RAM disks on modern operating systems are a brain damaged idea. All you're doing is consuming RAM that could otherwise be used for disk cache and dynamically re-allocated for running code as required - the operating system probably has a much better idea of what needs to be held in RAM or cached than you do. Give vista the 8 gig of ram back and let its memory management do what it was designed to do...
Complaining about vista not working well with a RAM disk is like pulling 3 spark plug leads off your car and complaining that it has no power.
Lol. I've been running Vista quite *happily* since March 2007. If you can't get it to run acceptable on even semi-intelligently specc'd hardware from the past 3 years, you're incompetent. Spend the 100 dollars on throwing 2 gig or more of RAM at it, and it's all good. Yes, there were a few niggles on release, but the same goes for Windows XP pre-SP2, MacOS X pre 10.3 or so, etc. Your upgrade to Tiger ran faster than leopard, because leopard was not optimised, and its taken apple about 4 years to get MacOS X to where it should have been on release.
My only gripe with Vista thus far is the lack of 64 bit wireless NIC drivers.
For all the bitching and moaning about performance... get over it. Hardware moves on. Programming APIs get more powerful and new features are added. If you really want maximum performance you're not running OS/X either.
Be aware that if you patch your DNS server, and it sits behind a NAT that forwards requests, its possible that you are still vulnerable. Would suggest using one of the available tools, (eg on www.doxpara.com) to check your DNS, and if required/possible update your NAT firewall as well.
Simply patching your DNS server may not be enough.
I think you'll find that whilst they're using a single processor for the "system" - there are several copies of the system on board the plane. Most/many fly by wire military aircraft have double or quad redundant flight control systems.
I don't care what the theoretical advantages are - in terms of "Getting shit done" it was vastly inferior to 3.5 for me.
In fact, I've been running various builds of KDE since the 1.0 (or pre-1.0, i forget, it's been that long) days, and every new version I've been impressed with the advances in usability and "neat" stuff to help me get things done quicker.
In that respect, for the first time in my experience, 4.0 was a huge backwards step.
If they're serious about capturing the desktop market, Linux distributions should not ship 4.x as the standard desktop until the criteria of "does it get shit done quicker/easier" is fulfilled.
AS someone who's been an admin for an ISP here in Australia the other side of the coin is that shaping allows you to improve performance for critical apps. If you want an un-shaped, business grade connection, sorry but you need to pay for it. The only reason consumer grade internet access is so cheap is because its generally over-subscribed by re-sellers. Stuff like bit-torrent, and users who are attempting to mirror the internet have unfortunately broken that model, hence shaping to try and regain some sort of acceptable interactive performance. Without shaping your interactive performance will suffer.
If you want un-shaped, committed data rates, your bandwidth is going to cost more, its pretty simple.
... after trying safari out for about 15 minutes when it was first released for windows, i advise windows users to shun safari simply because its completely shit, like the rest of Apple's windows software.
... the pc architecture is going to be catching up to where the Amiga and various consoles have been for the past 2-3 decades (in terms of basic high level design ideas)?
I have used a computer for probably over 15 years now and to date I've never had a virus [b]that I am aware of.
Whilst I agree to an extent, its rather impossible to know that something is necessarily legit and virus free just by looking at it. Yes you can avoid a very large percentage of infections that way, but occasionally, things like code-red come along that infect via methods other than the usual vectors (ie, infecting a web server and the server sending infected pages to your browser) that will catch you out.
Any half-competent root-kit will simply tell the scanner what it wants to hear via hooks into the O/S to trap any "diagnostics" that it may perform.
The trick is not not get infected in the first place - once your PC *is* infected, you're fucked. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Reinstall time - nothing on your box can be trusted any more.
The sooner people "get" this, the better off they'll be.
... anyone who has administered a Linux machine and/or coded on more than one breed of *nix knows that there's a fuckload of difference as far as programming goes between say, Linux and Solaris or FreeBSD.
... no shit? However, DOS was way quicker at running DOS apps than windows, and look where that went.
Features don't come for free. The different in speed for most things is negligible.
Processor time is cheap, programmer time is expensive. *If* the new features mean we get better quality apps due to shared libraries/services built into the OS, then I don't see the problem.
I'm sure that the random third world dude trying to put together an A-bomb is going to say "oh fuck, it's patented" and throw his hands up in dispair...:|
Another "yay somebody gets it" post... but with an addition.
All copyprotection does is punish your legitimate customers. Slightly different industry, but mining software is appalling for this. Surpac/Datamine/etc all have the most god-damn-awful licensing software on the face of the planet. If you were to run a cracked version, you wouldn't have to deal with it.
Effectively by going legit, you're paying to be fucked around by the licensing software.
Same with code-wheels, safedisc, etc, etc. Its an inconvenience to your PAYING customers that the pirates don't have to deal with it. Fuck that.
Include a decent manual, an additional online content (forums, news, ability to post suggestions for expansions, etc - whatever) for paying customers - but don't punish them.
I too switched from being a debian server person to FreeBSD back in the days when FreeBSD 4.0 was new. In fact, I still have a bunch of FreeBSD 4 servers that I installed, left the company for 2 years, came back, and they're still running fine:D
They will be upgraded/hardware replaced with 7.0 machines soon (have been waiting on 7.0 release for a few months now).
Now, why did I switch?
For me, several factors, these are the main ones...
Clear seperation of the supported "base system" and additional apps. The base freebsd system is pretty small and self contained, and tightly integrated. Upgrading to new versions of apps via ports does not incur breakage in the base system when core libraries are upgraded - the port is simply autoconf'd to compile using the libraries you have installed - unless it *really* requires features in a specific gnu add-on library.
The general feel and documentation on FreeBSD has so far given me the impression that although certain features may take longer to arrive on BSD, once implemented, the API does not generally change much. So, you learn how to do task X with FreeBSD 4.x for example - the same sort of configuration tasks still apply on later versions. Yes, there are changes but to a much lesser extent than say, moving from ipfwadm->ipchains->ipfilter-> etc with Linux.
Because there's one base system for "FreeBSD" all the "FreeBSD" instructions you typically find apply. Unlike with Linux where variant x, y, and z may all have slight idiosyncracies specific to their particular filesystem layout, etc.
Error messages, logs, etc were (back in the day) a lot more orderly and professional/polished. A minor niggle, and Linux has improved lots in the past 5 years, but it was yet another "hmm neat, its easy to read my syslog" type nicety.
Plus, at the time, I'd been building Linux machines for 5 years and wanted to check out BSD. As it was, I preferred it and haven't really gone back. I'll still install Linux occasionally and as far as desktop use goes, there's easier support for more apps, but if it's a machine that I'll have to maintain as a server, long term - FreeBSD all the way thanks.
Umm, they're completely correct to take this stance. WPA is far inferior to IPSEC, security-wise. It's OpenBSD's job to help insulate you from insecure technologies. We could easily say, "Just because FreeBSD allows one-character passwords, OpenBSD should, too!" And you know what? We'd be wrong to think in that way.
So if you have no ipsec available to connect to, but have WPA, and your data isn't *that* confidential that you give a crap that WPA can be broken (eg, you simply want to access a WPA protected internet service from your hotel or whatever), then you're fucked. Top work.
It's not OpenBSD's "job" to make choices regarding network utilisation for you. It's openBSD's "job" to provide a "Secure out of the box" installation. Which for the most part, it does.
I'm quite sure OpenBSD doesn't "insulate" you from SMTP, DNS, and cleartext passwords over telnet, if that's what you want to install.
If it's that slow, there's a patch missing, a hardware problem, or some other issue.
I too had file copy speed problems (down to 11mb/sec) for a few months and my disk was on the way out.
I've got a couple of vista machines, and copying from one to the other or from disk to disk is fine these days. No I didn't RTFA, but from some of the comments, it looks like a totally different reality to what I have at home running vista was presented.
I'm not saying Vista is a perfect product by any stretch, but it's certainly no where near as unusable as a lot of people would have you believe. I upgraded from XP in March 07 and haven't looked back on my home PC. At work i use XP because of better AD tool support.
If Falcon 4: Allied force, and the other Falcon 4 variants will run satisfactorily under WINE, i'll go back to Linux full time (have run it since 96 in various jobs including desktop, but my home pc is for games), but i'm too much of a flight sim nerd to give up Falcon...:|
but the Wii should be held to a higher standard because...?
Because hardware-wise, it's shit, and the unique and superior software line-up was supposedly (and traditionally has been for every nintendo system) the whole selling point of the system?
Slashdot Mirror
Complaining about vista not working well with a RAM disk is like pulling 3 spark plug leads off your car and complaining that it has no power.
My only gripe with Vista thus far is the lack of 64 bit wireless NIC drivers.
For all the bitching and moaning about performance... get over it. Hardware moves on. Programming APIs get more powerful and new features are added. If you really want maximum performance you're not running OS/X either.
Simply patching your DNS server may not be enough.
I think you'll find that whilst they're using a single processor for the "system" - there are several copies of the system on board the plane. Most/many fly by wire military aircraft have double or quad redundant flight control systems.
I used KDE4.0 for a couple of days. Hated it.
I don't care what the theoretical advantages are - in terms of "Getting shit done" it was vastly inferior to 3.5 for me.
In fact, I've been running various builds of KDE since the 1.0 (or pre-1.0, i forget, it's been that long) days, and every new version I've been impressed with the advances in usability and "neat" stuff to help me get things done quicker.
In that respect, for the first time in my experience, 4.0 was a huge backwards step.
If they're serious about capturing the desktop market, Linux distributions should not ship 4.x as the standard desktop until the criteria of "does it get shit done quicker/easier" is fulfilled.
2c.
AS someone who's been an admin for an ISP here in Australia the other side of the coin is that shaping allows you to improve performance for critical apps. If you want an un-shaped, business grade connection, sorry but you need to pay for it. The only reason consumer grade internet access is so cheap is because its generally over-subscribed by re-sellers. Stuff like bit-torrent, and users who are attempting to mirror the internet have unfortunately broken that model, hence shaping to try and regain some sort of acceptable interactive performance. Without shaping your interactive performance will suffer.
If you want un-shaped, committed data rates, your bandwidth is going to cost more, its pretty simple.
... after trying safari out for about 15 minutes when it was first released for windows, i advise windows users to shun safari simply because its completely shit, like the rest of Apple's windows software.
Funny how things work, isn't it.
Whilst I agree to an extent, its rather impossible to know that something is necessarily legit and virus free just by looking at it. Yes you can avoid a very large percentage of infections that way, but occasionally, things like code-red come along that infect via methods other than the usual vectors (ie, infecting a web server and the server sending infected pages to your browser) that will catch you out.
Any half-competent root-kit will simply tell the scanner what it wants to hear via hooks into the O/S to trap any "diagnostics" that it may perform.
The trick is not not get infected in the first place - once your PC *is* infected, you're fucked. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Reinstall time - nothing on your box can be trusted any more.
The sooner people "get" this, the better off they'll be.
erm, given that my post says "there's a fuckload of difference", i would say that means "there's a fuckload of difference"?
... anyone who has administered a Linux machine and/or coded on more than one breed of *nix knows that there's a fuckload of difference as far as programming goes between say, Linux and Solaris or FreeBSD.
should i continue? or is there already abundant proof out there that darl is a lying sack of shit?
... mugging, shooting, armed robbery, theft, running from the cops, etc is all a game - but DUI is not. glad we got that one sorted.
Features don't come for free. The different in speed for most things is negligible.
Processor time is cheap, programmer time is expensive. *If* the new features mean we get better quality apps due to shared libraries/services built into the OS, then I don't see the problem.
I'm sure that the random third world dude trying to put together an A-bomb is going to say "oh fuck, it's patented" and throw his hands up in dispair... :|
All copyprotection does is punish your legitimate customers. Slightly different industry, but mining software is appalling for this. Surpac/Datamine/etc all have the most god-damn-awful licensing software on the face of the planet. If you were to run a cracked version, you wouldn't have to deal with it.
Effectively by going legit, you're paying to be fucked around by the licensing software.
Same with code-wheels, safedisc, etc, etc. Its an inconvenience to your PAYING customers that the pirates don't have to deal with it. Fuck that.
Include a decent manual, an additional online content (forums, news, ability to post suggestions for expansions, etc - whatever) for paying customers - but don't punish them.
They're not FreeBSD.
Ban traffic lights. Install roundabouts. Round up and nuke those incompetents who can't learn to use them.
They will be upgraded/hardware replaced with 7.0 machines soon (have been waiting on 7.0 release for a few months now).
Now, why did I switch?
For me, several factors, these are the main ones...
- Clear seperation of the supported "base system" and additional apps. The base freebsd system is pretty small and self contained, and tightly integrated. Upgrading to new versions of apps via ports does not incur breakage in the base system when core libraries are upgraded - the port is simply autoconf'd to compile using the libraries you have installed - unless it *really* requires features in a specific gnu add-on library.
- The general feel and documentation on FreeBSD has so far given me the impression that although certain features may take longer to arrive on BSD, once implemented, the API does not generally change much. So, you learn how to do task X with FreeBSD 4.x for example - the same sort of configuration tasks still apply on later versions. Yes, there are changes but to a much lesser extent than say, moving from ipfwadm->ipchains->ipfilter-> etc with Linux.
- Because there's one base system for "FreeBSD" all the "FreeBSD" instructions you typically find apply. Unlike with Linux where variant x, y, and z may all have slight idiosyncracies specific to their particular filesystem layout, etc.
-
Error messages, logs, etc were (back in the day) a lot more orderly and professional/polished. A minor niggle, and Linux has improved lots in the past 5 years, but it was yet another "hmm neat, its easy to read my syslog" type nicety.
Plus, at the time, I'd been building Linux machines for 5 years and wanted to check out BSD. As it was, I preferred it and haven't really gone back. I'll still install Linux occasionally and as far as desktop use goes, there's easier support for more apps, but if it's a machine that I'll have to maintain as a server, long term - FreeBSD all the way thanks.Press "A" for auto partitioning and then "A" in the disk layout section for auto-defaults.
As it has been since at least FreeBSD 4.0.
So if you have no ipsec available to connect to, but have WPA, and your data isn't *that* confidential that you give a crap that WPA can be broken (eg, you simply want to access a WPA protected internet service from your hotel or whatever), then you're fucked. Top work.
It's not OpenBSD's "job" to make choices regarding network utilisation for you. It's openBSD's "job" to provide a "Secure out of the box" installation. Which for the most part, it does.
I'm quite sure OpenBSD doesn't "insulate" you from SMTP, DNS, and cleartext passwords over telnet, if that's what you want to install.
I too had file copy speed problems (down to 11mb/sec) for a few months and my disk was on the way out.
I've got a couple of vista machines, and copying from one to the other or from disk to disk is fine these days. No I didn't RTFA, but from some of the comments, it looks like a totally different reality to what I have at home running vista was presented.
I'm not saying Vista is a perfect product by any stretch, but it's certainly no where near as unusable as a lot of people would have you believe. I upgraded from XP in March 07 and haven't looked back on my home PC. At work i use XP because of better AD tool support.
If Falcon 4: Allied force, and the other Falcon 4 variants will run satisfactorily under WINE, i'll go back to Linux full time (have run it since 96 in various jobs including desktop, but my home pc is for games), but i'm too much of a flight sim nerd to give up Falcon... :|
Because hardware-wise, it's shit, and the unique and superior software line-up was supposedly (and traditionally has been for every nintendo system) the whole selling point of the system?