- many to many thread model IBM wrote a patch for this...
- better device handing/management
This is not a rip on driver availability, I'm talking about the ability to manage existing disks and existing (mostly scsi/fibre channel) devices. I can add entire new disk subsystems to Solaris and bring them online with a few commands (drvconfig, devlinks, disks). I need to reboot linux.
Along those same veins, how about support for much more mem (ala SGIs patches) and more processors?
- optimizations for Java/XML/whatever
- more kernel modules, fewer kernel hacks
- rework the dev chain to make more sense (/dev/hda1 just doesn't cut it anymore). Specifically, when I manage many disk subsystems I want pci/controller/hardware info. Look to Solaris for the best example: take a look at what/dev/rdsk/c0t0d0s0 points to...it's a long device path that I can use to ascertain the exact location of hardware (down to which bank an IO card sits in inside an E10000).
This is not a spiteful bash -- how many of you can claim you've been running since pre 1.0 kernels? BUT...it's use in large data centers is limited to web servers and network management stations. I want this kernel to run with the big boys.
I read the kernel mailings, it's pretty obvious that those "on top" have their own ideas and aren't so interested in the Enterprise management capabilities of linux -- I see work being done to make linux work better on a $1500 PC than on a departmental workgroup server. Look at the shamefull non-support of NFS v3 until now!
I buy lots of systems and manage hundreds of servers around the world. I focus on RAS: Reliability, Availability, and Serviceability. It can be argued that linux has the first two, but I would disagree with the last until I can hot-swap/add-in forty fibre-channel disks without a reboot.
On a side note, Embedded Linux will probably succeed where "regular" linux does not
Trust me when I say that Sun's new systems are going to make it even harder for linux to make the big leagues next year.
Loooks like the Commision did not agree to destroy the rights we Americans have shared completely. The industry has 30 days to produce a final version of whatever license they propose for review. It will be reviewed and commented on. We will have a chance to get our say.
Send your input to each of the FCC commisioners (noted on the FCC website). Send your opinion to your elected representatives. Go to the Presidential stumps and get your questions asked. Don't be a dolt and let this happen without putting reasonable, rational concerns into the right heads.
Emphasis Added: Interesting stuff at bottom
FCC ADOPTS ORDER IN SET-TOP BOX PROCEEDING;
INITIATES REVIEW OF 1998 NAVIGATION DEVICES RULES
Washington, DC Today the Federal Communications Commission adopted a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Further Notice") and Declaratory Ruling ("Order") in its navigation devices proceeding.
In Section 629 of the Communications Act, Congress directed the FCC to adopt rules that would allow consumers to obtain "navigation devices," such as cable set-top boxes, remote control units and other equipment, from commercial sources other than their cable providers. In 1998, the Commission adopted navigation device rules with the intent of improving consumer choice by fostering a competitive retail market for this equipment and said that it would monitor the development of the commercial availability of navigation devices and commence a proceeding in the year 2000 to review the effectiveness of the rules and consider any necessary changes. The Further Notice adopted today initiates this review.
In various proceedings before the Commission, interested parties have argued that a copy protection licensing agreement under development by CableLabs, the Dynamic Feedback Arrangement Scrambling Technique ("DFAST") license, violates the Commission's navigation devices rules. Specifically, these parties asserted that the DFAST license requires that a copy protection encryption system be located in host navigation devices in violation of the security separation requirement of the Commission's navigation devices rules. The Commission's rules require that a cable operator's conditional access, or security, functions be located in a separate point of deployment ("POD") device.
In order to give guidance to interested parties and to prevent delay in the transition from analog-based technology to digital-based technology, the Commission determined in today's Order that this controversy was best resolved in the form of a narrow declaratory ruling, and concluded that some measure of anti-copying encryption technology located within a host navigation device is consistent with the Commission's navigation devices rules.
Summary of the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:
In the Further Notice adopted today, the Commission sought comment on the following issues:
Whether the interface specifications developed by CableLabs allow consumer electronics manufacturers to build equipment that provides consumers a viable alternative to the equipment provided by their cable operator.
The effect operator provision of integrated equipment has had on achieving a competitive market and whether the 2005 date for the phase-out of integrated boxes remains appropriate.
Obstacles or barriers preventing or deterring the development of a retail market for navigation devices.
What actions, if any, should the Commission initiate to achieve the statutory objective of competition in the navigation devices market.
Summary of the Declaratory Ruling:
In today's Order, the Commission addressed the narrow issue of whether technology licenses requiring copy protection measures to be located within commercially available equipment are consistent with the Commission's navigation devices rules. The Order noted that the Commission's initial navigation devices Order expressly contemplated the inclusion of copy protection measures in navigation host devices and that such measures would not violate the security separation requirement. Today's Order reiterated that some measure of anti-copying encryption technology is consistent with the intent of the rules because such measures protect a gap where digital data would otherwise be available "in the clear" and subject to unrestricted digital copying.
With this controversy resolved, the Commission directed industry participants to finalize negotiations necessary to bring to fruition the goals of Section 629 and requested that industry participants submit, within 30 days of the release of the Order, a report on the status of the DFAST license, including a final version of a completed DFAST license agreement.
Although today's ruling clarified that the inclusion of some amount of copy protection within a host device does not violate the navigation devices rules, the Commission did not determine whether specific copy protection terms or technology were consistent with the rules. The Commission also concluded that no evidence was presented that reasonable home copying would be impeded by the inclusion of copy protection within host devices.
Action by the Commission September 14, 2000, by Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Declaratory Ruling (CS Docket # 97-80, FCC 00-341).
- FCC -
Cable Services Bureau contact: Thomas Horan at (202) 418-7200.
When I moved to the DC area in Jan 94 I thought this place sucked (I'm from NY and consider this the "South"). Couldn't wait to leave (I was enlisted military).
I'm still here (post-military) and have my own tech company. Not rich, but I don't need to be -- I'm building a 5500+ foot house in Calvert County Maryland on 15 beautiful acres. I'm 1.9 miles from the Chesapeake Bay beaches (not quite Cali, but oh well).
How much? Land: $117K, house: $315K.
Downside: Prices are climbing here, traffic is second worst in nation (behind LA).
Upside:We're now the Internet capital of the world (sorry SV, you lose)...life is good for us out here.
My builder didn't want to do it. I'm bringing in another electrician to help me meet specs and running them myself during Rough-In.
My basement has 9' ceilings and a good portion of it will be my office, within it will be a computer/electrical room(raised flooring, etc.). All incoming lines (phone, power, cable) will terminate in there. I'm home-running from the basement up two floors and into the attic.
As much fun as this sounds, I wish the damn builder would help out a little more.
Anybody know where I can learn to terminate fiber on-line?
My wife (an accountant) wanted to learn a language. Her experience with computers was pretty much limited to playing with boards & pieces & parts at the office.
I gave her "Just Java 2" and Visual Cafe (JBuilder wasn't a free download then). After a little reading she created her first object for my birthday (I'm a real geek, I guess). Java offers plenty of opportunity to learn OO and programatic style. It's cross-platform (someday your kids will laugh at all of the "platform wars") and C-like. Get 'em interested today: Download the Java Media Framework and play a short movie in Java. Do some MP3s before the acronym becomes illegal. Hell, give them the vile "Nervous Text" we all hate.
Let 'em have fun.
Cheap Advice: You do all the setup and installation of the environment. Focus on the code, they'll become SAs on their own.
Every machine has it's issues. In the name of honest reviews I offer the following. I manage a few E10Ks for various customers and have found them lacking in several regards:
- I have heard Sun salespeople market these things as "fault tolerant"; they have since stopped. - Price/Performance: Almost everyone I know who runs these things partition them down to E4500 sized domains; these are awful expensive 16 CPU systems.
Some Sun issues that affect uptime (on any platform): - Alternate Pathing just doesn't work as advertised. Unless a path (disk/network) goes completly dead in one instant you are stuck with a faltering path -- just like normal. Most disk controller failures are long-term slides: AP does not kick in. Sun's local SEs privately suggest dumping AP.
- Sun storage is way behind that of Network Appliance, et al. Failures in a disk path are hard to diagnose: if you are losing conections to an A5200 array you follow Sun guidance -- replace every GBIC in the path, then start replacing Interface Boards. There is NO way to trace a failing GBIC.
- Speaking of GBICs, I had Sun provide replacements for EVERY GBIC deleivered with new E10Ks and Exx00 servers after I learned that those produced by Vixel Corp had "longevity issues". Call Sun and ask about this.
Despite this, I still don't want to touch an NT box. Hardware can be fixed, salespeople can be beaten into submission...we make progress with Sun. Our NT systems crash and we can't get anywhere with MS or Compaq.
Believe it or not, I am a Sun fan. I just think that discussing issues openly breeds solutions. Microsoft seems to hide and deny any issue...that's why I prefer Sun systems.
While a bit off-topic, I am waiting for a Linux distro that can handle new hardware without a reboot, scale up to 64 procs/64 GB RAM, and can journal their FS. anyone at VA or SGI listening?
Slashdot Mirror
- better device handing/management
This is not a rip on driver availability, I'm talking about the ability to manage existing disks and existing (mostly scsi/fibre channel) devices. I can add entire new disk subsystems to Solaris and bring them online with a few commands (drvconfig, devlinks, disks). I need to reboot linux.
Along those same veins, how about support for much more mem (ala SGIs patches) and more processors?
- optimizations for Java/XML/whatever
- more kernel modules, fewer kernel hacks
- rework the dev chain to make more sense (/dev/hda1 just doesn't cut it anymore). Specifically, when I manage many disk subsystems I want pci/controller/hardware info. Look to Solaris for the best example: take a look at what /dev/rdsk/c0t0d0s0 points to...it's a long device path that I can use to ascertain the exact location of hardware (down to which bank an IO card sits in inside an E10000).
This is not a spiteful bash -- how many of you can claim you've been running since pre 1.0 kernels? BUT...it's use in large data centers is limited to web servers and network management stations. I want this kernel to run with the big boys.
I read the kernel mailings, it's pretty obvious that those "on top" have their own ideas and aren't so interested in the Enterprise management capabilities of linux -- I see work being done to make linux work better on a $1500 PC than on a departmental workgroup server. Look at the shamefull non-support of NFS v3 until now!
I buy lots of systems and manage hundreds of servers around the world. I focus on RAS: Reliability, Availability, and Serviceability. It can be argued that linux has the first two, but I would disagree with the last until I can hot-swap/add-in forty fibre-channel disks without a reboot.
On a side note, Embedded Linux will probably succeed where "regular" linux does not
Trust me when I say that Sun's new systems are going to make it even harder for linux to make the big leagues next year.
Loooks like the Commision did not agree to destroy the rights we Americans have shared completely. The industry has 30 days to produce a final version of whatever license they propose for review. It will be reviewed and commented on. We will have a chance to get our say.
Send your input to each of the FCC commisioners (noted on the FCC website). Send your opinion to your elected representatives. Go to the Presidential stumps and get your questions asked. Don't be a dolt and let this happen without putting reasonable, rational concerns into the right heads.
Emphasis Added: Interesting stuff at bottom
FCC ADOPTS ORDER IN SET-TOP BOX PROCEEDING; INITIATES REVIEW OF 1998 NAVIGATION DEVICES RULES Washington, DC Today the Federal Communications Commission adopted a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Further Notice") and Declaratory Ruling ("Order") in its navigation devices proceeding.
In Section 629 of the Communications Act, Congress directed the FCC to adopt rules that would allow consumers to obtain "navigation devices," such as cable set-top boxes, remote control units and other equipment, from commercial sources other than their cable providers. In 1998, the Commission adopted navigation device rules with the intent of improving consumer choice by fostering a competitive retail market for this equipment and said that it would monitor the development of the commercial availability of navigation devices and commence a proceeding in the year 2000 to review the effectiveness of the rules and consider any necessary changes. The Further Notice adopted today initiates this review.
In various proceedings before the Commission, interested parties have argued that a copy protection licensing agreement under development by CableLabs, the Dynamic Feedback Arrangement Scrambling Technique ("DFAST") license, violates the Commission's navigation devices rules. Specifically, these parties asserted that the DFAST license requires that a copy protection encryption system be located in host navigation devices in violation of the security separation requirement of the Commission's navigation devices rules. The Commission's rules require that a cable operator's conditional access, or security, functions be located in a separate point of deployment ("POD") device.
In order to give guidance to interested parties and to prevent delay in the transition from analog-based technology to digital-based technology, the Commission determined in today's Order that this controversy was best resolved in the form of a narrow declaratory ruling, and concluded that some measure of anti-copying encryption technology located within a host navigation device is consistent with the Commission's navigation devices rules.
Summary of the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:
In the Further Notice adopted today, the Commission sought comment on the following issues:
Whether the interface specifications developed by CableLabs allow consumer electronics manufacturers to build equipment that provides consumers a viable alternative to the equipment provided by their cable operator.
The effect operator provision of integrated equipment has had on achieving a competitive market and whether the 2005 date for the phase-out of integrated boxes remains appropriate.
Obstacles or barriers preventing or deterring the development of a retail market for navigation devices.
What actions, if any, should the Commission initiate to achieve the statutory objective of competition in the navigation devices market. Summary of the Declaratory Ruling:
In today's Order, the Commission addressed the narrow issue of whether technology licenses requiring copy protection measures to be located within commercially available equipment are consistent with the Commission's navigation devices rules. The Order noted that the Commission's initial navigation devices Order expressly contemplated the inclusion of copy protection measures in navigation host devices and that such measures would not violate the security separation requirement. Today's Order reiterated that some measure of anti-copying encryption technology is consistent with the intent of the rules because such measures protect a gap where digital data would otherwise be available "in the clear" and subject to unrestricted digital copying.
With this controversy resolved, the Commission directed industry participants to finalize negotiations necessary to bring to fruition the goals of Section 629 and requested that industry participants submit, within 30 days of the release of the Order, a report on the status of the DFAST license, including a final version of a completed DFAST license agreement.
Although today's ruling clarified that the inclusion of some amount of copy protection within a host device does not violate the navigation devices rules, the Commission did not determine whether specific copy protection terms or technology were consistent with the rules. The Commission also concluded that no evidence was presented that reasonable home copying would be impeded by the inclusion of copy protection within host devices.
Action by the Commission September 14, 2000, by Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Declaratory Ruling (CS Docket # 97-80, FCC 00-341).
- FCC - Cable Services Bureau contact: Thomas Horan at (202) 418-7200.
TTY: (202) 418-7172
I'm still here (post-military) and have my own tech company. Not rich, but I don't need to be -- I'm building a 5500+ foot house in Calvert County Maryland on 15 beautiful acres. I'm 1.9 miles from the Chesapeake Bay beaches (not quite Cali, but oh well).
How much? Land: $117K, house: $315K.
Downside: Prices are climbing here, traffic is second worst in nation (behind LA).
Upside:We're now the Internet capital of the world (sorry SV, you lose)...life is good for us out here.
California would kill me.
My basement has 9' ceilings and a good portion of it will be my office, within it will be a computer/electrical room(raised flooring, etc.). All incoming lines (phone, power, cable) will terminate in there. I'm home-running from the basement up two floors and into the attic.
As much fun as this sounds, I wish the damn builder would help out a little more.
Anybody know where I can learn to terminate fiber on-line?
I gave her "Just Java 2" and Visual Cafe (JBuilder wasn't a free download then). After a little reading she created her first object for my birthday (I'm a real geek, I guess). Java offers plenty of opportunity to learn OO and programatic style. It's cross-platform (someday your kids will laugh at all of the "platform wars") and C-like. Get 'em interested today: Download the Java Media Framework and play a short movie in Java. Do some MP3s before the acronym becomes illegal. Hell, give them the vile "Nervous Text" we all hate.
Let 'em have fun.
Cheap Advice: You do all the setup and installation of the environment. Focus on the code, they'll become SAs on their own.
Join the collective.
Every machine has it's issues. In the name of honest reviews I offer the following. I manage a few E10Ks for various customers and have found them lacking in several regards:
- I have heard Sun salespeople market these things as "fault tolerant"; they have since stopped.
- Price/Performance: Almost everyone I know who runs these things partition them down to E4500 sized domains; these are awful expensive 16 CPU systems.
Some Sun issues that affect uptime (on any platform):
- Alternate Pathing just doesn't work as advertised. Unless a path (disk/network) goes completly dead in one instant you are stuck with a faltering path -- just like normal. Most disk controller failures are long-term slides: AP does not kick in. Sun's local SEs privately suggest dumping AP.
- Sun storage is way behind that of Network Appliance, et al. Failures in a disk path are hard to diagnose: if you are losing conections to an A5200 array you follow Sun guidance -- replace every GBIC in the path, then start replacing Interface Boards. There is NO way to trace a failing GBIC.
- Speaking of GBICs, I had Sun provide replacements for EVERY GBIC deleivered with new E10Ks and Exx00 servers after I learned that those produced by Vixel Corp had "longevity issues". Call Sun and ask about this.
Despite this, I still don't want to touch an NT box. Hardware can be fixed, salespeople can be beaten into submission...we make progress with Sun. Our NT systems crash and we can't get anywhere with MS or Compaq.
Believe it or not, I am a Sun fan. I just think that discussing issues openly breeds solutions. Microsoft seems to hide and deny any issue...that's why I prefer Sun systems.
While a bit off-topic, I am waiting for a Linux distro that can handle new hardware without a reboot, scale up to 64 procs/64 GB RAM, and can journal their FS. anyone at VA or SGI listening?