Sun manufactures some decent-looking low-end ultrasparc stuff targeted at the embedded market. Probably if they move to Solaris on Cobalt it will be on new Cobalt servers running the Ultrasparc IIe or some such.
Do any of the package managers do this? Should they? Or is this all part of one big problem of which package managers and all this other stuff are only pieces...
What's worse, if they have any wits at all, they'll at least compress big stuff before sending it out. You can probably manage a watermark that'll still be detectable after compression, but the compute requirements on the packet sniffer get really ugly if you need it to do that.
The google search starts by assuming a set of "Authoritative" start pages that web-surfers start on and occasionainally jump back to, then rank pages based on how much time these hypothetical web-surfers spend on each page. It turns out to matter surprisingly little which the start pages are, but moving yahoo into the list could explain these results, but be relatively innocent.
This is just one of Motley Fool's columnists - he seems to have bought into Open Source, and periodically tries (and fails) to convince the other Fools to remove Microsoft from their public portfolio...
If you want to donate serious money and have stock or options, consider donating them instead. The EFF gets
the full value of the equities, you get to tax-deduct the full value of the equities, and you don't have to pay capital gains tax - for some tax brackets and option grants, this makes the donation practically free.
Much as I hate to admit recalling this, it was stated in the 'Knight Rider' TV series that KITT ran on liquid nitrogen... am I hallucenating that, or does somebody else remember it?
Are you sure the E10K isn't UMA? That's what I've always seen documented... Ironically, it's actually a Cray-designed system that SGI sold to Sun before spinning off Cray. Sun probably makes more money selling E10Ks than SGI makes in total.
According to rumor, Sun's next-generation hardware is ccNUMA, though.
I've skimmed much of the transcripts, and found some interesting differences from the secondary coverage. For one thing, while the judge and Garbus did have a personality conflict, Kaplan seemed pretty reasonable, and wasn't sitting down for bull**** from either side. (Furthermore, it seemed that Garbus had the good sense to sit down and let his assistant handle most of it once it became clear he was irritating the judge). What's more, Kaplan was pretty funny at times... (can't quickly find an instance searching the text, but...)
IANAL, but as I understand it, one of the principles of copyright law is the 'First Sale Doctrine' - you have exclusive rights to duplicate your copyrighted materials, but your rights to limit its use end at the 'First Sale'.
This idea has come under attack lately (the DMCA is basically an attempt to blast first-sale into the stratosphere), so it's nice to see it affirmed. It's a bigger deal than just software, though; it's a shot across the bow of all IP cartels.
Heh. Except the current shares are about 60% apache, 20% IIS, 20% others... if the Apache share splits, IIS will still be in second place and might drop to 3rd!
First of all, it gets about 90% scalability going from 1 to 4 CPUs.
Second, in the single-CPU configuration, TUX is faster than any other 2-CPU configuration (!). The 4-way TUX crushes all opposition - the closest thing (>20% slower) is an 8-way RS/6000 running the Zeus web server.
>wouldn't it be smarter to put all those devellopers on 1 large project?
No!
It's widely known that software development doesn't scale with number of developers. It's also widely known that the success of software projects is highly variable. The obvious conclusion is that if you have enough developers, you're actually *better off* dividing them into multiple small groups in the hope that one will get lucky and nail the target, rather than one bloated one tripping over itself and getting one chance only.
It may be counterintuitive to plan on throwing most of the work away, but I think it actually makes sense!
The AIX system admin GUI is really sweet. VT or X. It can do everything you have any business doing with a GUI, and has an option to show you the commands it's actually running, so you can learn the CLI by using the GUI! Also, the tree-menu-structure and commands are mostly built in some kind of simple script-language, IIRC, so it looks pretty extensible.
Getting that on Linux would be a significant win.
And no, I don't understand the Monteray plan, either.
We've been getting increasingly insane TPC-C 3.x numbers for the last year - that benchmark is not a realistic test of current-generation hardware and databases. Even the TPC committee knows this - if you look around on their site, you'll find whitepapers for an upcoming (heavily modified) version of TPC-C which will not have all the work optimized away and running in memory. They don't quite come out and say "TPC-C is currently worthless" - the vendors paying their bills wouldn't care for that ! - but it's there if you read between the lines a little.
Expect vendors to keep quoting figures from the old version after the new comes out. Insist on knowing the TPC-C version number when somebody throws one of these at you!
It *was* a really good test in 1996 or so, it would be handy if they fix it right.
Hrm. Isn't making a false claim under DMCA purgery? You can get disbarred for that.
OTOH, I'm not sure if the legal standard for purgery distinguishes between bad faith and stupidity, and which that was. Might get interesting to be ask them to be real explicit about which posts they want down.
It's possible, just not with NFS. The problem with NFS is that it leaves user authentication to the client; a protocol that does user authentication on the server could work.
This makes life more complicated, but it's possible.
This only works if physical access to the workstations is locked down tight. If somebody uses a boot floppy, or plugs a laptop from home into the ethernet port...
NFS = No File Security.
AFS would work, or Coda. You might be able to monkey something up with a cryptographic file system running on top of NFS.
Slashdot Mirror
Sun manufactures some decent-looking low-end ultrasparc stuff targeted at the embedded market. Probably if they move to Solaris on Cobalt it will be on new Cobalt servers running the Ultrasparc IIe or some such.
No, no:
You put your swap on a *compressed filesystem* on ramdisk!
Don't laugh; there used to be products that did this for MS-Windows...
Do any of the package managers do this? Should they? Or is this all part of one big problem of which package managers and all this other stuff are only pieces...
What's worse, if they have any wits at all, they'll at least compress big stuff before sending it out. You can probably manage a watermark that'll still be detectable after compression, but the compute requirements on the packet sniffer get really ugly if you need it to do that.
The google search starts by assuming a set of "Authoritative" start pages that web-surfers start on and occasionainally jump back to, then rank pages based on how much time these hypothetical web-surfers spend on each page. It turns out to matter surprisingly little which the start pages are, but moving yahoo into the list could explain these results, but be relatively innocent.
This is just one of Motley Fool's columnists - he seems to have bought into Open Source, and periodically tries (and fails) to convince the other Fools to remove Microsoft from their public portfolio...
If you want to donate serious money and have stock or options, consider donating them instead. The EFF gets
the full value of the equities, you get to tax-deduct the full value of the equities, and you don't have to pay capital gains tax - for some tax brackets and option grants, this makes the donation practically free.
Much as I hate to admit recalling this, it was stated in the 'Knight Rider' TV series that KITT ran on liquid nitrogen... am I hallucenating that, or does somebody else remember it?
Oh, no, you've circumvented Acrobat! This is a violation of the DMCA!
OTOH...
Defendant's council had worked for part of the MPAA at one point too. Considering how broad they are, there are probably few IP laywers who haven't!
http://www.geocities.com/connorbd/varaq/
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Are you sure the E10K isn't UMA? That's what I've always seen documented... Ironically, it's actually a Cray-designed system that SGI sold to Sun before spinning off Cray. Sun probably makes more money selling E10Ks than SGI makes in total.
According to rumor, Sun's next-generation hardware is ccNUMA, though.
I've skimmed much of the transcripts, and found some interesting differences from the secondary coverage. For one thing, while the judge and Garbus did have a personality conflict, Kaplan seemed pretty reasonable, and wasn't sitting down for bull**** from either side. (Furthermore, it seemed that Garbus had the good sense to sit down and let his assistant handle most of it once it became clear he was irritating the judge). What's more, Kaplan was pretty funny at times... (can't quickly find an instance searching the text, but...)
IANAL, but as I understand it, one of the principles of copyright law is the 'First Sale Doctrine' - you have exclusive rights to duplicate your copyrighted materials, but your rights to limit its use end at the 'First Sale'.
This idea has come under attack lately (the DMCA is basically an attempt to blast first-sale into the stratosphere), so it's nice to see it affirmed. It's a bigger deal than just software, though; it's a shot across the bow of all IP cartels.
Heh. Except the current shares are about 60% apache, 20% IIS, 20% others... if the Apache share splits, IIS will still be in second place and might drop to 3rd!
Just looked at the specweb results. *Outstanding*
First of all, it gets about 90% scalability going from 1 to 4 CPUs.
Second, in the single-CPU configuration, TUX is faster than any other 2-CPU configuration (!). The 4-way TUX crushes all opposition - the closest thing (>20% slower) is an 8-way RS/6000 running the Zeus web server.
>wouldn't it be smarter to put all those devellopers on 1 large project?
No!
It's widely known that software development doesn't scale with number of developers. It's also widely known that the success of software projects is highly variable. The obvious conclusion is that if you have enough developers, you're actually *better off* dividing them into multiple small groups in the hope that one will get lucky and nail the target, rather than one bloated one tripping over itself and getting one chance only.
It may be counterintuitive to plan on throwing most of the work away, but I think it actually makes sense!
The AIX system admin GUI is really sweet. VT or X. It can do everything you have any business doing with a GUI, and has an option to show you the commands it's actually running, so you can learn the CLI by using the GUI! Also, the tree-menu-structure and commands are mostly built in some kind of simple script-language, IIRC, so it looks pretty extensible.
Getting that on Linux would be a significant win.
And no, I don't understand the Monteray plan, either.
I think piranha does just this. Byte just ran a look at Linux HA clusters: http://www.byte.com/column/BYT20000510S 0001
We've been getting increasingly insane TPC-C 3.x numbers for the last year - that benchmark is not a realistic test of current-generation hardware and databases. Even the TPC committee knows this - if you look around on their site, you'll find whitepapers for an upcoming (heavily modified) version of TPC-C which will not have all the work optimized away and running in memory. They don't quite come out and say "TPC-C is currently worthless" - the vendors paying their bills wouldn't care for that ! - but it's there if you read between the lines a little.
Expect vendors to keep quoting figures from the old version after the new comes out. Insist on knowing the TPC-C version number when somebody throws one of these at you!
It *was* a really good test in 1996 or so, it would be handy if they fix it right.
While this is a good policy for slashdot to observe, it isn't legally binding, is it? (Fair use and all.)
People should be clear that clicking this box won't necessary stop 3rd parties from republishing it it won't...
Hrm. Isn't making a false claim under DMCA purgery? You can get disbarred for that.
OTOH, I'm not sure if the legal standard for purgery distinguishes between bad faith and stupidity, and which that was. Might get interesting to be ask them to be real explicit about which posts they want down.
>maybe only allowing root access to a few programs like mount, etc),
And just to prove the point of how careful you have to be, 'mount' isn't safe. You could create and mount a filesystem with a suid shell on it...
It's possible, just not with NFS. The problem with NFS is that it leaves user authentication to the client; a protocol that does user authentication on the server could work.
This makes life more complicated, but it's possible.
This only works if physical access to the workstations is locked down tight. If somebody uses a boot floppy, or plugs a laptop from home into the ethernet port...
NFS = No File Security.
AFS would work, or Coda. You might be able to monkey something up with a cryptographic file system running on top of NFS.