The web server can be a significant factor in performance then the server is under load, as winessed by Lighttpd being significantly faster then Apache under some workloads and configuration. There are many things the web server can have some affect on (its own memory use, management of fcgi processes, and so forth)
You say that "requests per second" is a useful measure but without the information you yourself suggest is missing I would not agree that it is. There is a vast range of difference between requests that just pull a single static file and requests that his a script interpreter which in turn needs to hit a database... Even if they state that the requests were for PHP output there are a variety of ways PHP can be called and that will affect performance (at least four: module [most common under Apache], CGI, FCGI [most common under lighttpd], ISAPI [under IIS]). Unless otherwise stated I assume that req/sec measures are referring to requests for static files though any benchmark like that which doesn't describe the environment used in some detail is essentially meaningless.
I bought myself a Asus netbook with the Linux pre-install. It didn't last long and installed a different Linux distro which was not as childish and crippled as the pre-installed Linux version (not any Ubuntu flavour).
That might be a little unfair to Linpus. Admittedly I replaced it with UNR in short order, but it is not without its advantages once you've visited the official update page that gives you a more recent version of Firefox (3.0.x upgrade from 2), OpenOffice, VLC, and so forth.
The default install (once FF is updated) is perfectly fine for basic users, who do not need the flexibility you or I desire/require, and all the hardware definitely works out of the box. It also boots (and gets to the point of being able to use an application) a lot faster then I have been able to tweak UNR to (though this isn't much of an issue as mine very rarely shuts down fully - it sleeps most of the time instead which seems reliable)
It is said that one of the reasons Acer picked Linpus instead of other alternatives such as Ubuntu was that it had better eastern language support at the time the decision was made, as it was originally created for those markets. The Asian market is/was a significant chunk of Acer's target market for the range.
How do you figure that? Last time I checked you save exactly $0.00 dollars by getting the Ubuntu over the Vista, at least on the Dell XPS I last looked at. So in this case if there is any savings from not going MSFT then YOU aren't the one seeing it.
Correct. As well as getting Windows OEM licenses dirt cheap in bulk for their machine, Dall and manufacturers like them also get a kick-back for each bit of extra "trail" software (such as AV tools and such) they include. If you don't take Windows they can provide McUsless AntiEverything 2012, so they don't get the kick-back for that software for your machine, and if these kick-backs in total as much as the few $ they pay for each Windows license (i.e. laptop.cost+window.cost-crap1.cost-crap2.cost == laptop.cost-ubuntu.cost) that means your machines costs them the same to send to you what-ever OS you select.
There is also the issue of extra returns for Linux machines if they make them cheaper. This actually happens, it isn't just FUD, though it doesn't happen for the reason that MS want you to believe (because Linux is defective) it is because the user has made a defective choice - they pick the cheaper option without doing any research then expect a refund because it won't play game-of-the-moment out of the box.
Try EEEbuntu. It's Ubuntu with a few eee-specific features, and a custom kernel. Should detect everything automatically. I've got it running on my 1000ha and I've never had a problem with it. Here's where you can grab it
IIRC eeebuntu hasn't been updated to with latest release version (it is still based on 8.10 rather than the newer 9.04). While the differences won't be massively massive and 8.10 will get security updates for a while yet, you are probably better off using the official "Ubuntu Netbook Remix" for new installs: http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download-netbook
I've been using it on my AA1 for the last few weeks and have found it to be excellent in terms of everything I've cared to test working out of the box, and the eee1000 seems to be well supported too according to the official list at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/HardwareSupport/Machines/Netbooks
If you don't like the default UNR launcher interface, you can easily turn it off and use the standard desktop setup (or your custom preference if you have used Linux long enough to have developed one) instead (though you'll want to reconfigure the panels vertically, or remove them, due to the machines screen size and aspect ratio).
Aye. They invented the zeroth law (a robot may not harm humanity or by inaction allow humanity to become harmed) which trumped the first law (a robot may not harm a human or by inaction allow a human to become harmed), so in the end Asimovs robot could harm one or more of us if there was no better way to protect the common good.
But at that point they split themselves away from us and managed the farm from afar, which is the explanation for there being no robots in the foundation series when those two parts of his work "merged" at the end of the last (in terms of the fictional univers' timeline) Foundation volume.
Aye, that was my point. I'd like to be able to do it, and I'd like enough others to do the same that chronically aged or otherwise decrepit browsers stop being our problem and become the user problem.
But while I can do this for personal projects, where the target audience is small and does not need to be influenced this way as they long since saw the light or upgraded for other reasons, if I took this attitude on a pages that need to be viewed more generally it would be professional suicide.
Just for clarity: I'm not advocating a return to the old "best viewed with " - that was not a GoodThing. But I'd like "best viewed with something relatively modern and standards compliant" to be something I could legitimately say.
I think the same of trying to stop people using bad user agents. If only I could get them to throw the frog back and try find a princess...
I've never liked conditionally including stylesheets based on user agent. For a start some UAs can misreport their identity which blows the technique wide open. Your average user will not accept that their browser is at fault, unless the choice+config is forced on them by an IT department but in that case *they* won't accept that their chosen browser/config is at fault. If your site looks wrong in their config then your site is wrong in their eyes.
Even allowing for correct identification, you end up with several sets of stylesheets to maintain (or if you have been a little more clever several templates from which your build script will generate the several sets) which is a pain, and you are in the trap of trying to enumerate the bad (how many ways can a UA be non compliant?). I don't see this as any less wrong than using tables occasionally for layout.
The other alternative is conditional hacks in the stylesheets, but in my experience this usually quickly balloons to a mess that is no easier to maintain than lots of separate stylesheets.
In an ideal world I could just produce pages that look and work right in any relatively compliant UA and (assuming a reported problem is not due to a mistake in my code/markup/styles) tell people who complain that their UA is doing something wrong and they should upgrade, but until people move forward of their own accord or I win the lottery that ideal world is a pipe-dream.
Until then I will continue to do layout right as much as I consider practical but resort to tables on those few occasions when, in my opinion, it isn't.
Oh, and they swim and some have no lungs so it is a fish. So ner nerr!
, but a dual vCPU VM will have to wait until the hypervisor can give it timeslices on two CPUs at the same time.
Then their hypervisor is broken.
It should be possible for A dual vCPU machine to have vCPU1 and vCPU2 be two timeslices on the same real cpu if need be.
Which would kill any benefit of running SMP in the VM anyway, if it were possible.
My understanding, which may be out of date, is that this is not considered a good idea as timing issues between threads on the two vCPUs if scheduled one after the other on the same core could potentially cause race conditions. And if not that serious, the threads on the vCPU that gets the first slice of the real core could be paused waiting for locks to be released by threads the guest OS has lined up to runon the other vCPU. This is an explanation that I have seen given as to why VMWare would not allow you to do virtual SMP on a single-core-single-CPU host machine (i.e. emulating SMP in the guest by giving two or more vCPUs alternating time on the only physical core).
If your apps are not SMP aware, WTF at you using?
Multiple CPUs has been the standard for servers for at least a decade in x86 gear.
Yes, but it doesn't work in VMs the same way, at least not in VMWare. On a loaded system you often find a single-vCPU VM will out perform one with more than one vCPU, in fact if you can spread your app over multiple machines you are generally better off running two single CPU VMs instead of one dual-CPU one. This is true no matter how many physical CPUs/cores you have available.
Why is this? Because a single CPU VM can be scheduled when-ever there are time-slices available on any physical CPU/core (though a good hypervisor will try not bounce VMs between cores too often, as this reduces the potential gains from using the core's L1 cache and (on architectures where L2 cache isn't shared) L2 cache too), but a dual vCPU VM will have to wait until the hypervisor can give it timeslices on two CPUs at the same time. If this is the only VM that is actively doing anything on the physical machine (and the host OS is otherwise quiet too) this makes little difference aside from a small overhead on top of the normal hits for not running on bare metal, but as soon as that VM is competing with other processes for CPU resource it can have a massive negative effect on scheduling latency.
Whoa, I haven't done than since IE4 / Netscape 4.7 days. I use tables for tabular data, very rarely for layout. I'm quite positive I'm not alone in this.
More-or-less. I try to keep everything pure these days (tables only for purely tabular data) but I will often hit things that I want to do but can't do any "proper way" that works well in all the browsers I try to support (at least IE6/7/8 and FF3 sometimes with the addition of Chrome, FF2 and others if I have time to test in them).
I use this technique in such cases: http://giveupandusetables.com/ - try to do things "right" for a while, but avoid spending hours banging my head against it when I could be using the time for something more useful.
I would like to just be able to tell users to "upgrade to a decent browser or put up with things not looking right" instead of fighting to support older user agents like IE6 (heck, at work we sometimes even have to give time to making sure stuff doesn't break overly in IE4!) but unless you are targeting a very specific subset of people with the design that just doesn't wash, so using tables for layout sometimes has to happen.
Often it is possible to compromise, like accepting a slightly different arrangement that can be made to work well generally without to many bad-browser-specific hacks in order to avoid resorting to a table, or accepting that things are a little odd (or just different) in some browser as it looks/works OK anyway, but again this is not always possible.
Oh. Well you seemed upset that it's not "remarkably changed", but you don't know which remarkable change you're waiting for? Seems like a goofy complaint to me.
Not upset, just correcting (IMO) the original sentiment.
Perhaps I chose my words badly. Wouldn't be the first time.
Q. Is it true that other non-IE browsers like Firefox, Opera and Safari are also working on javascript speed making the only important chrome feature worthless?
That is a little disingenuous. While work was afoot on improving JS performance significantly in the Mozilla camp before the surprise announcement of Chrome, it could be said that Chrome's performance bolstered the resolve of the teams working on that and encouraged MS to take a stronger look at the issue for the IE roadmap.
There is also the process model that, while more demanding RAM wise and maybe a little CPU wise, should result in greater stability. This is something that seems to have inspired Mozilla and IE devs too.
This is one of those "competition is a very good thing" situations. There is certainly room in the market for FF/Chrome/others to be around keeping each other on their toes (as long as "de facto standards wars" don't break out again) so things don't stagnate badly like they did in the IE6 era.
You're supposed to be using SQL Server Management Studio. (I don't know if you'd consider that better or worse, but... at least it's "remarkably changed" from Enterprise Manager.)
I wouldn't agree there. From what I see SSMS is basically the old Enterprise Manager and Query Analyzer programs integrated, with some useful but minor UI improvements along the way. Oh, and a simple "project" abstraction for grouping script files and connection settings, and hooks to make other tools look more integrated.
Not what I would call remarkably changed. Certainly better, but an evolution rather than a revolution.
Caveat: I'm using SSMS as provided with SQL2005, we have yet to move towards SQL2008 so for all I know there could be more siginicant changes in the latest revision of the tool.
The reason the Jetpack dev's probably went for jQuery is because it is small, plays nice with other libraries and is easily extensible.
And, for the above reasons, it is common for web oriented devs to be at least a little familiar with it already (which should reduce the severity of the average learning curve, making the new feature more likely to gain a critical mass of followers).
They left Schwarzenegger out of Terminator 4 for a reason.
1. he was busy being the govounator 2. it would be difficult to justify in the plot as his model would not be present at that point in the timeline, unless they worked in a human from who the machines copied the look.
Neither of those is relevant here. And I believe Arnie was actually approached with the suggestion of a small part (though I don't know if that was for the current in-progress film or one of the others in the planned run).
Though the ageing of the original GB cast may be an issue, I can see it working if acknowledged by the script (i.e. one or two "we're getting too old for this" type lines and not having them bound around like they are still in their 30s). They've got the presence and talent to carry it off if written and directed well and their hearts are in it.
I'm hardly an expert (more a "knowledgeable amateur"), so don't take anything I say as 100% correct without getting some verification first!
Of the many typos in my previous message, the important one is "11/2^18", which should have been "1/2^18".
Another mitigating factor for this attack and others like it is that the attacker needs to have infiltrated a machine somewhere on the route between you and the server, or some other "nearby" machine if they can poison routing tables to draw your communication into a detour. It is not an attack that can be attempted directly from any connected PC. Again this (infiltrating a machine somewhere on the route) is far from impossible but, along with the likely time complexity of the attack itself, probably impractical in terms of the amount of effort required compared to the likelihood of useful gain in return for their time/hassle.
> Patterson said that he did not believe this flaw
> had been exploited in the wild, and that to
> deduce a message of appreciable length could take
> days.
Is my social security number a "message of appreciable length?"
Probably not on its own. Full packed it would take 33 bits, 11 bytes (88 bits, though if the attacker knew for sure that an SSN was being sent in those bytes the search space would not significantly greater than the 33 bits) if represented in pure ASCII text with separators.
As each attempt to read each 32 bits has a 11/2^18 chance of success, and assuming failure of one attempt does no extra clue as to which other patterns to try next, each 4 byte block is going to take on average 131,072 connections to infer from the server response so for the 11 byte ASCII string that is an average attack length of 393,216 connections.
While that isn't going to take long (at 4.5 connections per second you are looking at a day), any message being sent containing your SSN is going to be significatly longer than the SSN on its own so I wouldn't worry just yet.
We are still in "it would be a lot easier for the attacker to raid your bins, burgle your house, or steal records from your bank" territory here. Though there is the chance that someone improve the attack (or already has) so be vigilant and apply updated SSH packages as soon as practical once your distribution offers them.
If that is the case, then they have updated recently.
Ubuntu/Jaunty (9.04) on my netbook reports the openssh-server package in the standard repo to be 5.1pl-5ubuntu1. Debian/Lenny (5.0, current "stable") shows 5.1p1-5 also. Hopefully an update to 5.2 is coming soon, though 5.2 isn't even in Sid (unstable) yet, so maybe not. Then again, they may have back-ported the changes for this issue instead of upgrading to the full point release. That sort of thing does sometimes happen.
The package in Etch ("oldstable", still very common as Lenny was only promoted to stable a short while ago) is still 4.3p2-9etch3 and I doubt that will get upgraded unless the attack practically useful.
I'm running a Geforce 250 GTS with a 400W power supply. I'd originally bought a more powerful supply, but didn't have any problems with the old one so returned it. Honestly, I'm surprised it works.
The key is getting a *good* power supply.
You might well find that a cheap 400W rated box would not induce a stable working system as the output lines would not be as stable under full/variable load - variations in supply voltage/currently (outside of the range permitted by the relevant specs) can cause unpredictable crashes.
That is why people tend to recommend larger PSUs - if you are working well below from the unit's maximum rated output then it is more likely to provide reliable stable output, especially if it is a cheap unit. That and bragging rights of course - people like to have bigger numbers written on their kit!
One thing I've never understood is why some people who spend hundreds of $ extra on bleeding edge CPUs and graphics cards then get a cheap PSU to run them off, and instead of paying extra for a *good* 450W supply spend the same (or more) money to get a cheap 700+W one...
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I'm with you there.
I was just stating the case, not saying that I liked it!
The web server can be a significant factor in performance then the server is under load, as winessed by Lighttpd being significantly faster then Apache under some workloads and configuration. There are many things the web server can have some affect on (its own memory use, management of fcgi processes, and so forth)
You say that "requests per second" is a useful measure but without the information you yourself suggest is missing I would not agree that it is. There is a vast range of difference between requests that just pull a single static file and requests that his a script interpreter which in turn needs to hit a database... Even if they state that the requests were for PHP output there are a variety of ways PHP can be called and that will affect performance (at least four: module [most common under Apache], CGI, FCGI [most common under lighttpd], ISAPI [under IIS]). Unless otherwise stated I assume that req/sec measures are referring to requests for static files though any benchmark like that which doesn't describe the environment used in some detail is essentially meaningless.
I bought myself a Asus netbook with the Linux pre-install. It didn't last long and installed a different Linux distro which was not as childish and crippled as the pre-installed Linux version (not any Ubuntu flavour).
That might be a little unfair to Linpus. Admittedly I replaced it with UNR in short order, but it is not without its advantages once you've visited the official update page that gives you a more recent version of Firefox (3.0.x upgrade from 2), OpenOffice, VLC, and so forth.
The default install (once FF is updated) is perfectly fine for basic users, who do not need the flexibility you or I desire/require, and all the hardware definitely works out of the box. It also boots (and gets to the point of being able to use an application) a lot faster then I have been able to tweak UNR to (though this isn't much of an issue as mine very rarely shuts down fully - it sleeps most of the time instead which seems reliable)
It is said that one of the reasons Acer picked Linpus instead of other alternatives such as Ubuntu was that it had better eastern language support at the time the decision was made, as it was originally created for those markets. The Asian market is/was a significant chunk of Acer's target market for the range.
I thought we paid that tax EVEN IF we bought a Linux laptop.
Not quite. You pay the Dell-don't-collect-on-the-bribes-to-include-extra-trial-software-on-your-machine-so-they-extract-those-$-from-you tax.
How do you figure that? Last time I checked you save exactly $0.00 dollars by getting the Ubuntu over the Vista, at least on the Dell XPS I last looked at. So in this case if there is any savings from not going MSFT then YOU aren't the one seeing it.
Correct. As well as getting Windows OEM licenses dirt cheap in bulk for their machine, Dall and manufacturers like them also get a kick-back for each bit of extra "trail" software (such as AV tools and such) they include. If you don't take Windows they can provide McUsless AntiEverything 2012, so they don't get the kick-back for that software for your machine, and if these kick-backs in total as much as the few $ they pay for each Windows license (i.e. laptop.cost+window.cost-crap1.cost-crap2.cost == laptop.cost-ubuntu.cost) that means your machines costs them the same to send to you what-ever OS you select.
There is also the issue of extra returns for Linux machines if they make them cheaper. This actually happens, it isn't just FUD, though it doesn't happen for the reason that MS want you to believe (because Linux is defective) it is because the user has made a defective choice - they pick the cheaper option without doing any research then expect a refund because it won't play game-of-the-moment out of the box.
Try EEEbuntu. It's Ubuntu with a few eee-specific features, and a custom kernel. Should detect everything automatically. I've got it running on my 1000ha and I've never had a problem with it. Here's where you can grab it
IIRC eeebuntu hasn't been updated to with latest release version (it is still based on 8.10 rather than the newer 9.04). While the differences won't be massively massive and 8.10 will get security updates for a while yet, you are probably better off using the official "Ubuntu Netbook Remix" for new installs: http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download-netbook
I've been using it on my AA1 for the last few weeks and have found it to be excellent in terms of everything I've cared to test working out of the box, and the eee1000 seems to be well supported too according to the official list at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/HardwareSupport/Machines/Netbooks
If you don't like the default UNR launcher interface, you can easily turn it off and use the standard desktop setup (or your custom preference if you have used Linux long enough to have developed one) instead (though you'll want to reconfigure the panels vertically, or remove them, due to the machines screen size and aspect ratio).
Aye. They invented the zeroth law (a robot may not harm humanity or by inaction allow humanity to become harmed) which trumped the first law (a robot may not harm a human or by inaction allow a human to become harmed), so in the end Asimovs robot could harm one or more of us if there was no better way to protect the common good.
But at that point they split themselves away from us and managed the farm from afar, which is the explanation for there being no robots in the foundation series when those two parts of his work "merged" at the end of the last (in terms of the fictional univers' timeline) Foundation volume.
Aye, that was my point. I'd like to be able to do it, and I'd like enough others to do the same that chronically aged or otherwise decrepit browsers stop being our problem and become the user problem.
But while I can do this for personal projects, where the target audience is small and does not need to be influenced this way as they long since saw the light or upgraded for other reasons, if I took this attitude on a pages that need to be viewed more generally it would be professional suicide.
Just for clarity: I'm not advocating a return to the old "best viewed with " - that was not a GoodThing. But I'd like "best viewed with something relatively modern and standards compliant" to be something I could legitimately say.
I think the same of trying to stop people using bad user agents. If only I could get them to throw the frog back and try find a princess...
I've never liked conditionally including stylesheets based on user agent. For a start some UAs can misreport their identity which blows the technique wide open. Your average user will not accept that their browser is at fault, unless the choice+config is forced on them by an IT department but in that case *they* won't accept that their chosen browser/config is at fault. If your site looks wrong in their config then your site is wrong in their eyes.
Even allowing for correct identification, you end up with several sets of stylesheets to maintain (or if you have been a little more clever several templates from which your build script will generate the several sets) which is a pain, and you are in the trap of trying to enumerate the bad (how many ways can a UA be non compliant?). I don't see this as any less wrong than using tables occasionally for layout.
The other alternative is conditional hacks in the stylesheets, but in my experience this usually quickly balloons to a mess that is no easier to maintain than lots of separate stylesheets.
In an ideal world I could just produce pages that look and work right in any relatively compliant UA and (assuming a reported problem is not due to a mistake in my code/markup/styles) tell people who complain that their UA is doing something wrong and they should upgrade, but until people move forward of their own accord or I win the lottery that ideal world is a pipe-dream.
Until then I will continue to do layout right as much as I consider practical but resort to tables on those few occasions when, in my opinion, it isn't.
Oh, and they swim and some have no lungs so it is a fish. So ner nerr!
p.s. like the .sig, might have to purloin it :)
, but a dual vCPU VM will have to wait until the hypervisor can give it timeslices on two CPUs at the same time.
Then their hypervisor is broken. It should be possible for A dual vCPU machine to have vCPU1 and vCPU2 be two timeslices on the same real cpu if need be.
Which would kill any benefit of running SMP in the VM anyway, if it were possible.
My understanding, which may be out of date, is that this is not considered a good idea as timing issues between threads on the two vCPUs if scheduled one after the other on the same core could potentially cause race conditions. And if not that serious, the threads on the vCPU that gets the first slice of the real core could be paused waiting for locks to be released by threads the guest OS has lined up to runon the other vCPU. This is an explanation that I have seen given as to why VMWare would not allow you to do virtual SMP on a single-core-single-CPU host machine (i.e. emulating SMP in the guest by giving two or more vCPUs alternating time on the only physical core).
OK. Let us try this in simple sentences and short words.
I was not complaining that it has not changed enough. I was not complaining about the lack of any particular feature.
I was simply disagreeing with your original assertion that it is "remarkably different" from the older tool(s). No more, no less.
If your apps are not SMP aware, WTF at you using? Multiple CPUs has been the standard for servers for at least a decade in x86 gear.
Yes, but it doesn't work in VMs the same way, at least not in VMWare. On a loaded system you often find a single-vCPU VM will out perform one with more than one vCPU, in fact if you can spread your app over multiple machines you are generally better off running two single CPU VMs instead of one dual-CPU one. This is true no matter how many physical CPUs/cores you have available.
Why is this? Because a single CPU VM can be scheduled when-ever there are time-slices available on any physical CPU/core (though a good hypervisor will try not bounce VMs between cores too often, as this reduces the potential gains from using the core's L1 cache and (on architectures where L2 cache isn't shared) L2 cache too), but a dual vCPU VM will have to wait until the hypervisor can give it timeslices on two CPUs at the same time. If this is the only VM that is actively doing anything on the physical machine (and the host OS is otherwise quiet too) this makes little difference aside from a small overhead on top of the normal hits for not running on bare metal, but as soon as that VM is competing with other processes for CPU resource it can have a massive negative effect on scheduling latency.
Whoa, I haven't done than since IE4 / Netscape 4.7 days. I use tables for tabular data, very rarely for layout. I'm quite positive I'm not alone in this.
More-or-less. I try to keep everything pure these days (tables only for purely tabular data) but I will often hit things that I want to do but can't do any "proper way" that works well in all the browsers I try to support (at least IE6/7/8 and FF3 sometimes with the addition of Chrome, FF2 and others if I have time to test in them).
I use this technique in such cases: http://giveupandusetables.com/ - try to do things "right" for a while, but avoid spending hours banging my head against it when I could be using the time for something more useful.
I would like to just be able to tell users to "upgrade to a decent browser or put up with things not looking right" instead of fighting to support older user agents like IE6 (heck, at work we sometimes even have to give time to making sure stuff doesn't break overly in IE4!) but unless you are targeting a very specific subset of people with the design that just doesn't wash, so using tables for layout sometimes has to happen.
Often it is possible to compromise, like accepting a slightly different arrangement that can be made to work well generally without to many bad-browser-specific hacks in order to avoid resorting to a table, or accepting that things are a little odd (or just different) in some browser as it looks/works OK anyway, but again this is not always possible.
Oh. Well you seemed upset that it's not "remarkably changed", but you don't know which remarkable change you're waiting for? Seems like a goofy complaint to me.
Not upset, just correcting (IMO) the original sentiment.
Perhaps I chose my words badly. Wouldn't be the first time.
What kind of revolution are you waiting for?
Nothing myself, but the post that I was replying to stated
at least it's "remarkably changed" from Enterprise Manager
which I was disagreeing with. "Remarkable changed" implies more difference than I see over the products history while I've been using it.
It also trivialises violence.
If violence is trivial, then you are not trying hard enough!
Q. Is it true that other non-IE browsers like Firefox, Opera and Safari are also working on javascript speed making the only important chrome feature worthless?
That is a little disingenuous. While work was afoot on improving JS performance significantly in the Mozilla camp before the surprise announcement of Chrome, it could be said that Chrome's performance bolstered the resolve of the teams working on that and encouraged MS to take a stronger look at the issue for the IE roadmap.
There is also the process model that, while more demanding RAM wise and maybe a little CPU wise, should result in greater stability. This is something that seems to have inspired Mozilla and IE devs too.
This is one of those "competition is a very good thing" situations. There is certainly room in the market for FF/Chrome/others to be around keeping each other on their toes (as long as "de facto standards wars" don't break out again) so things don't stagnate badly like they did in the IE6 era.
You're supposed to be using SQL Server Management Studio. (I don't know if you'd consider that better or worse, but... at least it's "remarkably changed" from Enterprise Manager.)
I wouldn't agree there. From what I see SSMS is basically the old Enterprise Manager and Query Analyzer programs integrated, with some useful but minor UI improvements along the way. Oh, and a simple "project" abstraction for grouping script files and connection settings, and hooks to make other tools look more integrated.
Not what I would call remarkably changed. Certainly better, but an evolution rather than a revolution.
Caveat: I'm using SSMS as provided with SQL2005, we have yet to move towards SQL2008 so for all I know there could be more siginicant changes in the latest revision of the tool.
The reason the Jetpack dev's probably went for jQuery is because it is small, plays nice with other libraries and is easily extensible.
And, for the above reasons, it is common for web oriented devs to be at least a little familiar with it already (which should reduce the severity of the average learning curve, making the new feature more likely to gain a critical mass of followers).
They left Schwarzenegger out of Terminator 4 for a reason.
1. he was busy being the govounator
2. it would be difficult to justify in the plot as his model would not be present at that point in the timeline, unless they worked in a human from who the machines copied the look.
Neither of those is relevant here. And I believe Arnie was actually approached with the suggestion of a small part (though I don't know if that was for the current in-progress film or one of the others in the planned run).
Though the ageing of the original GB cast may be an issue, I can see it working if acknowledged by the script (i.e. one or two "we're getting too old for this" type lines and not having them bound around like they are still in their 30s). They've got the presence and talent to carry it off if written and directed well and their hearts are in it.
Thanks for giving some insight into it.
No worries.
I'm hardly an expert (more a "knowledgeable amateur"), so don't take anything I say as 100% correct without getting some verification first!
Of the many typos in my previous message, the important one is "11/2^18", which should have been "1/2^18".
Another mitigating factor for this attack and others like it is that the attacker needs to have infiltrated a machine somewhere on the route between you and the server, or some other "nearby" machine if they can poison routing tables to draw your communication into a detour. It is not an attack that can be attempted directly from any connected PC. Again this (infiltrating a machine somewhere on the route) is far from impossible but, along with the likely time complexity of the attack itself, probably impractical in terms of the amount of effort required compared to the likelihood of useful gain in return for their time/hassle.
> Patterson said that he did not believe this flaw > had been exploited in the wild, and that to > deduce a message of appreciable length could take > days.
Is my social security number a "message of appreciable length?"
Probably not on its own. Full packed it would take 33 bits, 11 bytes (88 bits, though if the attacker knew for sure that an SSN was being sent in those bytes the search space would not significantly greater than the 33 bits) if represented in pure ASCII text with separators.
As each attempt to read each 32 bits has a 11/2^18 chance of success, and assuming failure of one attempt does no extra clue as to which other patterns to try next, each 4 byte block is going to take on average 131,072 connections to infer from the server response so for the 11 byte ASCII string that is an average attack length of 393,216 connections.
While that isn't going to take long (at 4.5 connections per second you are looking at a day), any message being sent containing your SSN is going to be significatly longer than the SSN on its own so I wouldn't worry just yet.
We are still in "it would be a lot easier for the attacker to raid your bins, burgle your house, or steal records from your bank" territory here. Though there is the chance that someone improve the attack (or already has) so be vigilant and apply updated SSH packages as soon as practical once your distribution offers them.
If that is the case, then they have updated recently.
Ubuntu/Jaunty (9.04) on my netbook reports the openssh-server package in the standard repo to be 5.1pl-5ubuntu1. Debian/Lenny (5.0, current "stable") shows 5.1p1-5 also. Hopefully an update to 5.2 is coming soon, though 5.2 isn't even in Sid (unstable) yet, so maybe not. Then again, they may have back-ported the changes for this issue instead of upgrading to the full point release. That sort of thing does sometimes happen.
The package in Etch ("oldstable", still very common as Lenny was only promoted to stable a short while ago) is still 4.3p2-9etch3 and I doubt that will get upgraded unless the attack practically useful.
I'm running a Geforce 250 GTS with a 400W power supply. I'd originally bought a more powerful supply, but didn't have any problems with the old one so returned it. Honestly, I'm surprised it works.
The key is getting a *good* power supply.
You might well find that a cheap 400W rated box would not induce a stable working system as the output lines would not be as stable under full/variable load - variations in supply voltage/currently (outside of the range permitted by the relevant specs) can cause unpredictable crashes.
That is why people tend to recommend larger PSUs - if you are working well below from the unit's maximum rated output then it is more likely to provide reliable stable output, especially if it is a cheap unit. That and bragging rights of course - people like to have bigger numbers written on their kit!
One thing I've never understood is why some people who spend hundreds of $ extra on bleeding edge CPUs and graphics cards then get a cheap PSU to run them off, and instead of paying extra for a *good* 450W supply spend the same (or more) money to get a cheap 700+W one...
i.e. materials with the property not to conduct *any* electrons, EM radiation or heat in any form.
I think the law of thermodynamics might have a thing or two to say on the subject of that idea.