Jiffies are the same as timer ticks. They're the frequency of the timer interrupt. Rescheduling of processes happens on the timer interrupt, so it's the finest granularity of process switching. The bump to 1000hz was done to increase interactivity.
Jiffie wraparound most certainly does not cause the uptime to wrap. The kernel takes care of it, and drivers have to account for it, but it should never affect userland.
As I recall, Gates pissed of the software industry almost immediately by claiming that it was illegal to copy Microsoft programs, as was the custom among hobbyists. I don't think anyone was ever really rooting FOR Microsoft...though many people were rooting against IBM.
The author of the article, who apparently saw the code, says that "it was not in the kernel proper...[and] the code is more important to Silicon Graphics' Altix servers than to average x86 Linux users."
That's a pretty clear reference to XFS, which AFAIK is not in the main source tree. If that's the case, why the hell isn't SCO going after SGI? Did IBM developers release XFS?
Has anyone else who has seen the code identified it this clearly?
I'm shocked. Absolutely shocked. Why didn't they give notice? Why didn't all of the major news sources, including Slashdot, report this was coming? Never in my wildest dreams did I think that SCO would ever do something so reprehensible. I was just about to purchase OpenServer!
I depend on Slashdot to give me some advance warning, preferably several weeks worth of daily articles with 500 posts, so that I'm not blindsided by issues like this.
Judging from the screenshots (isn't that the way we all review an OS?) this offers nothing new.
50% troll, 50% insightful.
Honestly...if an OS looks THAT similar to the Linux, OSX, and Windows, can it really offer enough to justify its existence to anyone other than its developers?
Give me something really new...Plan9 new...for a desktop OS, and I'll pay attention.
"New Line understands Peter's vision and understands it is bound by technology, so it makes sure technology is not a bottleneck," Houston said. "In the big scheme, a few million dollars for a couple of thousand processors will pay dividends."
When it comes to digital entertainment...technology is always the bottleneck. Human creativity has thus far always been able to far exceed our wildest technological dreams. You could quintuple WETA's processing power and their animators and modellers would expand to the new limit still be wishing for more.
Well, that's because DOS isn't an operating system in the same sense as Linux or Windows. It would make as much or more sense to write your real-time app as self-booting with no OS at all. That's basically what you get with DOS (well, that and the FAT filesystem).
Can't we have a radiation shield for the Earth which is a little more reliable? A few CFCs, a little hydrogen, and it's disappearing all over the place. Bad design. Someone should have considered these possibilities before installing it. If I installed a firewall which was this delicate, I'd be canned.
If nothing else, this should pump up my AMD stock.
Does anyone know if this is press-release hype or a real breakthrough? I'm not a semiconductor expert. But my suspicion is, real breakthroughs generally don't get announced in marketing press-releases on Yahoo Finance.
You answered your question yourself. If you don't want long-term Red Hat enterprise support, then go for the consumer releases. If you have enough expertise in-house to support it yourself, then great. Frankly, I would be surprised if any large organization would choose to do such a thing. Relying on hacker-experience in house is dangerous, unless you have a mammoth internal training program. The cost of enterprise-level support is far less than the cost of enterprise-level downtime. And that's not a sales pitch.
Furthermore...do you ever hear of large companies buying commercial Unixes (AIX, HP-UX, Solaris) without support contracts? Do they ever say, "we have lots of people who know unix...why do we need support?" It's the exact same thing. When it comes to support, it really doesn't matter if it's Open Source or not. It's still a big complex product which can't be allowed to break.
The advantage of Open Source comes in when you want a customized version of Red Hat deployed. You can rewrite and recompile the kernel and all applications to suit your needs. In that case, I doubt any external support organization would be able to help you.
Sorry, I'm behind on my distros. Is Ximian free-as-in-beer, i.e. downloadable? Do I get all of the features he's talking about, or do I have to sign up for a channel subscription?
Up to now, the best desktop distro seemed to be RH9.0, but this article impressed me a lot.
Huh? Perhaps there's a signifigantly more complex algorithm which yields better performance (redblack trees compared to standard btrees) but on the whole, hash tables are extremely efficient and are used everywhere.
That's like saying, "I wish people would stop using [lists|arrays|trees] where one want good performance."
I'm not an expert on HTTP: would it be possible to add.torrent as an 'accepted protocol' to an HTTP request/response (like gzip)? Then apache could automatically switch to using bittorrent as a protocol once enough bandwidth is being used for a particular file (of enough size), for clients which specify torrent as an accepted protocol.
One nice feature of Opera that I'd like to see in other browsers is that it starts downloading a file you want to save even before you say where to save it. You click, it brings up a file browser to say where to put it, but while you're poking around your filesystem, it's already downloading it. Quite often by the time I decide where to put it, it's already completely saved. Nice.
Since it's impossible to verify the actual sender of any email, we need to be stricter about validating the server who sent it (most recently). AOL and MSN and the large corporations will eventually ban all email not coming from a small (< 100 domains) set of 'trusted hosts'. This will hurt small companies and small ISPs; the answer is that they will have to route their mail through a trusted host (or through someone else, who in turn...). These trusted hosts will become something like (and possibly run by) Verisign and other CAs. The small senders will have to pay for the authentication the trusted host provides (which they will pass on to their customers). This is already something like what ISPs do, when they refuse to forward SMTP mail except from their own block of IP addresses.
If a trusted host allows spam to be sent through it (on a large enough scale), then it is in danger of losing its 'trusted' status. Unless of course, it acknowledges its spammy status and pays (bribes?) the other trusted hosts to allow it to remain. The end result will be that spammers will have to pay (considerably) for the privilege of sending spam through a trusted host. Normal users will have to pay (a small amount) for the privilege of sending non-spam through a trusted host.
This isn't a radical idea, it's simply whitelists taken to their logical, structured conclusion.
Re:NTLM Authentication prior to 1.4
on
Mozilla 1.4b Loosed
·
· Score: 3, Informative
No, domain\username only worked for standard 'clear text' http authentication, which on IIS servers maps domain usernames like that. Actual NTLM authentication is a different protocol altogether. If a server enabled NTLM authentication but not clear-text, you were out of luck. Also, I believe that NTLM allows for transparent authentication, where your current user/domain login to Windows is used (without having to type anything), though that may just be an implementation detail of IE.
I assume that the challenge-response is intended for messages already tagged as potential spam. In other words, low-scoring messages (spam-wise) wouldn't get the challenge. I certainly wouldn't expect a perfectly not-spam message to require the CR. Earthlink's (and other) spam-rating systems are pretty good, I think using it for the 'grey-area' emails would work well. And block the obvious spam without hesitation.
One question: shouldn't it be REALLY OBVIOUS to ISPs what is spam and what isn't? It seems that if a nearly-identical message gets sent to a large enough percentage of their users, it's clearly spam. Is this hard to do? Are spammers clever enough to distribute emails to avoid this?
I use Earthlink, and they already have a decent spam-filtering system. I still use both SpamProbe and SpamAssassin, and the combination of all three works well enough that I'm not afraid to give my real address just about anywhere.
Well, except maybe Slashdot.
But perhaps with the new system, I can post it even here!
Slashdot Mirror
We do the same thing with phone numbers like 1-800-CALL-ATT.
Jiffies are the same as timer ticks. They're the frequency of the timer interrupt. Rescheduling of processes happens on the timer interrupt, so it's the finest granularity of process switching. The bump to 1000hz was done to increase interactivity.
Jiffie wraparound most certainly does not cause the uptime to wrap. The kernel takes care of it, and drivers have to account for it, but it should never affect userland.
As I recall, Gates pissed of the software industry almost immediately by claiming that it was illegal to copy Microsoft programs, as was the custom among hobbyists. I don't think anyone was ever really rooting FOR Microsoft...though many people were rooting against IBM.
The author of the article, who apparently saw the code, says that "it was not in the kernel proper...[and] the code is more important to Silicon Graphics' Altix servers than to average x86 Linux users."
That's a pretty clear reference to XFS, which AFAIK is not in the main source tree. If that's the case, why the hell isn't SCO going after SGI? Did IBM developers release XFS?
Has anyone else who has seen the code identified it this clearly?
I'm shocked. Absolutely shocked. Why didn't they give notice? Why didn't all of the major news sources, including Slashdot, report this was coming? Never in my wildest dreams did I think that SCO would ever do something so reprehensible. I was just about to purchase OpenServer!
I depend on Slashdot to give me some advance warning, preferably several weeks worth of daily articles with 500 posts, so that I'm not blindsided by issues like this.
Judging from the screenshots (isn't that the way we all review an OS?) this offers nothing new.
50% troll,
50% insightful.
Honestly...if an OS looks THAT similar to the Linux, OSX, and Windows, can it really offer enough to justify its existence to anyone other than its developers?
Give me something really new...Plan9 new...for a desktop OS, and I'll pay attention.
"New Line understands Peter's vision and understands it is bound by technology, so it makes sure technology is not a bottleneck," Houston said. "In the big scheme, a few million dollars for a couple of thousand processors will pay dividends."
When it comes to digital entertainment...technology is always the bottleneck. Human creativity has thus far always been able to far exceed our wildest technological dreams. You could quintuple WETA's processing power and their animators and modellers would expand to the new limit still be wishing for more.
Well, that's because DOS isn't an operating system in the same sense as Linux or Windows. It would make as much or more sense to write your real-time app as self-booting with no OS at all. That's basically what you get with DOS (well, that and the FAT filesystem).
Can't we have a radiation shield for the Earth which is a little more reliable? A few CFCs, a little hydrogen, and it's disappearing all over the place. Bad design. Someone should have considered these possibilities before installing it. If I installed a firewall which was this delicate, I'd be canned.
Of course, IPv6 will probably fix all this.
If nothing else, this should pump up my AMD stock.
Does anyone know if this is press-release hype or a real breakthrough? I'm not a semiconductor expert. But my suspicion is, real breakthroughs generally don't get announced in marketing press-releases on Yahoo Finance.
The world needs better video codecs... ...and free software needs better names.
Ogg Theora?
You answered your question yourself. If you don't want long-term Red Hat enterprise support, then go for the consumer releases. If you have enough expertise in-house to support it yourself, then great. Frankly, I would be surprised if any large organization would choose to do such a thing. Relying on hacker-experience in house is dangerous, unless you have a mammoth internal training program. The cost of enterprise-level support is far less than the cost of enterprise-level downtime. And that's not a sales pitch.
Furthermore...do you ever hear of large companies buying commercial Unixes (AIX, HP-UX, Solaris) without support contracts? Do they ever say, "we have lots of people who know unix...why do we need support?" It's the exact same thing. When it comes to support, it really doesn't matter if it's Open Source or not. It's still a big complex product which can't be allowed to break.
The advantage of Open Source comes in when you want a customized version of Red Hat deployed. You can rewrite and recompile the kernel and all applications to suit your needs. In that case, I doubt any external support organization would be able to help you.
No.
Sorry, I'm behind on my distros. Is Ximian free-as-in-beer, i.e. downloadable? Do I get all of the features he's talking about, or do I have to sign up for a channel subscription?
Up to now, the best desktop distro seemed to be RH9.0, but this article impressed me a lot.
Huh? Perhaps there's a signifigantly more complex algorithm which yields better performance (redblack trees compared to standard btrees) but on the whole, hash tables are extremely efficient and are used everywhere.
That's like saying, "I wish people would stop using [lists|arrays|trees] where one want good performance."
Everything that is cool, in a hacker sense, you can do with Plan9. You just can't do anything that's cool in an ordinary sense.
Hey, if it's going to be newer, more expensive, with very little increase in speed, what's the point?
This is exactly why BSD is dying!
I'm not an expert on HTTP: would it be possible to add .torrent as an 'accepted protocol' to an HTTP request/response (like gzip)? Then apache could automatically switch to using bittorrent as a protocol once enough bandwidth is being used for a particular file (of enough size), for clients which specify torrent as an accepted protocol.
One nice feature of Opera that I'd like to see in other browsers is that it starts downloading a file you want to save even before you say where to save it. You click, it brings up a file browser to say where to put it, but while you're poking around your filesystem, it's already downloading it. Quite often by the time I decide where to put it, it's already completely saved. Nice.
'The city' is the standard reference for San Francisco, anywhere in the Bay Area and Silicon Valley.
Yes, but so are Magneto and Gandalf!
I think it's inevitable...
Since it's impossible to verify the actual sender of any email, we need to be stricter about validating the server who sent it (most recently). AOL and MSN and the large corporations will eventually ban all email not coming from a small (< 100 domains) set of 'trusted hosts'. This will hurt small companies and small ISPs; the answer is that they will have to route their mail through a trusted host (or through someone else, who in turn...). These trusted hosts will become something like (and possibly run by) Verisign and other CAs. The small senders will have to pay for the authentication the trusted host provides (which they will pass on to their customers). This is already something like what ISPs do, when they refuse to forward SMTP mail except from their own block of IP addresses.
If a trusted host allows spam to be sent through it (on a large enough scale), then it is in danger of losing its 'trusted' status. Unless of course, it acknowledges its spammy status and pays (bribes?) the other trusted hosts to allow it to remain. The end result will be that spammers will have to pay (considerably) for the privilege of sending spam through a trusted host. Normal users will have to pay (a small amount) for the privilege of sending non-spam through a trusted host.
This isn't a radical idea, it's simply whitelists taken to their logical, structured conclusion.
No, domain\username only worked for standard 'clear text' http authentication, which on IIS servers maps domain usernames like that. Actual NTLM authentication is a different protocol altogether. If a server enabled NTLM authentication but not clear-text, you were out of luck. Also, I believe that NTLM allows for transparent authentication, where your current user/domain login to Windows is used (without having to type anything), though that may just be an implementation detail of IE.
I assume that the challenge-response is intended for messages already tagged as potential spam. In other words, low-scoring messages (spam-wise) wouldn't get the challenge. I certainly wouldn't expect a perfectly not-spam message to require the CR. Earthlink's (and other) spam-rating systems are pretty good, I think using it for the 'grey-area' emails would work well. And block the obvious spam without hesitation.
One question: shouldn't it be REALLY OBVIOUS to ISPs what is spam and what isn't? It seems that if a nearly-identical message gets sent to a large enough percentage of their users, it's clearly spam. Is this hard to do? Are spammers clever enough to distribute emails to avoid this?
I use Earthlink, and they already have a decent spam-filtering system. I still use both SpamProbe and SpamAssassin, and the combination of all three works well enough that I'm not afraid to give my real address just about anywhere.
Well, except maybe Slashdot.
But perhaps with the new system, I can post it even here!