm happy that they failed to make it seemingly unobtrusive. If DRM issues were more widespread, the DRM would slowly die and stop breaking it for us, the minority who are crazy enough to do things that are outside of what the movie makers intended to be done with their work.
But backup is not officially supported, and it is in fact officially restricted. Which means that they are pointing the finger at anyone who wants to do so. I wouldn't my money to someone who has done that regardless of whether I can actually rip it or not.
Sadly, the only decent way to acquire HD movies is the illegal one. I can't play a Bluray on Linux, partly because of the draconian DRM, I'm officially restricted from using the tools that allow me to play them, back up them, and my whole experience is crippled in all ways. The illegal sources? I get a single file that plays everywhere, can be backed up to a normal dual-layer DVD, can be transcoded as I wish whenever I wish, can be sampled for parodies or citation, etc. The only thing that's missing are the extras, which I usually don't care about, and which I couldn't play anyway if they were there. Guess who wins?
I do, however, have great interest in watching any making-of featurettes that may be included.
You can watch the interesting stuff about the making at many places online already, including official ones. The poster that said that they did it on a computer summarized it pretty well. It was just an animated movie with a human here and there. The technique for facial motion capture is interesting, but it is not new entirely, although I have to say the result from it was stunning. A two-minute video is enough to understand how it was done.
If you want to watch a good making-of, see the one for District 9, it was done under budget constraints, and the director insisted on doing a lot of things "the hard way", so it is much more interesting watch than the making of Avatar, which is a bunch of animators sitting behind a computer.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, stop it. The grandparent is correct. Beaches should have signs that say "WARNING! Solar radiation!".
There's always the possibility for surprise, however slightest it is. Time travellers don't have that.
The Temporal Prime Directive which is stopping all those time travellers.
Encrypted data manipulation? Just write the manipulation software in Malbolge.
I'm troubled why people still run 2.4 server. I remember the time when I was reluctant to upgrade to 2.6, and I used prefer the older 2.4, which felt more comfortable than 2.6, regardless of how tempting the new changes sounded. But now I don't see any reason I would run this anywhere, even my router runs 2.6. Especially on newer hardware, 2.4 is really really too old.
I know there are people who probably still run Linux 2.2, but that are probably systems that are running some task well enough to require any changes, and leaving them as they are is the best. Servers are usually not like that. They need security updates, upgrades to catch up with the times, and many other changes required by the circumstances (for example, adding snapshot abilities, for which some person asked recently on Slashdot). Most production servers are not systems that you just leave running, so upgrades to the kernel are also expected and highly recommended. Not to mention that most recent distributions require 2.6.
If they are indeed regular partitions, he can't use LVM snapshots. However, the best solution is to convert from partitions to LVM volumes. It's a little effort to do so, but switching is worth it. Second best is to wait until btrfs is more usable. As a ZFS user, I can say that filesystem-level snapshot are much nicer than LVM snapshots in lots of ways.
Another possibility is to abuse hardlinks. You can create a copy of a directory with cp -al, and then overwrite (not modify) files on the original, you'd have copy-on-write copy. If you make your backups with rsync, you can configure rsync to never write to existing files and always overwrite, then use cp -al each weak or day, to store "incremental" backups for weeks and maybe more. I personally found this solution nice, but then I installed Solaris on the backup machine and used ZFS snapshots which do the same safer, simpler and more efficiently. If the backups are stored on a separate machine, switching it to Solaris is an option.
Another thing that can be done is to keep the LVM snapshots on a separate machine, and leave the current partitions as they are. It can be done with rsync, or a drdb device can be used to sync with the server (it can be created without reformatting the partitions, but you still need to make some changes like shrinking and/or moving the data, which might destroy the data if you don't know what you're doing).
You meant poor performance on all hardware. I'm using it on a Intel Core 2 Q6600 with 8 GB RAM and it is slow as hell compared to KDE 3.5 on my old Athlon XP 2100+, and even GTK+ on the same Athlon XP. And I badmouthed GTK+ about its slowness then. How wrong have I been?
I have no intention of reading blog posts that are trying to convince me that the biggest pieces of crap in computing were *needed*. They are there because the KDE developers want them, and think they are cool. And they don't care that they are slow, annoying, broken and take the system and its functionality together with them. When you're trying to convince me that software, which only feature is to annoy the user, is useful, you need to shut the fuck up.
Go away. Verizon employees aren't allowed to post on Slashdot.
File sharing is more or less like any other new thing that we've encountered that we didn't know how to deal with, and like all of them, it shouldn't be solved by looking for analogies and copying the solution, but by inventing a new one. And your black hole example is a bit flawed, because the problem we have here is solvable. I'm certain you could find better analogies in human history.
I'm certain you can find a lot of partially analogous situations to learn from (which would be at least better than your black hole one), but the solution would have to be innovative. Here's another bad space one: space travel. Space travel is something that's good for all of us, and for some of us it also serves as entertainment. In fact, during its most thriving years, it relied mostly on its entertainment value. And for those of us who don't have to pay taxes, it is completely free. There are space endeavours which give me more soulfood than a movie, and probably cost more, and I paid nothing for them. And there are no money in space travel as of now, so in theory there shouldn't be any. The time when there will be money in space travel are far ahead of us.
Things we can do about it:
1. Taxes. Both space travel and entertainment are good for us all, makes us more happy, and even maybe more productive, so they are things we should encourage, even directly.
2. Added value. A lot of people would pay to get memorabilia, or to get the real thing (souvenirs from Mars, merchandise from the bands, taking a space vacation, going to a concert, buying a physical album (signed), etc.)
A company isn't a human entity, so its goodness can be judged almost only by its actions. If Microsoft are becoming less evil because they are scared, they are still becoming less evil. In the end, the only way to have non-evil big companies, even those built around good intentions, is to force them. So whatever the reason is, Microsoft has helped Samba, and that's a good thing, and Microsoft are currently behaving less evil than Apple.
Hey, a strawman logical fallacy is a logical fallacy only when you use it to draw a conclusion. I don't see a conclusion here - just an assumption that the grand grandparent is a Apple fanboy based on his reaction, which might be inconsiderate, but nevertheless likely. Anyway...
Saying that checking user agent string was standard is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I'm not sure if a page can be considered standard compliant if it does this, but even if it can, it is compliant only on paper. Such checks go completely against the intent of the standards. A page that only works if your user agent has a certain value isn't standard. Period. That's almost like saying that a page that is complete gibberish on anything but IE, but otherwise passes fine on all validators, is standard.
The Hurt Locker for me was just a bunch of well-scripted, well-acted and well-directed tense sequences. The first half hour or so was really promising and absorbing, but it was all downhill from there. The story line wasn't that interesting, and the absurdity of the events was getting more and more (it was a hilariously unrealistic depiction of the US army). I enjoyed every single moment of it, but this is not enough to make a fantastic movie. It wasn't memorable, it didn't engage my mind during its whole duration, it didn't make me disconnect from reality and feel part of it, it didn't show me anything to awe me, it didn't do anything to make me consider it more than a normal good movie.
I don't think it deserves its award, given that fantastic movies were in the nominated, and even better ones weren't even nominated. Moon, Up in the Air, Inglorious Basterds, and even Up were miles ahead of it. And Avatar, with its bad script and acting, did much more to me than The Hurt Locker - I was completely submerged into it it when I saw it and the bad parts just flew past me. I don't know how a work of art could be "intelligent", but I'd rather call Avatar that way than The Hurt Locker. On all accounts, but mostly because it was a work of art.
There are 10 kinds of people: Those who understand Gray code, those who don't, and those who mistake it for binary.
It's a morally disgusting one. And won't work. But I couldn't say I didn't like reading it. Copyright enforcement has become so ridiculous that it is expected to inspire violence in many people.
Only when you're a niggerfaggot.
I believe that the chance that all six James Bonds die in the next 50 years is higher than 37%.
Some of us are still playing Doom 2 multiplayer without dedicated servers.
Did you even read the article? I know this is something despised around here, but you could at least pretend you tried. You even assert that we are more safer in your own post, after you say that we aren't. I'm not aware of any successful major terrorist attack after 9/11, if you do, will you please share it with us?
Yeah, I heard about that and I got an iPad. But for some reason I can't get this stupid Linux to work. No wonder nobody uses Linux when it is so hard to use.
But.. but.. the DRM is the thing that allows you to play the movie! Didn't you know that?
The Digital *Rights* Management grants you the right to play it. In which world are you living?
You can stick whatever codec you want in HTML 5. The available choices depend on what the other parties are supporting. So yeah, these two are the only feasible choices right now, although some would say that Theora isn't, other would say that H.264 isn't, or that both aren't. But Google could push VP8, which would be much more likely than pushing Theora.
DRM will always need to be bypassed as long as it exist.
The people responsible for the DRM are hoping that this need won't apply to the average consumer, who doesn't want to make backups, to utilize their fair use rights on the movie, or to play it on Linux. And while I feel bad for everyone that got fucked up by the DRM now, I'm happy that they failed to make it seemingly unobtrusive. If DRM issues were more widespread, the DRM would slowly die and stop breaking it for us, the minority who are crazy enough to do things that are outside of what the movie makers intended to be done with their work.
But backup is not officially supported, and it is in fact officially restricted. Which means that they are pointing the finger at anyone who wants to do so. I wouldn't my money to someone who has done that regardless of whether I can actually rip it or not.
Sadly, the only decent way to acquire HD movies is the illegal one. I can't play a Bluray on Linux, partly because of the draconian DRM, I'm officially restricted from using the tools that allow me to play them, back up them, and my whole experience is crippled in all ways. The illegal sources? I get a single file that plays everywhere, can be backed up to a normal dual-layer DVD, can be transcoded as I wish whenever I wish, can be sampled for parodies or citation, etc. The only thing that's missing are the extras, which I usually don't care about, and which I couldn't play anyway if they were there. Guess who wins?
I do, however, have great interest in watching any making-of featurettes that may be included.
You can watch the interesting stuff about the making at many places online already, including official ones. The poster that said that they did it on a computer summarized it pretty well. It was just an animated movie with a human here and there. The technique for facial motion capture is interesting, but it is not new entirely, although I have to say the result from it was stunning. A two-minute video is enough to understand how it was done.
If you want to watch a good making-of, see the one for District 9, it was done under budget constraints, and the director insisted on doing a lot of things "the hard way", so it is much more interesting watch than the making of Avatar, which is a bunch of animators sitting behind a computer.