I have one, and so have a few of my friends. We bought them last year - well, one of my friend bought them all, we we purchased them from him. They are quite excellent. Don't know where he got them though - I think it was in association with ILUG (Irish LUG). We also got Tux Stickers, the same size as the little square stickers on some PCs - you take off the 'designed for Windows 98/NT' sticker and put your TUX on instead. Eircom in Ireland have these stickers all over their Linux boxes. So so cool looking.
Well, I tried Keanu trick of running up a wall during a Kung-Fu fight, and I fell and hurt myself. And Tank nevers answers when I ask him to run the Apache-AH64 training programme...
The word 'Internet' (Capital 'I') refers to what we always take that word to mean - Info.Superhighway, WWW, whatever. It is the Global Worldwide Internet.
The word 'internet' (small 'i') refers to the underlying network structure. It is not necessary TCP/IP based. An internet is a method of interconnecting many disparate physical networks and to make them function as a coordinated unit (internetworking). It accommodates multiple, diverse underlying hardware technologies by providing a way to interconnect heterogeneous network and a set of communication conventions. The internet technology hides the details of network hardware and permits computers to communicate independent of the physical network connections. - paraphrasing Internetworking with TCP/IP, Vol. I (Prentice Hall/ Comer, ISBN 0-13-227836-7)
So, MSWord should accept both 'Internet' and 'internet'. The same book describes the Internet as being TCP/IP based (TCP/IP Internet), as opposed to the other protocols which could be used.
Hey, I thought this was funny. At least in the context of replying to the message I replied too. Damn, lost Karma points over this now. Some people just don't know how to take a joke.
The new bottle has a widget in it too. Each time you take a drink from the bottle, the widget releases a little bit more gas, thus keeping the head.
Those guys in the Research Centre in Ireland sure have their heads screwed on the right way. Doing wonders for our wonderful products.
As for good places to get Guinness in Ireland, here are a few that I know of: Dublin Airport Guinness Hopstore (let's face it, if you can't get a good pint of Guinness at the source, where else will you get one?) Lynches Pub (Thomas St., Dublin - just down the road from the brewery) Sheaf Of Wheat Pub, Coolock, Dublin (formally a Guinness owned pub)
I'm sure there are a lot more too.
I don't drink, so I can only go by what people tell me. But a lot of people who have drunk Guinness in Dublin Airport after flying home from a holiday have found it to be a delight to their taste buds.
The secret to a good pint of Guinness is the way you pour the pint. Guinness isn't lager, and thus shouldn't be poured like lager. It shouldn't be poured too fast either. And the Gas mix has to be right. Most barmen in Ireland know this, but unfortunately in other countries they don't.
Everyone knows that Guinness made in Ireland is the best in the world, but no too many realise that this same Guinness that is served in Irish pubs is also served in American pubs. Made right here in St. James's Gate.
http://www.guinness.com - you might even find the instructions on how to pull a proper pint.
Oh, it officially takes 119.5 seconds to pull a proper pint of Guinness.
Nope, Drinking age is 18 is good old Eire, home of Guinness.
Incidently, that's where I'm sitting right now. 200 yards to my right are the giant kettles for making the wort, and 200 yards to my left are the giant 5000 Hectolitre fermentation vessles full of nice black Guinness.
Am I the only one who has problems downloading 'extract'? The last time I updated X, I had problems downloading it, and this time I'm having similar problems. I can't download the whole file - I am consistantly missing about 30k of the file. Anyone else having similar problems? Any ideas on how to fix it? I have tried both Netscape and Opera, but to no avail. IExplorer crashed on my when installing the 200k file that allows you to view FTP sites. Typical.
Remember, the first quote was the stereotypical geek - it is the way geeks are normally thought of. The latter half of the article defines, according to personality tests, what the majority of geeks are like, but not all. I remember taking one of those tests and coming out as INTJ, with S only 2 points behind N (ie. INTJ with very strong S). As soon as the woman who did the test saw the result, she asked me if I was involved with computers. I would agree with the results found on the test in the article - I know a lot of computer oriented people who would fall into that particular personality bracket, and a few who definately don't. Remember, though, that the article says that about 40% fall into that category. That's 60% that don't...!
Apologies. I did see the good use in it, but was unable to find a better alternative. Once again I must apologies if I mis-interpreted your original actions.
As for another example, I will endevour to come up with one.
However, apart from the seeming insult to your work, would you agree with the principle?
I can think of 4 different 'levels' of responsibility/blame here, depending on circumstance, and on the application.
1) User bad, programmer good: A prime example of this would be 'tcpdump'. It is a very very useful tool for finding faults on networks - I only used it the other day. It doesn't just do tcp - it will handle all sort of network protocols. Such a useful little tool.
tcpdump, in short, is a network sniffer/analyser. It listens to all network packets passing by your network card and displays information about them on the screen. You can even save all of these packets to a file for analysis later.
This leads to a problem with it - in the wrong persons hands, this same tool could be used to find non-encrypted password, allowing someone to access a system. It can also trap encrypted password over the wire, save them to a file, and allow someone to crack it.
Of course, it can get even more than just password - emails, credit card details, etc. This is why we need good encryption routines and SSL.
This is a perfect example of where the user is the one at fault. The programmer did everything that was required to make the utility useful for fault finding. He would have known that it could be used for bad things, but it was necessary for the good things too.
2) User bad, Programmer good and bad: (disclaimer: I'm not giving out about BO2K, just using it as the only example I can think of here. No harm is meant to CodC) Next, the case of BO2K. This tool was, in some ways, written to allow people to get access to NT systems. It was written with the knowledge of certain security breaches in NT.
The program itself, though, it one of the best admin tools for NT. The guys who wrote it don't use it for gaining entry into NT systems.
Here, if a user maliciously uses the program, then, yes, the user is still at fault. Is the programmer responsible? Well, firstly we need to know if the ability to use it maliciously can be used for a good purpose. Yes, to an extent as it shows that there are security bugs, and that they should be fixed. Next, we need to know if the feature is a necessary feature in order for the program to work. In this case, I don't think it is.
So where does that leave us? Well, the feature was added in order to improve NT security. The feature brings to light the knowledge that the security problem exists. So, for this reason, the programmer was morally correct in adding the feature, if just to ensure that admins (and MS) fix any security holes so the feature can't be used.
At the same time, it was wrong, as not everyone will get the security feature fixed, meaning that the program can be used to gain access to their systems. This is a case of being right and wrong at the same time.
Notice, however, that the user is just wrong for using the feature.
3) User bad, Programmer bad: Next has to be the case of a program designed to gain entry into a system, but with no other use. Again, a user using such a program would be wrong. If this program has no 'good' use (unlike BO2K), then the programmer would also be wrong. An example here would be the program 'crack' for cracking Unix password - a tool written exclusively for that purpose.
4) User good, programmer bad: User blameable, programmer bad: Lastly would be the case of a virus/trojan. In this case, in most circumstances, the user is not to blame. Naturally, different circumstances can bring blame to the user. If, for example, the user forwards on 'Sophie.EXE' to all the other guys in the office, which is most likely agaist office policy, and it happens to contain a trojan/virus, then this user would be to blame for not checking it, in a moral sense. He may have innoscently sent the attachment, but blame could still be put on him for causing problems within the company.
The programmer of the virus is definately to blame.
In the case of the last 2 here, the difference is the a Virus/Trojan isn't a utility that the user would be using to deliberatly cause harm. In most cases, a user would be unaware of the virus within the program/file. Like, what's the harm in running Sophie.EXE, eh?
The whole moral issue in all of these cases can have exceptions. Take the example of crack - here the police could use this utility to help them gain access to a drug barons computer, helping to convict him. In this case, the use of the product is a good one, and you could say that the programmer's involvement was also good. Everything has exceptions.
Will KDE2.0 Apps have Gnome integration? That is, will the apps (konqueror, KOffice, etc) run OK under Gnome, or will we have to use KDE in we want to use these (what will be very fine) applications.
Will then even require KDE/Gnome at all? Will these apps be capable of running under, say, basic fvwm or twm, for those memory-challanged PCs?
I have to agree with you on most, if not all, of those points. Yes, DVD Express is more graphically intensive than Slashdot, and thus, all things being equal, would take longer anyway.
The reason I picked those 2 sites is because they were the only ones I could think of off the top of my head. I don't have a list handy of what sites run on what hardware or on what OS.
And Slashdot probably does use MySQL too. I just thought I remembered Oracle being mentioned at some stage, but I'm probably mistaken.
However, there is still the point that the IIS Servers always seem to act slower. I can connect to site and just know, without checking, that it is NT4/IIS - and when I check, I'm right. (telnet to port 80, then 'HEAD / HTTP1.0' CR CR).
This isn't me trying to spread FUD, it just my personal observation. Apologies if it came across any differently.
Everything looks fine to me too. All I can say is that I am disappointed at Linux's performance. Still won't stop me using it though.
However, I do have a question that maybe someone here could answer - if in testing NT proves to be faster than Linux, why then in the real world does Linux always feel faster? Web sites that run on Linux/Apache always seems more efficient and seem to load faster than ones on NT/IIS, but the tests here show otherwise!
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying the tests are fixed. If there were Redhat Engineers there doing the tuning (and I'm sure if they weren't really there we would have heard about it), I certainly can't say that the tests were fixed. But the tests certainly don't seem to reflect what I seem to witness in the real world? Maybe, just coincindently, the NT/IIS servers that I connect to happen to have lower bandwitdh than those with Linux...!
Anyway, here is an example: NT/IIS: http://www.dvdexpress.com - this is one of the site where they have multiple servers to handle the load. I think they go from www1 to www9, maybe higher. And it always seems slow...
Linux/Apache: http://slashdot.org - this, AFAIK, runs on 1 web server (I think the config is 1 web server, and 1 oracle server). Correct me if I'm wrong. However, it definately isn't 9 or 10 webservers. And response time is always good.
Granted, the back end on both is completely different - DVDExpress runs on SQLServer, and slashdot on Oracle. But there is still a noticeable difference.
Anyone care to comment on this? Why does the real world never reflect 'scientific' testing?
I use a Cybex Switchview (4 port version) for my PCs in my office. It works very well, but it does have some issues.
Firstly the good points: 1) It has one big button on the front for switching between PCs. Each press switches to the next connected PC. 2) Switching between the PCs can also be done with the keyboard. Hitting the CTRL key twice within one second passes the keyboard control over to the switchview. Then hitting the letter corresponding to the channel you want (A, B, C, D) and enter will switch to that channel. 3) There is no external power source. It will take it's power from the keyboard port of any of your PCs 4) They can be daisy chained - though this does require an external power source. Thus, changing with the keyboard becomes CTRL, CTRL, A, B, ENTER to change to channel B on the SwitchPort the is connected to channel A of the SwitchPort your keyboard/Monitor/Mouse is connected to.
The Switchview comes in 2, 4 and 8 port versions. The 8 port version doesn't seem to have keyboard control, but we do have an old 8 port and it could have been changed since then. The 8 port, however, does have 9 buttons on the front of it, and is in a more sturdy metal case (the 2 and 4 ports are is smaller but more bulky plastic cases).
Bad points: 1) Definately with the 4 port version (haven't noticed on the 8 port), there is ghosting on the screens. It's not overly bad on lower resolutions. I use 1024x768 and do notice it sometimes. Depends on the colours on the screen. 2) Keyboard control cannot be disabled. This means that for something like Quake, if the CTRL key is set for Fire, then shooting twice means you no longer have keyboard control to your PC until you hit ENTER. The 8 port version, which would actually sit nicely under a monitor, wouldn't have this problem. 3) Scan rates and resolutions are limited. I don't have the manual to hand - I think 1280x1024 is the max it can handle, but it might be as low as 1024x768.
This Switchview suits me fine in work. I can easily switch between my 2 (ugh!) NT boxes, my MSDOS box (yep, I still use DOS 6.22), and my Linux Box (Redhat 6.0). [Natually, the Linux box is the most powerful even though it isn't officially used on site!:)]
I have seen the Compaq one in use on our Compaq servers. I haven't done a complete test of them, as such, but they do look well. I haven't noticed any Ghosting, but they only run the servers at 800x600[256]. However, some nice points about them... 1) Switching is done with the keyboard. Hitting the PrtScn button will bring up a menu on screen where you select the PCs you have connected 2) The items in the menu can be configured and named. 3) It doesn't suffer from "I can't play Quake" syndrome!
As for bad points, I can't think of any. The box does require external power, doesn't have any lights or buttons on the front, is 19" rack mountable, and will probably sit under a Montitor, or sideways between a couple of PCs. I wouldn't mind getting my hands on one to test it out fully.
You mean you haven't heard - Amiga are not producing any hardware, so the Transmete rumour, even if it was true, is not false. Amiga will be producing on the AmigaOS, and will be lisencing it out to other companies to use.
Also, considering that they are about to release WorkBench 3.5 (which will only run on top of AmigaOS 3.1), I don't think they will be releasing the code just yet. I don't think it would make much sense from a business point of view. However, I hope they do. I'd love to get my hands on it.
The AmigaOS was/is brilliant. I still use it every day at home. My Amiga is setup with Miami running IP-NAT. My PC has my Amiga setup as it's default gateway. Although my favourite web browser is Opera, I still prefer the Amiga for other things (Mail, IRC). I run Samba on my Amiga too, and can share files that way. And I don't have a graphics card - plain old AGA does me fine. And there are still new technologies coming out for the Amiga all the time - Voodoo 2 is available for it (Thank you phase 5 (http://www.phase5.de)), for example. It uses standard IDE Hard Drives (Although the new version of Workbench - 3.5 - is the only one that can access greater than 4Gb without any problems). Or SCSI Hard Drives. Most printer drivers are available for it - 3rd party, of course.
Someone earlier said that a Psion is faster than an A4000/060 - most 68060 processor on the Amiga are 50MHz, some are faster. And the 68060 has more efficient instructions that the equivelent Pentium (80586), making is roughly equivalent to a 75MHz Pentium. I know - by todays standards its not all that fast, but when you consider just how low overhead the AmigaOS has, being only 512K. I don't think a Psion runs quite that fast yet.
Yes, I know, I can get UAE. But isn't not the same as having and using a real Amiga. The Amiga is like having a really old car that still works. You can buy a Ferrari, but there is still something special about cruising around in a 1960s Chevey (sp?).
Don't get me wrong - I love Linux, and I have it installed on my A4000 (Debian 2.1).
The Amiga is far from dead. It's may not be up with the times thanks to it's owner companies, but the guys who worked with it really did work with it, and thought it through, and did an excellent job. It is a prime example of how an OS can tie in very carefully with the hardware - where the OS and the hardware were designed together, and integrated well.
I do have another 2 Amiga, but unfortunately don't have monitors to use them on. And if I could get my hands on them, I would get more.
As for what use the source would be, I personally would fine it very interesting to have a read through. I'd love to know more about the underlying structure. It's not all the big, so it would be perfect for students to study. The OS is based on Unix (believe it or not!), and would be perfect to study in College to see how things operate. 512K isn't all that big, and that includes IDE Drivers, Graphics drivers, Pre-emptive Multitasking, GUI, mouse drivers, interrupts, AutoConfig (the precurser to Plug&Play - except AutoConfig always works!). Such a wealth of info in such a small package.
Slashdot Mirror
And for some proof, have a look here for a picture of a desk being swarmed in Tux Dolls...
T.
I have one, and so have a few of my friends. We bought them last year - well, one of my friend bought them all, we we purchased them from him. They are quite excellent. Don't know where he got them though - I think it was in association with ILUG (Irish LUG). We also got Tux Stickers, the same size as the little square stickers on some PCs - you take off the 'designed for Windows 98/NT' sticker and put your TUX on instead. Eircom in Ireland have these stickers all over their Linux boxes. So so cool looking.
T.
One fault in the article - the films was Keanu's, as they say. Keanu happened to star in it, but it was the Wachowski Brothers film.
Minor detail, not worth quibbling about really.
T.
Well, I tried Keanu trick of running up a wall during a Kung-Fu fight, and I fell and hurt myself. And Tank nevers answers when I ask him to run the Apache-AH64 training programme...
T.
The word 'Internet' (Capital 'I') refers to what we always take that word to mean - Info.Superhighway, WWW, whatever. It is the Global Worldwide Internet.
The word 'internet' (small 'i') refers to the underlying network structure. It is not necessary TCP/IP based. An internet is a method of interconnecting many disparate physical networks and to make them function as a coordinated unit (internetworking). It accommodates multiple, diverse underlying hardware technologies by providing a way to interconnect heterogeneous network and a set of communication conventions. The internet technology hides the details of network hardware and permits computers to communicate independent of the physical network connections. - paraphrasing Internetworking with TCP/IP, Vol. I (Prentice Hall/ Comer, ISBN 0-13-227836-7)
So, MSWord should accept both 'Internet' and 'internet'. The same book describes the Internet as being TCP/IP based (TCP/IP Internet), as opposed to the other protocols which could be used.
T.
Hey, I thought this was funny. At least in the context of replying to the message I replied too. Damn, lost Karma points over this now. Some people just don't know how to take a joke.
T.
Wasn't his name Qui-Gon Gin. T.
The new bottle has a widget in it too. Each time you take a drink from the bottle, the widget releases a little bit more gas, thus keeping the head.
Those guys in the Research Centre in Ireland sure have their heads screwed on the right way. Doing wonders for our wonderful products.
As for good places to get Guinness in Ireland, here are a few that I know of:
Dublin Airport
Guinness Hopstore (let's face it, if you can't get a good pint of Guinness at the source, where else will you get one?)
Lynches Pub (Thomas St., Dublin - just down the road from the brewery)
Sheaf Of Wheat Pub, Coolock, Dublin (formally a Guinness owned pub)
I'm sure there are a lot more too.
I don't drink, so I can only go by what people tell me. But a lot of people who have drunk Guinness in Dublin Airport after flying home from a holiday have found it to be a delight to their taste buds.
The secret to a good pint of Guinness is the way you pour the pint. Guinness isn't lager, and thus shouldn't be poured like lager. It shouldn't be poured too fast either. And the Gas mix has to be right. Most barmen in Ireland know this, but unfortunately in other countries they don't.
Everyone knows that Guinness made in Ireland is the best in the world, but no too many realise that this same Guinness that is served in Irish pubs is also served in American pubs. Made right here in St. James's Gate.
http://www.guinness.com - you might even find the instructions on how to pull a proper pint.
Oh, it officially takes 119.5 seconds to pull a proper pint of Guinness.
T.
Nope, Drinking age is 18 is good old Eire, home of Guinness.
Incidently, that's where I'm sitting right now. 200 yards to my right are the giant kettles for making the wort, and 200 yards to my left are the giant 5000 Hectolitre fermentation vessles full of nice black Guinness.
Such a pity I don't drink.
T.
Am I the only one who has problems downloading 'extract'? The last time I updated X, I had problems downloading it, and this time I'm having similar problems. I can't download the whole file - I am consistantly missing about 30k of the file. Anyone else having similar problems? Any ideas on how to fix it? I have tried both Netscape and Opera, but to no avail. IExplorer crashed on my when installing the 200k file that allows you to view FTP sites. Typical.
Remember, the first quote was the stereotypical geek - it is the way geeks are normally thought of.
The latter half of the article defines, according to personality tests, what the majority of geeks are like, but not all. I remember taking one of those tests and coming out as INTJ, with S only 2 points behind N (ie. INTJ with very strong S). As soon as the woman who did the test saw the result, she asked me if I was involved with computers.
I would agree with the results found on the test in the article - I know a lot of computer oriented people who would fall into that particular personality bracket, and a few who definately don't.
Remember, though, that the article says that about 40% fall into that category. That's 60% that don't...!
T.
Don't a lot of wireless keyboard user infrared...?
T.
and that the impression I certainly got from the last film was that it was his last as Q anyway. I'll certainly miss him.
Rest in Peace Desmond.
Gary
Apologies. I did see the good use in it, but was unable to find a better alternative. Once again I must apologies if I mis-interpreted your original actions.
As for another example, I will endevour to come up with one.
However, apart from the seeming insult to your work, would you agree with the principle?
I can think of 4 different 'levels' of responsibility/blame here, depending on circumstance, and on the application.
1) User bad, programmer good:
A prime example of this would be 'tcpdump'. It is a very very useful tool for finding faults on networks - I only used it the other day. It doesn't just do tcp - it will handle all sort of network protocols. Such a useful little tool.
tcpdump, in short, is a network sniffer/analyser. It listens to all network packets passing by your network card and displays information about them on the screen. You can even save all of these packets to a file for analysis later.
This leads to a problem with it - in the wrong persons hands, this same tool could be used to find non-encrypted password, allowing someone to access a system. It can also trap encrypted password over the wire, save them to a file, and allow someone to crack it.
Of course, it can get even more than just password - emails, credit card details, etc. This is why we need good encryption routines and SSL.
This is a perfect example of where the user is the one at fault. The programmer did everything that was required to make the utility useful for fault finding. He would have known that it could be used for bad things, but it was necessary for the good things too.
2) User bad, Programmer good and bad:
(disclaimer: I'm not giving out about BO2K, just using it as the only example I can think of here. No harm is meant to CodC)
Next, the case of BO2K. This tool was, in some ways, written to allow people to get access to NT systems. It was written with the knowledge of certain security breaches in NT.
The program itself, though, it one of the best admin tools for NT. The guys who wrote it don't use it for gaining entry into NT systems.
Here, if a user maliciously uses the program, then, yes, the user is still at fault. Is the programmer responsible? Well, firstly we need to know if the ability to use it maliciously can be used for a good purpose. Yes, to an extent as it shows that there are security bugs, and that they should be fixed. Next, we need to know if the feature is a necessary feature in order for the program to work. In this case, I don't think it is.
So where does that leave us? Well, the feature was added in order to improve NT security. The feature brings to light the knowledge that the security problem exists. So, for this reason, the programmer was morally correct in adding the feature, if just to ensure that admins (and MS) fix any security holes so the feature can't be used.
At the same time, it was wrong, as not everyone will get the security feature fixed, meaning that the program can be used to gain access to their systems. This is a case of being right and wrong at the same time.
Notice, however, that the user is just wrong for using the feature.
3) User bad, Programmer bad:
Next has to be the case of a program designed to gain entry into a system, but with no other use. Again, a user using such a program would be wrong. If this program has no 'good' use (unlike BO2K), then the programmer would also be wrong.
An example here would be the program 'crack' for cracking Unix password - a tool written exclusively for that purpose.
4) User good, programmer bad:
User blameable, programmer bad:
Lastly would be the case of a virus/trojan. In this case, in most circumstances, the user is not to blame. Naturally, different circumstances can bring blame to the user. If, for example, the user forwards on 'Sophie.EXE' to all the other guys in the office, which is most likely agaist office policy, and it happens to contain a trojan/virus, then this user would be to blame for not checking it, in a moral sense. He may have innoscently sent the attachment, but blame could still be put on him for causing problems within the company.
The programmer of the virus is definately to blame.
In the case of the last 2 here, the difference is the a Virus/Trojan isn't a utility that the user would be using to deliberatly cause harm. In most cases, a user would be unaware of the virus within the program/file. Like, what's the harm in running Sophie.EXE, eh?
The whole moral issue in all of these cases can have exceptions. Take the example of crack - here the police could use this utility to help them gain access to a drug barons computer, helping to convict him. In this case, the use of the product is a good one, and you could say that the programmer's involvement was also good. Everything has exceptions.
Will KDE2.0 Apps have Gnome integration? That is, will the apps (konqueror, KOffice, etc) run OK under Gnome, or will we have to use KDE in we want to use these (what will be very fine) applications.
Will then even require KDE/Gnome at all? Will these apps be capable of running under, say, basic fvwm or twm, for those memory-challanged PCs?
Keep up the good work
T.
I have to agree with you on most, if not all, of those points. Yes, DVD Express is more graphically intensive than Slashdot, and thus, all things being equal, would take longer anyway.
The reason I picked those 2 sites is because they were the only ones I could think of off the top of my head. I don't have a list handy of what sites run on what hardware or on what OS.
And Slashdot probably does use MySQL too. I just thought I remembered Oracle being mentioned at some stage, but I'm probably mistaken.
However, there is still the point that the IIS Servers always seem to act slower. I can connect to site and just know, without checking, that it is NT4/IIS - and when I check, I'm right. (telnet to port 80, then 'HEAD / HTTP1.0' CR CR).
This isn't me trying to spread FUD, it just my personal observation. Apologies if it came across any differently.
(As for you Karma, I think it went up!)
T.
Everything looks fine to me too. All I can say is that I am disappointed at Linux's performance. Still won't stop me using it though.
However, I do have a question that maybe someone here could answer - if in testing NT proves to be faster than Linux, why then in the real world does Linux always feel faster? Web sites that run on Linux/Apache always seems more efficient and seem to load faster than ones on NT/IIS, but the tests here show otherwise!
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying the tests are fixed. If there were Redhat Engineers there doing the tuning (and I'm sure if they weren't really there we would have heard about it), I certainly can't say that the tests were fixed. But the tests certainly don't seem to reflect what I seem to witness in the real world? Maybe, just coincindently, the NT/IIS servers that I connect to happen to have lower bandwitdh than those with Linux...!
Anyway, here is an example:
NT/IIS: http://www.dvdexpress.com
- this is one of the site where they have multiple servers to handle the load. I think they go from www1 to www9, maybe higher. And it always seems slow...
Linux/Apache: http://slashdot.org
- this, AFAIK, runs on 1 web server (I think the config is 1 web server, and 1 oracle server). Correct me if I'm wrong. However, it definately isn't 9 or 10 webservers. And response time is always good.
Granted, the back end on both is completely different - DVDExpress runs on SQLServer, and slashdot on Oracle. But there is still a noticeable difference.
Anyone care to comment on this? Why does the real world never reflect 'scientific' testing?
T.
I use a Cybex Switchview (4 port version) for my PCs in my office. It works very well, but it does have some issues.
:)]
Firstly the good points:
1) It has one big button on the front for switching between PCs. Each press switches to the next connected PC.
2) Switching between the PCs can also be done with the keyboard. Hitting the CTRL key twice within one second passes the keyboard control over to the switchview. Then hitting the letter corresponding to the channel you want (A, B, C, D) and enter will switch to that channel.
3) There is no external power source. It will take it's power from the keyboard port of any of your PCs
4) They can be daisy chained - though this does require an external power source. Thus, changing with the keyboard becomes CTRL, CTRL, A, B, ENTER to change to channel B on the SwitchPort the is connected to channel A of the SwitchPort your keyboard/Monitor/Mouse is connected to.
The Switchview comes in 2, 4 and 8 port versions. The 8 port version doesn't seem to have keyboard control, but we do have an old 8 port and it could have been changed since then. The 8 port, however, does have 9 buttons on the front of it, and is in a more sturdy metal case (the 2 and 4 ports are is smaller but more bulky plastic cases).
Bad points:
1) Definately with the 4 port version (haven't noticed on the 8 port), there is ghosting on the screens. It's not overly bad on lower resolutions. I use 1024x768 and do notice it sometimes. Depends on the colours on the screen.
2) Keyboard control cannot be disabled. This means that for something like Quake, if the CTRL key is set for Fire, then shooting twice means you no longer have keyboard control to your PC until you hit ENTER. The 8 port version, which would actually sit nicely under a monitor, wouldn't have this problem.
3) Scan rates and resolutions are limited. I don't have the manual to hand - I think 1280x1024 is the max it can handle, but it might be as low as 1024x768.
This Switchview suits me fine in work. I can easily switch between my 2 (ugh!) NT boxes, my MSDOS box (yep, I still use DOS 6.22), and my Linux Box (Redhat 6.0). [Natually, the Linux box is the most powerful even though it isn't officially used on site!
I have seen the Compaq one in use on our Compaq servers. I haven't done a complete test of them, as such, but they do look well. I haven't noticed any Ghosting, but they only run the servers at 800x600[256]. However, some nice points about them...
1) Switching is done with the keyboard. Hitting the PrtScn button will bring up a menu on screen where you select the PCs you have connected
2) The items in the menu can be configured and named.
3) It doesn't suffer from "I can't play Quake" syndrome!
As for bad points, I can't think of any. The box does require external power, doesn't have any lights or buttons on the front, is 19" rack mountable, and will probably sit under a Montitor, or sideways between a couple of PCs. I wouldn't mind getting my hands on one to test it out fully.
T.
Oops, had a typo there...
...so the Transmeta rumour, even if it is true, is now false.
Sorry about that.
T.
You mean you haven't heard - Amiga are not producing any hardware, so the Transmete rumour, even if it was true, is not false. Amiga will be producing on the AmigaOS, and will be lisencing it out to other companies to use.
Also, considering that they are about to release WorkBench 3.5 (which will only run on top of AmigaOS 3.1), I don't think they will be releasing the code just yet. I don't think it would make much sense from a business point of view. However, I hope they do. I'd love to get my hands on it.
T.
The AmigaOS was/is brilliant. I still use it every day at home. My Amiga is setup with Miami running IP-NAT. My PC has my Amiga setup as it's default gateway. Although my favourite web browser is Opera, I still prefer the Amiga for other things (Mail, IRC). I run Samba on my Amiga too, and can share files that way. And I don't have a graphics card - plain old AGA does me fine.
And there are still new technologies coming out for the Amiga all the time - Voodoo 2 is available for it (Thank you phase 5 (http://www.phase5.de)), for example. It uses standard IDE Hard Drives (Although the new version of Workbench - 3.5 - is the only one that can access greater than 4Gb without any problems). Or SCSI Hard Drives. Most printer drivers are available for it - 3rd party, of course.
Someone earlier said that a Psion is faster than an A4000/060 - most 68060 processor on the Amiga are 50MHz, some are faster. And the 68060 has more efficient instructions that the equivelent Pentium (80586), making is roughly equivalent to a 75MHz Pentium. I know - by todays standards its not all that fast, but when you consider just how low overhead the AmigaOS has, being only 512K. I don't think a Psion runs quite that fast yet.
Yes, I know, I can get UAE. But isn't not the same as having and using a real Amiga. The Amiga is like having a really old car that still works. You can buy a Ferrari, but there is still something special about cruising around in a 1960s Chevey (sp?).
Don't get me wrong - I love Linux, and I have it installed on my A4000 (Debian 2.1).
The Amiga is far from dead. It's may not be up with the times thanks to it's owner companies, but the guys who worked with it really did work with it, and thought it through, and did an excellent job. It is a prime example of how an OS can tie in very carefully with the hardware - where the OS and the hardware were designed together, and integrated well.
I do have another 2 Amiga, but unfortunately don't have monitors to use them on. And if I could get my hands on them, I would get more.
As for what use the source would be, I personally would fine it very interesting to have a read through. I'd love to know more about the underlying structure. It's not all the big, so it would be perfect for students to study. The OS is based on Unix (believe it or not!), and would be perfect to study in College to see how things operate. 512K isn't all that big, and that includes IDE Drivers, Graphics drivers, Pre-emptive Multitasking, GUI, mouse drivers, interrupts, AutoConfig (the precurser to Plug&Play - except AutoConfig always works!). Such a wealth of info in such a small package.
T.
Team is a singular collective noun, and as such can be used with both 'has' and 'have'...
The team have finished...
The team has finished...
Basically, you are saying 'the [members of the] team have finished' in the first instance. Absolutely nothing wrong with that...
T.
printf("int: %d bits\nlong int: %d bits", sizeof(int)*8, sizeof(long int)*8);
This will produce...
int: 32 bits
long int: 32 bits
Proof positive. I seem to remember Borland C/C++ producing a different value...
Yep, just checked it (I actually still have Borland C++ 3.1 on my MSDos 486 PC). It reports 'int' to be 16 bits, and 'long int' to be 32 bits.
Anyway, 68 years will bring us past February 2038, so it'll do.... for now.
CNET has a similar article here.
T.