AppArmor is vastly superior, in that it also can be used to regulate resource privelidges on a per-application basis, but instead of only controlling network access, AppArmor works on a system-wide basis. Furthermore, AppArmor can isolate applications from one another. The GUI isn't so bad.
Oddly enough, we have "Ask Slashdot:" articles discussing the very technology that underlies AppArmor, LSM, and how one might be able to find a similar thing on Windows.
Furthermore, the types of issues that cause you to use ZoneAlarm aren't nearly as prevalent on Linux. You don't get malware, and OpenSource and/or high-end pro software tend not to phone home randomly.
If you're really, really, really determined to have lots of really, really annoying popsups (remember that things like keyloggers are resolved by AppArmor), you can use either Program Guard or SysTrace for Linux. Program Guard annoys you about TCP/IP access on a per-application basis, while SysTrace annoys you about everything.
NetLimiter: I do not understand the point of this application. Why would you ever want to do per-application bandwidth shaping when you can do global L7 QoS? Furthermore, it seems to me that you can use a combination trickle for hard "per-application" limits (which, IMHO, don't _ever_ make sense_, and global QoS to acheive any combination of features you could potentially acheive with NetLimiter.
As it is, I run 6 desktops, 3 vonage lines, and 3 laptops over a Comcast 8Mbps/768kbps connection. I use one firewall on the router, running linux, with QoS enabled and global L7 traffic shaping. We have no problems when simultaneously running Limewire, Bittorrent, Vonage, and generalized web access (everything remains responsive).
The real problem with pointing at these sorts of applications is that this kind of functionality is just not needed on Linux. Proper application isolation, lack of malware, high quality global QoS, and decent packet filtering means that these kinds of annoying GUIs that are really nothing other than system maintenace and mundane micromanaging are not needed. I don't need to rate limit my downloads or uploads in order to preserve network responsiveness; I don't need to watch my applications to see if they are phoning home or not. I don't need to worry about whether or not my financial data is being read by malware; I don't need to worry about whether compromised user-apps on my system are affecting admin-level system services.
If you really, really, really, really want, the tools are out there, in proper Java, QT, and/or GTK form. But the reason they aren't widely deployed is because you really shouldn't be using them; a computer is a tool for work or entertainment, not an adventure game on its own. We don't live in the Tron world; and much like you don't need to have pressure gauges and per-pump control over your automobiles fluidic systems, you don't need to have direct control over this stuff on Unixy systems. It just works, and that's good enough for 99.9999% of non-super-geeks out there. For the remaining.0001% of us, we write our own GUIs, hunt out little known programs, or use the commandline. But the vast majority of computer users out there shouldn't need to be familiar with a tool like ZoneAlarm, and shouldn't have to worry about all those bloody popups. For the m
I'm not a physicist, but I started as one in college. The wikipedia article on Metamaterials suggest that they have highly unusual properties in terms of electromagnetic wave propagation.
The layman's example they give is not bad. I'll quote it here: Metamaterials with negative N have numerous startling properties: 1. Snell's law (N1sin?1 = N2sin?2) still applies, but rays refract on the same side of the normal on entering the material. 2. The Doppler shift is reversed (that is, a light source moving toward an observer appears to reduce its frequency) 3. Cherenkov radiation points the other way 4. The group velocity is antiparallel to phase velocity (as opposed to parallel for normal isotropic materials) 5. Higher frequencies have longer, not shorter, wavelengths in such a material 6. Such metamaterials follow a left-hand rule. For an illustration in non-technical language of one of the bizarre properties of materials with negative N, consider the following: a person submerged in a swimming pool filled with a hypothetical liquid with negative N would appear to float above the pool instead of appearing to be beneath the surface.
The physics web article wikipedia links to on invisibility emphasizes that metamaterials allow creation of surfaces for which electromagnetic properties vary point to point. As such, one could imagine an invisibility device that bend 99.999% of light around it, but permits a portion of the area concentrated around one's eyes to have a "half-tone" pattern of negative N and positive N. Furthermore, the light that would enter the eyes here could even potentially start from a variety of places over the surface of the entire invisibility device.
As such, I'd think what you would get would be very, very, very slight visual distortion; maybe a haze, maybe nothing. Probably nothing visible, anyways; but maybe something you could measure via some kind of broadspectrum radar apparatus.
And this is just a crude sort of solution from a physics student who gave up mid-college and switched to business;-)
Don't think of electromagnetic waves as water waves. It's a convenient analogy to emphasize this "space is curved" business, but it vastly underestimates the complexity of electromagnetism. Furthermore, the "arrow-ray" style light-ray diagrams are misleading; waves only work like that on a macro scale. Those analogies are useful, but don't look at the limitations of those models.
Use the Smart Package Manager. Better than apt, supports APT, YUM, RPM dumps, YAST, Red Carpet, yadda yadda. All kinds of package management schemes. Integrates them all, handles complex setups better than APT, and can easily be used to upgrade distributions.
Other than the central page pulsating flash advertisement printing in LARGE, BOLD PRINT "IT'S HERE! SUSE ENTERPRISE 10", and the 4 announcements talking about SUSE ENTERPRISE WORKSTATION/SERVER, and 20 or product links to "OPEN ENTERPRISE SERVER", and "SUSE ENTERPRISE SERVER", with a primary link of "DATA CENTER", leading to a "SUSE ENTERPRISE DATA CENTER" website, what makes you think that Novell isn't positioned, at least in terms of product lines, against Redhat?
Novell's bet the company on Enterprise SuSE, and Novell's going full steam head promoting it. They've released it, are realizing sales on it, and run it internally 100%. What are you talking about?
I do know that you're correct, however, it depends on the long term viability of Mark Shuttleworth's business model.
Here it is, in a nutshell, IMHO:
1. Convert existing Debian sysadmins to Ubuntu sysadmins. 2. Sell service/support and customization to these Ubuntu sysadmins. 3. Use the existing experience of these new Ubuntu deployments as the kernel to market an enterprise class Ubuntu service company, with the core software being free.
It could work. I have no idea. I do believe that a conventional company like Novell or Redhat has a serious head start, however, if the current conventional linux companies misstep there's potential for a challenger (Ubuntu is the largest non-enterprise distribution) to take their place using an innovative business model.
Personally, I'm pulling for OpenSuSE/SuSE/Novell, because I really, really like their product. But Novell, although technically awesome these days, has not been known for the business acumen lately, while Mark Shuttleworth has done well.
However, I'm guessing that this editorial blog post was more written from the perspective of "Ubuntu blows Fedora out of the water", then "Ubuntu's business model is best posed to take over the enterprise Linux market".
That being said, I do believe that Shuttleworth has a good plan, but it's risky, and if Novell gets their shit together, truly focuses on Linux (as they have said they would, and wallstreet is pushing them to), Novell has a good shot of holding the Linux crown for the intermediate future. Even then, however, consider the potential size of the Linux enterprise workstation market; there really is a huge amount of room for growth, and given that all the code is GPL (low R&D costs for imitation) there's a good deal of room for multiple competitors in the market.
Farsi is also like that (one of my languages). Most words in Farsi are compilations of other words, and wordplay by mixing them up is common, without disrupting the 1st order of meaning.
I speak three languages, and was raised biligually. I would say that English is (barely) my native tongue, but I don't see any particular reason why English is an order of magnitude more nuanced than other languages.
As far as I know, its more accurate to define languages as particularly good or particularly poor at expressing details on a certain topic.
Tea, for example, is best discussed in Japanese, Science is primarily English, while Latin would be the appropriate language for Western Morality/Christanity.
Obviously, Arabic is the primary language for discussion of the Koran, and I hear that Inuit is superbly constructed for discussion of the weather.
Of course, maybe you were sarcastic, in which case I have been trolled.
3D sound does work, IIRC, as long as you use the Winealsa backend for sound, and enable direct sound support. I haven't personally tested it with more than 2 speakers in some time.
Positional audio is not as good as under Windows, especially because you don't have stuff like EAX.
I use an SB Audigy2 Value, by the way.
Speed is not an issue, as long as your kernel doesn't suck. I'm currently running the suser-jengelh desktop Kernel on my SuSE 10.1 desktop, and it actually runs World of Warcraft _faster_ in Linux than under Windows (it used to be significantly slower). This is with all effects on/terrain distance at mid.
I have a feeling this will change, soon. Wine is getting closer to proper OpenAL support, and OpenAL 1.1 provides EAX through EAX 5.0 . Creative labs is planning on releasing binary-only drivers for Linux which will natively support OpenAL 1.1 . This should get us really close (if not all the way) to equivalent to Windows functionality regarding Wine 3D audio.
As such, I use Cedega. I'm not going to run Windows. Not at any price. I disagree with Microsoft's Business practices, and I'm voting with my dollar. I won't buy Windows. I won't by a computer that comes with Windows. Period.
I build my own desktops, I'm happy with my MacBook Pro, and my PowerMac G5 Dual. I play most of the Windows games I want, without having to run MS crapware.
Who are you to tell me I should pick the greater evil (Windows) to the lesser evil (Cedega/WINE)?
Seriously, in today's call center you are not allowed to hang up on customers.
I find this seriously hard to believe. I've been hung up on by several call centers (Comcast, Cingular, CapitalOne, Dell, ahem. . ..) I think there quite seriously are companies which do permit people to hang up on customers.
I'm not rude, but if I _know_ I'm right on an issue I will be firm, and I will insist on speaking to someone else. I spent 2 hours on the phone with Cingular, discussing a point on my contract, until an administrator finally admitted that I was, indeed, correct, and issued my credit. I don't yell, I don't curse, but I won't accept what they say at face value when I know them to be incorrect. I don't see any reason to give into a big company because they feel they are correct, and on more than one occasion I've documented their errors only to be told by customer service representatives that it didn't matter. At one point, a certain cable company told me they couldn't help me, it didn't matter, I couldn't speak to anyone else, and that because my modem was an older modem (DOCSIS 1.0, 1.1, 2.0 compliant!) it supported a maximum of 1 Mbps. Then I was hung up on.
I've worked in call centers, so I know how much it sucks to have rude customers, but I'm starting to get the impression that their most definitely are abusive call center managers who do NOT respect their customers or employees, and these people permit employees to hang up on customers who are problematic.
I'm not a scientist or engineer, but I know I could use as many cores as I can get. The sole prohibiting factor is cost.
Consider even amateur video editing, Illustrator work, Photoshop, encryption and compression. These are highly parallel processes, and they'll never, ever be "fast enough". I'm not even talking about videos I design for work (which I do); I'm talking about home movies and the like. Any reduction in encoding/compression time for home video will be appreciated; even if I'm only working on 30 minutes or 1 hour total of final footage.
If you think your system does it fast enough, your not working at a "good" codec or at a high resolution; I'm talking about MPEG-4 H.264 at 1080p. This will bring the fastest system on the market to a crawl, and force a grind on it for hours. A 16 core, or 64 core, or 128 core home "power-user" desktop will help for this.
The other bottlenecks are memory and disk bottlenecks. An AMD system gets around this, as each additional core has its own memory controller. And trust me, when you're working on H.264 video, you'll have to be seeing absolutely amazing compression throughput to even come close to disk maximum.
Also consider, there isn't any reason that a home user wouldn't want to do multiple types of these tasks at once. I to be able to use my system while encoding H.264 video, whether it be my home video, my podcast, or whatever. I want to be able to encode H.264 that I recorded on my media center, while simultaenously decoding HiDef video downloaded from iTunes, while occasionally recompressing stuff for my Video iPod, or running Illustrator, or Photoshop.
I highly, highly doubt that an 8 core intel system would enable me to run 1-2 of these encoding tasks without substantially reducing my systems responsiveness.
This is not pure Workstation stuff; this is the high-end of the home user market as well. And if the market players get their way, this is stuff that's supposed to become mainstream this year and next year.
And this isn't mentioning gaming, or running services on your home system (why should I _ever_ have to turn my Counterstrike server off? or my Skype super-node? or my personal, SSL encrypted WebDAV desktop?). Beyond that, this isn't mentioning the possibility of introducing additional layers of compression/encryption on _everything_. Encrypting everything introduces substantial overhead these days; and encryption is a highly parallel processor intensive operation. And anything I can do, I can (and should) encrypt.
Build a 16 core system, and 80% of people will use it. Build a 32 core system, and 80% of people will use it. They'll run Counterstrike, while playing World of Warcraft, with a queue of videos reencoding from TiVo's HD desktop video format to H.264 for the video iPod, with all data going in and out of the system using 2048-bit AES encryption.
And it still won't be perfectly responsive.
The only people who can't use virtually _unlimited_ parallel processing power are office/IE types; the ones who refuse to use their PCs for anything but word processing, email, and web browsing. And for those people, we crossed the boundry of "way too much processing power" around the Pentium II age.
For everyone else, we need more storage, more RAM, more FLOPS, IOPS, and we need it cooler, and more efficent.
Personal ego's aside, I do not believe there is a single, current revision (excluding the new logic boards) of the MBP that doesn't exhibit this processor whine.
Rather, I do believe that it is a "hearing" issue. Much of the populace cannot hear the whine. Given the high distribution of a consumer product, though, the 1% falls through the cracks (like me).
Being able to, or not being able to hear the whine doesn't make you a better listener or something; so don't take it as an insult. I can't hear musical lyrics properly, I have problems listening to peoples voices in crowded places (bars/clubs, etc . . . I can't hold a conversation). Hell, road noise in my car drowns out my cell phone, while everyone around me never seems to have a problem.
But I can hear the MBP whine, and I can hear the the "tics" from my PowerMac G5 2.7 Dual. I do not hear similar things from my PB 12", nor from my Athlon 64+, nor from my Acer Core Duo laptop that the MBP replaced.
This is not a sporatic problem, and IMHO is not even a "technical" issue. It's a design flaw, namely, the engineering team responsible for the capacitors feeding the CPU did not notice the sound, or noticed the sound in a test an assumed it was outside the range of human hearing. The only thing that makes it sporatic is that it is, indeed, for the most part, outside the range of human hearing.
I had the same problem with a PB 12". It's caused by sweat, which is corrosive enough that it'll rust just about anything, and disclour plastic, too.
This is "normal wear and tear", IMHO. It affects all laptops, you just can't see it on black plastic as well (it happened on my Inspiron 8200). The solution is a plastic wrist wrest, either clear or case-colored, from marware.
I have the whine on my system. It occurs while the CPU is idling.
It's intensely annoying, but I'm also a person who gets really annoyed when people leave CRT's turned on (that whine gets me, too).
The strange thing is I've never heard it from another laptop, even other core duos. The only other system that has a similar problem is my PowerMac G5 2.7G Dual; and it "ticks" every second or so when both processors are on. The solution on the PowerMac is to put the system on the floor.
I hope to get a new logic board, as this QuietMBP program (which works for me at "70") drains the battery.
Ugh, did I mention that my battery needs to be replaced, too? I love Apple, I love OS X, but come on; I shouldn't have two separate, distinct problems on a laptop that costs $2500. First revision or not, it doesn't matter.
Some point between the passage of the Patriot Act and the disbanding of the Iraqi Army.
As a realist, (not neorealist), I saw some merit to forceful Iraqi regime change. In some ways, I'd like to see that in my home country of Iran. But the implementation has been beyond horrible. Oh, and civil liberties are a big deal to me. As is a balanced budget. As is the trade deficit.
I guess one day I woke up and realized that whenever politics came up, I strongly disagreed with everything the current administration supported. You cannot achieve successful regime change without supporting (and thus receiving support) from civilians. You cannot garner global support for unilateralism if you aren't believed (regardless of reality; perception is critical) to be a fair broker (Israel). You cannot build a strong economic foundation through massive, crippling, chronic debt, and you cannot solidify your position as a world economic power through trade imbalances. *shrug*
Ignoring the civil liberties aspect. Ignoring the government secrecy aspect. Ignoring that the NSA is legally bound not to conduct domestic surveillance.
Those are some pretty FUCKING big pills to swallow, but I'll pretend, hypothetically, that I can let those things go. *gulp*.
The government's argument is this: 1. We are not conducting such surveillance, nor have we done anything illegal. 2. The reason we have not done anything illegal is because you cannot demonstrate that AT&T provided records to the government. 3. Forcing the government to provide such evidence might alert the terrorists that this surveillance program, which does NOT exist, is watching them, making us less safe. 4. Therefore, this case should be dismissed.
These statements are not congruent. There's no defensible argument here. One of the government's position is that AT&T did not provide records to the government. If that didn't occur, then there is no potential security risk. The entire government "reponse" is that we aren't doing any surveillance, but proving that may, potentially, alert Terrorists to the surveillance we are doing.
Frankly, I'm depressed we have a Republican Congress, because this kind of outrageous, unconstitutional, illegal, dictatorial, fascist behavior, layered in hypocrisy, deserves impeachment .
We impeached a President because an intern blew him, and he was misleading about it in Congressional Hearings.
Bush has, and continues to, lie about the existing of a ubiquitous domestic surveillance program that is without a doubt illegal, and his justification is, "Because I'm the boss, you all are children, and you can't handle the truth"
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot protect the secrecy of an illegal surveillance program under the grounds that it "doesn't exist". I hope, Mr. Bush, that the Heaven and Hell you believe in are real, so that you may burn in the lowest levels of hell, that reserved for traitors.
I say this as a person who supports the war in Iraq, I say this as a staunch conservative. Rot in Hell, Mr. President.
What kind of moronic, head-stuck-up-his-ass dyed in the wool IDIOT modded parent down?
Are there genuinely assholes that believe in this security through obscurity? If so, I hope you still defend my right to arms, so that when the day comes, and push comes to shove, I'll be able to go down fighting.
This ruling is absurd. The invocation of state secrets, an absurd doctrine, in such a mundane case, is absurd. This level of monitoring is absurd, as is SBC (AT&T Reborn! Empire Reborn!) playing lapdog to an administration that was supposed to be about small government.
Thankfully, I know that I'm wealthy enough, and smart enough, and connected enough, that when people like me fail, and our freedoms are wiped out, and the mass arrests start, I'll be able to get out. My parents fled horrifying regimes elsewhere in the world; I never imagined I might have to do it here, as well. It doesn't hurt that I have citizenship in 3 countries. For the rest of you stupid fucks that let this happen, rot in hell.
You know, I sincerely respect your position. Tell it like it is;-)
I have no problem with people who call a spade a spade. You support MS, because supporting MS puts $$ in your pocket. You're not some blind "MS is the best!"; but you do what it takes to succeed. This is a good way to look at it;-)
1. Keep all communication in the snail mail media. If possible, use verifiable mail. 2. Dispute the charge with the credit card company. If you can't separate the phone bill from the DSL, setup a new account at your parents house under YOUR name, as totally separate service. You may not be able to keep the old phone number. 3. I don't recall what jurisdiction you are in (not sure if you mentioned it), but Canada has small claims courts. Here is the website for Ontario's information regarding small claims courts. You file against Telus for the value of the disconnection fee, x2 for your wasted time, and add on any months of interrupted service. You might not get all of that, but then again, you might. Filing in small claims is general simple, and inexpensive; you don't need a lawyer, you can represent yourself. If Telus sends a lawyer, odds are that their lawyer per hour is more expensive than your disconnection fee, and they'll still probably loose. If they don't send a lawyer, you win by default. Also, whatever you want the judge to review, document in pictures. If you want to show that there isn't a contract shown to you, "install" the DSL on a clean system, and take screenshots at every step in the procedure. Small claims judges are pretty reasonable, and you'll tend to win stuff like this. Telus won't be able to show them a signed contract, or a recorded acceptance of contract terms (verbal), so you'll win if you can explain the situation to the judge.
Ultimately, your position is very strong, except that they can hold your phone hostage (since your phone provider is your ISP). I'm not sure if Canada requires companies to provide phone service, so you may want to investigate that; as it is, I believe that Telus can just cancel your phone service no matter what, saying they don't want to do business with you. You'll have to check Telus's franchise agreements (Here I'm bullshitting; I really don't know ANYTHING about Canada's regulatory structure for utilities, and unfortunately I don't have much time to research it).
Slashdot Mirror
Frankly, ZoneAlarm is goofy.
.0001% of us, we write our own GUIs, hunt out little known programs, or use the commandline. But the vast majority of computer users out there shouldn't need to be familiar with a tool like ZoneAlarm, and shouldn't have to worry about all those bloody popups. For the m
AppArmor is vastly superior, in that it also can be used to regulate resource privelidges on a per-application basis, but instead of only controlling network access, AppArmor works on a system-wide basis. Furthermore, AppArmor can isolate applications from one another. The GUI isn't so bad.
Oddly enough, we have "Ask Slashdot:" articles discussing the very technology that underlies AppArmor, LSM, and how one might be able to find a similar thing on Windows.
Furthermore, the types of issues that cause you to use ZoneAlarm aren't nearly as prevalent on Linux. You don't get malware, and OpenSource and/or high-end pro software tend not to phone home randomly.
If you're really, really, really determined to have lots of really, really annoying popsups (remember that things like keyloggers are resolved by AppArmor), you can use either Program Guard or SysTrace for Linux. Program Guard annoys you about TCP/IP access on a per-application basis, while SysTrace annoys you about everything.
TuxGuardian is apparently another app like this
NetLimiter: I do not understand the point of this application. Why would you ever want to do per-application bandwidth shaping when you can do global L7 QoS? Furthermore, it seems to me that you can use a combination trickle for hard "per-application" limits (which, IMHO, don't _ever_ make sense_, and global QoS to acheive any combination of features you could potentially acheive with NetLimiter.
This is a list of GUI iproute2 QoS configurators, but I think you're pretty much fine running Wondershaper, and perhaps watching pretty graphics go by with MasterShaper.
As it is, I run 6 desktops, 3 vonage lines, and 3 laptops over a Comcast 8Mbps/768kbps connection. I use one firewall on the router, running linux, with QoS enabled and global L7 traffic shaping. We have no problems when simultaneously running Limewire, Bittorrent, Vonage, and generalized web access (everything remains responsive).
The real problem with pointing at these sorts of applications is that this kind of functionality is just not needed on Linux. Proper application isolation, lack of malware, high quality global QoS, and decent packet filtering means that these kinds of annoying GUIs that are really nothing other than system maintenace and mundane micromanaging are not needed. I don't need to rate limit my downloads or uploads in order to preserve network responsiveness; I don't need to watch my applications to see if they are phoning home or not. I don't need to worry about whether or not my financial data is being read by malware; I don't need to worry about whether compromised user-apps on my system are affecting admin-level system services.
If you really, really, really, really want, the tools are out there, in proper Java, QT, and/or GTK form. But the reason they aren't widely deployed is because you really shouldn't be using them; a computer is a tool for work or entertainment, not an adventure game on its own. We don't live in the Tron world; and much like you don't need to have pressure gauges and per-pump control over your automobiles fluidic systems, you don't need to have direct control over this stuff on Unixy systems. It just works, and that's good enough for 99.9999% of non-super-geeks out there. For the remaining
The concepts are not the same.
Metamaterials affect electromagnetic waves because they affect electromagnetic wave propagation.
Sonar waves are not carried by photons, they are carried by air molecules.
The only way you can make yourself invisible to sonar is by not being there at all. If you can touch it, sonar can find it, and it's simple as that.
Yes, I think so.
;-)
I'm not a physicist, but I started as one in college. The wikipedia article on Metamaterials suggest that they have highly unusual properties in terms of electromagnetic wave propagation.
The layman's example they give is not bad. I'll quote it here:
Metamaterials with negative N have numerous startling properties:
1. Snell's law (N1sin?1 = N2sin?2) still applies, but rays refract on the same side of the normal on entering the material.
2. The Doppler shift is reversed (that is, a light source moving toward an observer appears to reduce its frequency)
3. Cherenkov radiation points the other way
4. The group velocity is antiparallel to phase velocity (as opposed to parallel for normal isotropic materials)
5. Higher frequencies have longer, not shorter, wavelengths in such a material
6. Such metamaterials follow a left-hand rule. For an illustration in non-technical language of one of the bizarre properties of materials with negative N, consider the following: a person submerged in a swimming pool filled with a hypothetical liquid with negative N would appear to float above the pool instead of appearing to be beneath the surface.
The physics web article wikipedia links to on invisibility emphasizes that metamaterials allow creation of surfaces for which electromagnetic properties vary point to point. As such, one could imagine an invisibility device that bend 99.999% of light around it, but permits a portion of the area concentrated around one's eyes to have a "half-tone" pattern of negative N and positive N. Furthermore, the light that would enter the eyes here could even potentially start from a variety of places over the surface of the entire invisibility device.
As such, I'd think what you would get would be very, very, very slight visual distortion; maybe a haze, maybe nothing. Probably nothing visible, anyways; but maybe something you could measure via some kind of broadspectrum radar apparatus.
And this is just a crude sort of solution from a physics student who gave up mid-college and switched to business
Don't think of electromagnetic waves as water waves. It's a convenient analogy to emphasize this "space is curved" business, but it vastly underestimates the complexity of electromagnetism. Furthermore, the "arrow-ray" style light-ray diagrams are misleading; waves only work like that on a macro scale. Those analogies are useful, but don't look at the limitations of those models.
Use the Smart Package Manager. Better than apt, supports APT, YUM, RPM dumps, YAST, Red Carpet, yadda yadda. All kinds of package management schemes. Integrates them all, handles complex setups better than APT, and can easily be used to upgrade distributions.
Use SMART. It works great.
What the hell are you talking about?
Please look at Novell's home page.
Other than the central page pulsating flash advertisement printing in LARGE, BOLD PRINT "IT'S HERE! SUSE ENTERPRISE 10", and the 4 announcements talking about SUSE ENTERPRISE WORKSTATION/SERVER, and 20 or product links to "OPEN ENTERPRISE SERVER", and "SUSE ENTERPRISE SERVER", with a primary link of "DATA CENTER", leading to a "SUSE ENTERPRISE DATA CENTER" website, what makes you think that Novell isn't positioned, at least in terms of product lines, against Redhat?
Novell's bet the company on Enterprise SuSE, and Novell's going full steam head promoting it. They've released it, are realizing sales on it, and run it internally 100%. What are you talking about?
I'm not sure.
I do know that you're correct, however, it depends on the long term viability of Mark Shuttleworth's business model.
Here it is, in a nutshell, IMHO:
1. Convert existing Debian sysadmins to Ubuntu sysadmins.
2. Sell service/support and customization to these Ubuntu sysadmins.
3. Use the existing experience of these new Ubuntu deployments as the kernel to market an enterprise class Ubuntu service company, with the core software being free.
It could work. I have no idea. I do believe that a conventional company like Novell or Redhat has a serious head start, however, if the current conventional linux companies misstep there's potential for a challenger (Ubuntu is the largest non-enterprise distribution) to take their place using an innovative business model.
Personally, I'm pulling for OpenSuSE/SuSE/Novell, because I really, really like their product. But Novell, although technically awesome these days, has not been known for the business acumen lately, while Mark Shuttleworth has done well.
However, I'm guessing that this editorial blog post was more written from the perspective of "Ubuntu blows Fedora out of the water", then "Ubuntu's business model is best posed to take over the enterprise Linux market".
That being said, I do believe that Shuttleworth has a good plan, but it's risky, and if Novell gets their shit together, truly focuses on Linux (as they have said they would, and wallstreet is pushing them to), Novell has a good shot of holding the Linux crown for the intermediate future. Even then, however, consider the potential size of the Linux enterprise workstation market; there really is a huge amount of room for growth, and given that all the code is GPL (low R&D costs for imitation) there's a good deal of room for multiple competitors in the market.
You know, if you combine the cost of your furnance and desktop PC.... you might be able to get closer to justifying the cost of this thing.
Perhaps if you cooled it via heat pipe, used the exchanger to run a water cooler, and pump the remains into radiant heating.......
Farsi is also like that (one of my languages). Most words in Farsi are compilations of other words, and wordplay by mixing them up is common, without disrupting the 1st order of meaning.
Redundant?
Are you nuts?
This was clearly the first beowulf cluster post on this discussion. Sort it by time, unthreaded!
For god sakes; Troll, yes. Redundant, no. Don't be stupid.
Why would you say that?
I speak three languages, and was raised biligually. I would say that English is (barely) my native tongue, but I don't see any particular reason why English is an order of magnitude more nuanced than other languages.
As far as I know, its more accurate to define languages as particularly good or particularly poor at expressing details on a certain topic.
Tea, for example, is best discussed in Japanese, Science is primarily English, while Latin would be the appropriate language for Western Morality/Christanity.
Obviously, Arabic is the primary language for discussion of the Koran, and I hear that Inuit is superbly constructed for discussion of the weather.
Of course, maybe you were sarcastic, in which case I have been trolled.
AFAIK, the vast majority of OpenGL development done recently has been extensions developed by ATI and Nvidia, and then eventually standarized.
Imagine a BeoWulf Clu.....
Nevermind.
Things are better.
3D sound does work, IIRC, as long as you use the Winealsa backend for sound, and enable direct sound support. I haven't personally tested it with more than 2 speakers in some time.
Positional audio is not as good as under Windows, especially because you don't have stuff like EAX.
I use an SB Audigy2 Value, by the way.
Speed is not an issue, as long as your kernel doesn't suck. I'm currently running the suser-jengelh desktop Kernel on my SuSE 10.1 desktop, and it actually runs World of Warcraft _faster_ in Linux than under Windows (it used to be significantly slower). This is with all effects on/terrain distance at mid.
I have a feeling this will change, soon. Wine is getting closer to proper OpenAL support, and OpenAL 1.1 provides EAX through EAX 5.0 . Creative labs is planning on releasing binary-only drivers for Linux which will natively support OpenAL 1.1 . This should get us really close (if not all the way) to equivalent to Windows functionality regarding Wine 3D audio.
Oddly enough, these are the games I play on Linux.
Oh, and Eve Online, as well.
Strange that you would pick them.... They run as fast for me on Linux as they do on my relatives' Windows XP.
I refuse to use Microsoft software.
I want to play Eve Online and World of Warcraft.
As such, I use Cedega. I'm not going to run Windows. Not at any price. I disagree with Microsoft's Business practices, and I'm voting with my dollar. I won't buy Windows. I won't by a computer that comes with Windows. Period.
I build my own desktops, I'm happy with my MacBook Pro, and my PowerMac G5 Dual. I play most of the Windows games I want, without having to run MS crapware.
Who are you to tell me I should pick the greater evil (Windows) to the lesser evil (Cedega/WINE)?
Seriously, in today's call center you are not allowed to hang up on customers.
.) I think there quite seriously are companies which do permit people to hang up on customers.
I find this seriously hard to believe. I've been hung up on by several call centers (Comcast, Cingular, CapitalOne, Dell, ahem. . .
I'm not rude, but if I _know_ I'm right on an issue I will be firm, and I will insist on speaking to someone else. I spent 2 hours on the phone with Cingular, discussing a point on my contract, until an administrator finally admitted that I was, indeed, correct, and issued my credit. I don't yell, I don't curse, but I won't accept what they say at face value when I know them to be incorrect. I don't see any reason to give into a big company because they feel they are correct, and on more than one occasion I've documented their errors only to be told by customer service representatives that it didn't matter. At one point, a certain cable company told me they couldn't help me, it didn't matter, I couldn't speak to anyone else, and that because my modem was an older modem (DOCSIS 1.0, 1.1, 2.0 compliant!) it supported a maximum of 1 Mbps. Then I was hung up on.
I've worked in call centers, so I know how much it sucks to have rude customers, but I'm starting to get the impression that their most definitely are abusive call center managers who do NOT respect their customers or employees, and these people permit employees to hang up on customers who are problematic.
I'm not a scientist or engineer, but I know I could use as many cores as I can get. The sole prohibiting factor is cost.
Consider even amateur video editing, Illustrator work, Photoshop, encryption and compression. These are highly parallel processes, and they'll never, ever be "fast enough". I'm not even talking about videos I design for work (which I do); I'm talking about home movies and the like. Any reduction in encoding/compression time for home video will be appreciated; even if I'm only working on 30 minutes or 1 hour total of final footage.
If you think your system does it fast enough, your not working at a "good" codec or at a high resolution; I'm talking about MPEG-4 H.264 at 1080p. This will bring the fastest system on the market to a crawl, and force a grind on it for hours. A 16 core, or 64 core, or 128 core home "power-user" desktop will help for this.
The other bottlenecks are memory and disk bottlenecks. An AMD system gets around this, as each additional core has its own memory controller. And trust me, when you're working on H.264 video, you'll have to be seeing absolutely amazing compression throughput to even come close to disk maximum.
Also consider, there isn't any reason that a home user wouldn't want to do multiple types of these tasks at once. I to be able to use my system while encoding H.264 video, whether it be my home video, my podcast, or whatever. I want to be able to encode H.264 that I recorded on my media center, while simultaenously decoding HiDef video downloaded from iTunes, while occasionally recompressing stuff for my Video iPod, or running Illustrator, or Photoshop.
I highly, highly doubt that an 8 core intel system would enable me to run 1-2 of these encoding tasks without substantially reducing my systems responsiveness.
This is not pure Workstation stuff; this is the high-end of the home user market as well. And if the market players get their way, this is stuff that's supposed to become mainstream this year and next year.
And this isn't mentioning gaming, or running services on your home system (why should I _ever_ have to turn my Counterstrike server off? or my Skype super-node? or my personal, SSL encrypted WebDAV desktop?). Beyond that, this isn't mentioning the possibility of introducing additional layers of compression/encryption on _everything_. Encrypting everything introduces substantial overhead these days; and encryption is a highly parallel processor intensive operation. And anything I can do, I can (and should) encrypt.
Build a 16 core system, and 80% of people will use it. Build a 32 core system, and 80% of people will use it. They'll run Counterstrike, while playing World of Warcraft, with a queue of videos reencoding from TiVo's HD desktop video format to H.264 for the video iPod, with all data going in and out of the system using 2048-bit AES encryption.
And it still won't be perfectly responsive.
The only people who can't use virtually _unlimited_ parallel processing power are office/IE types; the ones who refuse to use their PCs for anything but word processing, email, and web browsing. And for those people, we crossed the boundry of "way too much processing power" around the Pentium II age.
For everyone else, we need more storage, more RAM, more FLOPS, IOPS, and we need it cooler, and more efficent.
Personal ego's aside, I do not believe there is a single, current revision (excluding the new logic boards) of the MBP that doesn't exhibit this processor whine.
Rather, I do believe that it is a "hearing" issue. Much of the populace cannot hear the whine. Given the high distribution of a consumer product, though, the 1% falls through the cracks (like me).
Being able to, or not being able to hear the whine doesn't make you a better listener or something; so don't take it as an insult. I can't hear musical lyrics properly, I have problems listening to peoples voices in crowded places (bars/clubs, etc . . . I can't hold a conversation). Hell, road noise in my car drowns out my cell phone, while everyone around me never seems to have a problem.
But I can hear the MBP whine, and I can hear the the "tics" from my PowerMac G5 2.7 Dual. I do not hear similar things from my PB 12", nor from my Athlon 64+, nor from my Acer Core Duo laptop that the MBP replaced.
This is not a sporatic problem, and IMHO is not even a "technical" issue. It's a design flaw, namely, the engineering team responsible for the capacitors feeding the CPU did not notice the sound, or noticed the sound in a test an assumed it was outside the range of human hearing. The only thing that makes it sporatic is that it is, indeed, for the most part, outside the range of human hearing.
I had the same problem with a PB 12". It's caused by sweat, which is corrosive enough that it'll rust just about anything, and disclour plastic, too.
This is "normal wear and tear", IMHO. It affects all laptops, you just can't see it on black plastic as well (it happened on my Inspiron 8200). The solution is a plastic wrist wrest, either clear or case-colored, from marware.
I have the whine on my system. It occurs while the CPU is idling.
It's intensely annoying, but I'm also a person who gets really annoyed when people leave CRT's turned on (that whine gets me, too).
The strange thing is I've never heard it from another laptop, even other core duos. The only other system that has a similar problem is my PowerMac G5 2.7G Dual; and it "ticks" every second or so when both processors are on. The solution on the PowerMac is to put the system on the floor.
I hope to get a new logic board, as this QuietMBP program (which works for me at "70") drains the battery.
Ugh, did I mention that my battery needs to be replaced, too? I love Apple, I love OS X, but come on; I shouldn't have two separate, distinct problems on a laptop that costs $2500. First revision or not, it doesn't matter.
Out of curiosity, at which point did he lose you?
Some point between the passage of the Patriot Act and the disbanding of the Iraqi Army.
As a realist, (not neorealist), I saw some merit to forceful Iraqi regime change. In some ways, I'd like to see that in my home country of Iran. But the implementation has been beyond horrible. Oh, and civil liberties are a big deal to me. As is a balanced budget. As is the trade deficit.
I guess one day I woke up and realized that whenever politics came up, I strongly disagreed with everything the current administration supported. You cannot achieve successful regime change without supporting (and thus receiving support) from civilians. You cannot garner global support for unilateralism if you aren't believed (regardless of reality; perception is critical) to be a fair broker (Israel). You cannot build a strong economic foundation through massive, crippling, chronic debt, and you cannot solidify your position as a world economic power through trade imbalances.
*shrug*
Ignoring the civil liberties aspect.
Ignoring the government secrecy aspect.
Ignoring that the NSA is legally bound not to conduct domestic surveillance.
Those are some pretty FUCKING big pills to swallow, but I'll pretend, hypothetically, that I can let those things go. *gulp*.
The government's argument is this:
1. We are not conducting such surveillance, nor have we done anything illegal.
2. The reason we have not done anything illegal is because you cannot demonstrate that AT&T provided records to the government.
3. Forcing the government to provide such evidence might alert the terrorists that this surveillance program, which does NOT exist, is watching them, making us less safe.
4. Therefore, this case should be dismissed.
These statements are not congruent. There's no defensible argument here. One of the government's position is that AT&T did not provide records to the government. If that didn't occur, then there is no potential security risk. The entire government "reponse" is that we aren't doing any surveillance, but proving that may, potentially, alert Terrorists to the surveillance we are doing.
Frankly, I'm depressed we have a Republican Congress, because this kind of outrageous, unconstitutional, illegal, dictatorial, fascist behavior, layered in hypocrisy, deserves impeachment .
We impeached a President because an intern blew him, and he was misleading about it in Congressional Hearings.
Bush has, and continues to, lie about the existing of a ubiquitous domestic surveillance program that is without a doubt illegal, and his justification is, "Because I'm the boss, you all are children, and you can't handle the truth"
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot protect the secrecy of an illegal surveillance program under the grounds that it "doesn't exist". I hope, Mr. Bush, that the Heaven and Hell you believe in are real, so that you may burn in the lowest levels of hell, that reserved for traitors.
I say this as a person who supports the war in Iraq, I say this as a staunch conservative. Rot in Hell, Mr. President.
Mod parent up.
What kind of moronic, head-stuck-up-his-ass dyed in the wool IDIOT modded parent down?
Are there genuinely assholes that believe in this security through obscurity? If so, I hope you still defend my right to arms, so that when the day comes, and push comes to shove, I'll be able to go down fighting.
This ruling is absurd. The invocation of state secrets, an absurd doctrine, in such a mundane case, is absurd. This level of monitoring is absurd, as is SBC (AT&T Reborn! Empire Reborn!) playing lapdog to an administration that was supposed to be about small government.
Thankfully, I know that I'm wealthy enough, and smart enough, and connected enough, that when people like me fail, and our freedoms are wiped out, and the mass arrests start, I'll be able to get out. My parents fled horrifying regimes elsewhere in the world; I never imagined I might have to do it here, as well. It doesn't hurt that I have citizenship in 3 countries. For the rest of you stupid fucks that let this happen, rot in hell.
You know, I sincerely respect your position. Tell it like it is ;-)
;-)
I have no problem with people who call a spade a spade. You support MS, because supporting MS puts $$ in your pocket. You're not some blind "MS is the best!"; but you do what it takes to succeed. This is a good way to look at it
1. Keep all communication in the snail mail media. If possible, use verifiable mail.
2. Dispute the charge with the credit card company. If you can't separate the phone bill from the DSL, setup a new account at your parents house under YOUR name, as totally separate service. You may not be able to keep the old phone number.
3. I don't recall what jurisdiction you are in (not sure if you mentioned it), but Canada has small claims courts. Here is the website for Ontario's information regarding small claims courts. You file against Telus for the value of the disconnection fee, x2 for your wasted time, and add on any months of interrupted service. You might not get all of that, but then again, you might. Filing in small claims is general simple, and inexpensive; you don't need a lawyer, you can represent yourself. If Telus sends a lawyer, odds are that their lawyer per hour is more expensive than your disconnection fee, and they'll still probably loose. If they don't send a lawyer, you win by default. Also, whatever you want the judge to review, document in pictures. If you want to show that there isn't a contract shown to you, "install" the DSL on a clean system, and take screenshots at every step in the procedure. Small claims judges are pretty reasonable, and you'll tend to win stuff like this. Telus won't be able to show them a signed contract, or a recorded acceptance of contract terms (verbal), so you'll win if you can explain the situation to the judge.
Ultimately, your position is very strong, except that they can hold your phone hostage (since your phone provider is your ISP). I'm not sure if Canada requires companies to provide phone service, so you may want to investigate that; as it is, I believe that Telus can just cancel your phone service no matter what, saying they don't want to do business with you. You'll have to check Telus's franchise agreements (Here I'm bullshitting; I really don't know ANYTHING about Canada's regulatory structure for utilities, and unfortunately I don't have much time to research it).