No, those are POTENTIAL losses. And in a $13tn economy, potential loss of 1.3tn if every computer in the economy was compromised and data was leaked doesn't sound unreasonable?
OK. MD leaves his laptop at airport/side of road/in car that is stolen. He has competitive-advantage generating information on there, that would be worth millions of dollars in contracts to a competitor.
We've had staff have laptops stolen, with data like that on them in the past. Do we know that the data was let into the wrong hands? Nope. But it could have been.
Yup, as per the other reply, don't just blindly enable de-dupe, as it uses a lot of RAM. But - if you have hardware capable of it (dedicated NAS box recommended), it will do the job above as described. RAM is cheap these days anyway, 32gb for a desktop is only a few hundred bucks?
To clarify - no this will not remove duplicate references to the data. The files ystem will remain in tact. However it will perform block level dedupe of the data which will recover your space. Duplicate references aren't necessarily a bad thing anyway, as if you have any sort of content index (memory, code, etc) that refers to data in a particular location, it will continue to work. However the space will be recovered.
The problem hasn't been with the Linux desktop UI for about 10 years now. Gnome 2 was fine. KDE 2 or 3.x was fine.
The problems are to do with driver support, upgrade breakage, package manager brain damage and ABI breakage scaring off commercial software.
The desktop itself is fine, and no amount of faffing about with 3d rotating desktops and other nerdgasm worth stuff will fix that. Stop fucking around with eye candy and fix the core issues the operating system has first. The current progress seems much like the old "re-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic", and I say that as a former Linux on desktop user since 1995.
I got sick and tired of the core issues remaining whilst shiny-new-desktop of the month kept being released and replacing all my somewhat stable apps with new buggy replacements.
I was a Linux and FreeBSD desktop user between 1995 and 2005. Sometimes full time, most of the time dual boot so that I could run games if I wanted to.
Why did I ditch Linux and FreeBSD on the desktop for OS X?
ABI breakage. I don't want to have to keep fixing my sound or video when I upgrade kernels, or video / sound card. Commercial software support: there is commercial software I would like to run. Desktop environment brain damage: The UI in KDE 2 or even KDE 3.x was fine. Changing things around every 6-12 months because some developer has an itch to scratch at the cost of breaking ABI compatibility is a pain in the arse for your users.
Package manager hell: RPM, DEB, ports... i've tried them all. Upgrades often break shit, or demand that I upgrade half the libraries on my machine for one package, sometimes creating circular dependencies. Yes, I can fix it, but I shouldn't have to. Most of the software on my mac can be added/removed via simple drag and drop of an app bundle. It doesn't need to be that hard.
PC-BSD has the right idea on that, and have created a.PBI package format, but they're still at the mercy of free desktop environment developers.
In short: I have money. I want something that works well. If it means I end up paying for a Mac to run OS X, so be it. I spend enough time compiling source code, chasing package dependencies, etc at work on my *nix servers.
As others have pointed out. I simply want a Unix desktop that works. Whether it is free or not is besides the point. So long as it is affordable (i.e., within 25% or so of the equivalent PC cost), I'll gladly pay the difference.
I dipped my toes in the water in 2008 with a Mac mini and haven't looked back.
TCP/IP competency. An idea of how subnets and routing work. No need to be a CCIE or whatever, but various Windows things need some basic network related configuration. Look for experience in troubleshooting Active Directory replication, and group policy, as group policy is used to distribution configuration and replication of group policy depends on AD replication to work properly.
There are competent windows admins out there, but plenty of muppets.
I just don't understand how AMD could have gotten to the point of volume production without determining the inferior performance to their previous generation first. Do they do no testing? It's not like Windows 7 is rare or hard to obtain.
Unless they start turning a profit (i.e., steamroller actually works this time), they won't be able to afford new fabs, and the investment required in CPU design to even try to keep up. Things have not been good for AMD lately.
CPUs don't really drive software development that much. Or else we would have migrated off x86 years ago. If intel can get the same/similar performance without a paradigm shift in development methodology, developers won't bother.
Unless they're planning to cut their margins drastically, "cheap and good enough" won't work. By the time this comes out, intel CPUs with the performance of even mid-range sandy bridge CPUs will be quite cheap in their celeron (or whatever their cheap equivalent is these days) line up.
... or amd are facing irrelevance. ARM is eating their lunch in mobile, the core series is eating their lunch on the desktop, and the atom isn't standing still in the low power market.
Intel's integrated GPUs are now "good enough" for most people. Those who game won't want integrated AMD if integrated intel isn't good enough...
So much this. By attempting to pump out 100 different models you are incurring massive R&D, logistics and advertising / promo costs. People are not that different. They need portables, some need desktops. You can break virtually all users into 2-3 camps - generic "home user" and "power user / gamer".
Build a few different sized portables, in the 2 "general" or "power" flavors. Build some desktops in the "general" (i.e., mac mini ish) and "power" classes (workstation with different CPU/GPU options) and thats it. There is NO NEED for 47 different looking models to cater for a myriad of different imaginary markets.
Also, apple has used the same enclosures on their macbook range and imac range for YEARS. If the case design is not broken, don't waste R&D/production/re-tooling costs creating a new enclosure?
The PC vendors are sending themselves broke by making low quality garbage because they simply fail to understand the implications of pumping out so many different products simply for the sake of it.
Slashdot Mirror
No, those are POTENTIAL losses. And in a $13tn economy, potential loss of 1.3tn if every computer in the economy was compromised and data was leaked doesn't sound unreasonable?
Depends on your CPU. Modern CPUs with AES in hardware can likely do SSD transfer speed at line rate.
OK. MD leaves his laptop at airport/side of road/in car that is stolen. He has competitive-advantage generating information on there, that would be worth millions of dollars in contracts to a competitor.
We've had staff have laptops stolen, with data like that on them in the past. Do we know that the data was let into the wrong hands? Nope. But it could have been.
So, how well do you stand up to beatings/torture, tough guy?
on a modern cpu with AES hardware acceleration, the cpu cost is minimal. if you have valuable data, you'd be negligent not to enable it.
can != should != will
Yup, as per the other reply, don't just blindly enable de-dupe, as it uses a lot of RAM. But - if you have hardware capable of it (dedicated NAS box recommended), it will do the job above as described. RAM is cheap these days anyway, 32gb for a desktop is only a few hundred bucks?
To clarify - no this will not remove duplicate references to the data. The files ystem will remain in tact. However it will perform block level dedupe of the data which will recover your space. Duplicate references aren't necessarily a bad thing anyway, as if you have any sort of content index (memory, code, etc) that refers to data in a particular location, it will continue to work. However the space will be recovered.
as per subject.
The problem hasn't been with the Linux desktop UI for about 10 years now. Gnome 2 was fine. KDE 2 or 3.x was fine.
The problems are to do with driver support, upgrade breakage, package manager brain damage and ABI breakage scaring off commercial software.
The desktop itself is fine, and no amount of faffing about with 3d rotating desktops and other nerdgasm worth stuff will fix that. Stop fucking around with eye candy and fix the core issues the operating system has first. The current progress seems much like the old "re-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic", and I say that as a former Linux on desktop user since 1995.
I got sick and tired of the core issues remaining whilst shiny-new-desktop of the month kept being released and replacing all my somewhat stable apps with new buggy replacements.
I was a Linux and FreeBSD desktop user between 1995 and 2005. Sometimes full time, most of the time dual boot so that I could run games if I wanted to.
Why did I ditch Linux and FreeBSD on the desktop for OS X?
ABI breakage. I don't want to have to keep fixing my sound or video when I upgrade kernels, or video / sound card. Commercial software support: there is commercial software I would like to run. Desktop environment brain damage: The UI in KDE 2 or even KDE 3.x was fine. Changing things around every 6-12 months because some developer has an itch to scratch at the cost of breaking ABI compatibility is a pain in the arse for your users.
Package manager hell: RPM, DEB, ports... i've tried them all. Upgrades often break shit, or demand that I upgrade half the libraries on my machine for one package, sometimes creating circular dependencies. Yes, I can fix it, but I shouldn't have to. Most of the software on my mac can be added/removed via simple drag and drop of an app bundle. It doesn't need to be that hard.
PC-BSD has the right idea on that, and have created a .PBI package format, but they're still at the mercy of free desktop environment developers.
In short: I have money. I want something that works well. If it means I end up paying for a Mac to run OS X, so be it. I spend enough time compiling source code, chasing package dependencies, etc at work on my *nix servers.
As others have pointed out. I simply want a Unix desktop that works. Whether it is free or not is besides the point. So long as it is affordable (i.e., within 25% or so of the equivalent PC cost), I'll gladly pay the difference.
I dipped my toes in the water in 2008 with a Mac mini and haven't looked back.
TCP/IP competency. An idea of how subnets and routing work. No need to be a CCIE or whatever, but various Windows things need some basic network related configuration. Look for experience in troubleshooting Active Directory replication, and group policy, as group policy is used to distribution configuration and replication of group policy depends on AD replication to work properly.
There are competent windows admins out there, but plenty of muppets.
I just don't understand how AMD could have gotten to the point of volume production without determining the inferior performance to their previous generation first. Do they do no testing? It's not like Windows 7 is rare or hard to obtain.
HD3000 can run Diablo 3, WOW, etc as well. In terms of CPU though, intel kicks butt at the moment.
Exactly. They're both guilty, Lulzsec doing the crime doesn't absolve sony of responsibility however.
The difference is, that girls in short skirts, or people not locking their doors are only risking their own stuff.
Sony was holding the personal details of many of their customers. To leave that so open to the outside world shoudl be deemed criminally negligent.
Cheers, might need to check it out. Last time I checked it had something like only NE2000 NIC support and generic Super VGA support if that.
... do they have a decent selection of NIC and video drivers yet?
Unless they start turning a profit (i.e., steamroller actually works this time), they won't be able to afford new fabs, and the investment required in CPU design to even try to keep up. Things have not been good for AMD lately.
CPUs don't really drive software development that much. Or else we would have migrated off x86 years ago. If intel can get the same/similar performance without a paradigm shift in development methodology, developers won't bother.
Unless they're planning to cut their margins drastically, "cheap and good enough" won't work. By the time this comes out, intel CPUs with the performance of even mid-range sandy bridge CPUs will be quite cheap in their celeron (or whatever their cheap equivalent is these days) line up.
The thing is, the low end don't care for masses of PCI lanes. They run integrated video. The high end want a fast CPU as well.
Intel's integrated GPUs are now "good enough" for most people. Those who game won't want integrated AMD if integrated intel isn't good enough...
You fail at comprehension. Read my post again.
So much this. By attempting to pump out 100 different models you are incurring massive R&D, logistics and advertising / promo costs. People are not that different. They need portables, some need desktops. You can break virtually all users into 2-3 camps - generic "home user" and "power user / gamer".
Build a few different sized portables, in the 2 "general" or "power" flavors. Build some desktops in the "general" (i.e., mac mini ish) and "power" classes (workstation with different CPU/GPU options) and thats it. There is NO NEED for 47 different looking models to cater for a myriad of different imaginary markets.
Also, apple has used the same enclosures on their macbook range and imac range for YEARS. If the case design is not broken, don't waste R&D/production/re-tooling costs creating a new enclosure?
The PC vendors are sending themselves broke by making low quality garbage because they simply fail to understand the implications of pumping out so many different products simply for the sake of it.