Better would be to keep the weeks as is for the religious purpose, but align the year to always begin on a Sunday. When the year start skews too far, reset it by a full week.
We don't need months. Just use quarters and call them seasons. Months were traditionally periods of lunar cycles, and aside from certain religious calendars, is really no well aligned with lunar cycles at all. Fundamentally, we just don't need them.
As long as there is a way to rebuild your image and start over yourself, it shouldn't matter. Separate OS and data/home images would be a plus. If you can do your VM from a shell account, it's a cinch.
The concept of managed hosting means THEY keep root and take care of it for you. They want you to not use root so they don't have to ponder what you broke. This is a class of service appropriate for those that tend to break things when logged in as root. For those of us that can handle root properly, we want UNmanaged hosting. They just set it up enough for us to login as root (or for more fun, login as a user and crack into root) and do our own setup. I think your observation may be that managed services are rare in a VPS context (more common for a dedicated machine and up). For the kind of price of VPS, managing for people doesn't really seem to be a viable business model. But I have seen managed VPS services offered somewhere (but that was a few years ago when I was first hunting around for dedicated service).
Several of those companies are nowhere near "very productive". They just can't get things done, and when they purport to have something done, it's so often done wrong. To be honest, these companies would likely be just as UNPRODUCTIVE and INCOMPETENT even if they were using Linux. In these cases it isn't about the OS at all. What should be of grave concern, however, is the metrics of performance involved. If it comes out with all these companies being "very" productive, then the measurement itself is seriously flawed.
Google doesn’t allow users who are under the age of 13 to have Google Accounts, unless they are using Google Apps for Education accounts through their school.
And hoes does Google handle this for home schooled children?
There is a good reason to not install the drivers. That is because you'll then expect them to support your desktop that is now running unknown bits of software that have not gone through the vetting process of making sure they are reliable (doesn't crash the machine), are secure, etc. You PAID for the tablet? OK, then PAY for the IT time in supporting all this. That, or make a business case (e.g. how does it help the bottom line) to management for using these tablets.
What provider is that? I want to know so I can avoid the ones with unsafe computer networks where they just let the employees decide what they think is safe.
Is downloading unsafe? Maybe. If the downloads are only allowed where vetted safe, then sure. Downloading from company servers should be if the servers are managed properly.
Of course the IT people are stupid for not deploying Linux on the desktop with Windows in a VM and restricting internet access on an "as approved by management" basis.
Just SOME people have difficulty concentrating on the road. School bus drivers distracted by kids and soccer moms distracted by... kids (again). Just ban kids in the car! Problem solved!
Sounds like someone doesn't know how to do "gracefully degrade". Sure, if some web browser doesn't have a feature you NEED, then the advantage of doing what needs that feature won't happen for them. Their bad. But everything their browser can do, in the standard way, without bugs (oh wait, that doesn't leave much for IE) should still work.
One of the really annoying examples on the web are hyperlinks. HTML has had the capability since the beginning. Yet so many sites insist on doing it with Javascript. In SOME (but not most) cases, the Javascript adds to this by being smart and figuring out what the best URL is. But almost all (some did it right) uses of Javascript break tabbing of hyperlinks (e.g. visit the link in a new tab, either by menu or by middle button click). I hope YOUR pages don't have any misuse of Javascript like that.
If what you want to do can be done on the old browser, and was a standard then, and is a standard now, then make sure THAT works on the old browser.
Of course it's great to have new browser features. But not everyone has new computers that can handle the bloated OSes that can handle the bloated browsers offered today. And not everyone cares to keep updating their browsers every 3 months. The insanity needs to end. Of course IE 6 and IE 7... they ARE the insanity.
I've been wondering how Firefox or Chrome can accomplish such an upgrade. The Firefox binaries are in a/usr directory which ordinary users have no write/change access permission. The browser runs as the user using it, not as root. Even Flash fails to install (I tried it once on a machine I was getting ready to wipe clean and re-install) even though it could have put the shared object module in the user home directory.
Of course, with Windows' holey security model, it might work.
That's because today's linkers want to do it all in RAM. That means the executable file size PLUS all the information about all the libraries it's scanning, have to be together. Back in the day when mainframes first came out (32K was all that anyone would ever need), the linker worked on disk, reading and writing pieces of the executable it was building, only as needed. Of course back then, anything over 4K was bloat (except COBOL was allowed to go to 12K before being called bloatware). And we coded in assembly without all those millions of header defined symbols.
There's a simple answer for FF. Just leave out some FUNctionality from the 32-bit version. That would help push people to get 64-bit platforms, and donate the 32-bit junk to those who still have 16-bit junk who can then pass that stuff on to the people with 8-bit junk.
You can never really understand why, just like I cannot understand why people like you want it to just pop or fade in an out all the time. It's just different preferences by different people. Live with a diverse world since you are stuck with it (short of aliens coming to your rescue... or ours).
Much of FF's bloat is due to added features only a subset of users want. What FF should do is what the Linux kernel does. And that is to make lots of parts be separately loaded modules. Unlike the kernel, these can easily be dynamically loaded by the program itself as needed, and even unloaded when not needed. Then stuff a given user never uses would never be loaded (it would just sit in the filesystem as a.so file somewhere). These modules would all be separately compiled (from the common headers that describe interfaces), and... this is important for this issue... separately linked.
My ASUS EEE netbook is 32-bit and only 1G RAM. The push for smaller and smaller machines (in the physical sense) is still resulting in small machines in the configuration sense (32 bits or less, 1 GB or less).
These small machines, of course, must accept lesser functionality to remain small. If that means a meaner leaner Firefox-lite, then so be it. But don't be surprised if you find me running the lite version on my big Xeon powered 2 socket 10 core 20 thread 48GB Xfce based desktop that runs in 64-bit mode. I still code in C and use text consoles, too. I can always link with libbloat if I ever need to make my programs look big.
Slashdot Mirror
They also need to get their DNS updated to also include a genuine SPF record and not rely entirely on the TXT record.
And this comes from some dude named "Anonymous Coward" who has a horrible reputation on Slashdot.
Better would be to keep the weeks as is for the religious purpose, but align the year to always begin on a Sunday. When the year start skews too far, reset it by a full week.
Why do we even need months?
We don't need months. Just use quarters and call them seasons. Months were traditionally periods of lunar cycles, and aside from certain religious calendars, is really no well aligned with lunar cycles at all. Fundamentally, we just don't need them.
That's really interesting how they get 13 usable IPs in a /29. Could you teach ME how? Could apply this trick to get 5 usables IPs in a /30?
Oh wait ... you must be talking about IPv6.
As long as there is a way to rebuild your image and start over yourself, it shouldn't matter. Separate OS and data/home images would be a plus. If you can do your VM from a shell account, it's a cinch.
Considering that Linode's staff don't do work in the datacenters (they rely on remote hands & eyes), I'm not sure how you could get that impression.
Maybe that (using the remote hands of the colo faciliting ... of those that offer such ... is how they resolved it.
A facility based provider should absolutely have staff on hand at all times that know how to deal with all their hardware, networks, and such.
... with static IP, server permissions, IPv6, etc?
The concept of managed hosting means THEY keep root and take care of it for you. They want you to not use root so they don't have to ponder what you broke. This is a class of service appropriate for those that tend to break things when logged in as root. For those of us that can handle root properly, we want UNmanaged hosting. They just set it up enough for us to login as root (or for more fun, login as a user and crack into root) and do our own setup. I think your observation may be that managed services are rare in a VPS context (more common for a dedicated machine and up). For the kind of price of VPS, managing for people doesn't really seem to be a viable business model. But I have seen managed VPS services offered somewhere (but that was a few years ago when I was first hunting around for dedicated service).
... Comet Annealed.
Several of those companies are nowhere near "very productive". They just can't get things done, and when they purport to have something done, it's so often done wrong. To be honest, these companies would likely be just as UNPRODUCTIVE and INCOMPETENT even if they were using Linux. In these cases it isn't about the OS at all. What should be of grave concern, however, is the metrics of performance involved. If it comes out with all these companies being "very" productive, then the measurement itself is seriously flawed.
Gee, I was not aware of this. Now I know why Sun was ultimately a failure and was bought out by Oracle.
Google doesn’t allow users who are under the age of 13 to have Google Accounts, unless they are using Google Apps for Education accounts through their school.
And hoes does Google handle this for home schooled children?
There is a good reason to not install the drivers. That is because you'll then expect them to support your desktop that is now running unknown bits of software that have not gone through the vetting process of making sure they are reliable (doesn't crash the machine), are secure, etc. You PAID for the tablet? OK, then PAY for the IT time in supporting all this. That, or make a business case (e.g. how does it help the bottom line) to management for using these tablets.
What provider is that? I want to know so I can avoid the ones with unsafe computer networks where they just let the employees decide what they think is safe.
Is downloading unsafe? Maybe. If the downloads are only allowed where vetted safe, then sure. Downloading from company servers should be if the servers are managed properly.
Of course the IT people are stupid for not deploying Linux on the desktop with Windows in a VM and restricting internet access on an "as approved by management" basis.
Just SOME people have difficulty concentrating on the road. School bus drivers distracted by kids and soccer moms distracted by ... kids (again). Just ban kids in the car! Problem solved!
Sounds like someone doesn't know how to do "gracefully degrade". Sure, if some web browser doesn't have a feature you NEED, then the advantage of doing what needs that feature won't happen for them. Their bad. But everything their browser can do, in the standard way, without bugs (oh wait, that doesn't leave much for IE) should still work.
One of the really annoying examples on the web are hyperlinks. HTML has had the capability since the beginning. Yet so many sites insist on doing it with Javascript. In SOME (but not most) cases, the Javascript adds to this by being smart and figuring out what the best URL is. But almost all (some did it right) uses of Javascript break tabbing of hyperlinks (e.g. visit the link in a new tab, either by menu or by middle button click). I hope YOUR pages don't have any misuse of Javascript like that.
If what you want to do can be done on the old browser, and was a standard then, and is a standard now, then make sure THAT works on the old browser.
Of course it's great to have new browser features. But not everyone has new computers that can handle the bloated OSes that can handle the bloated browsers offered today. And not everyone cares to keep updating their browsers every 3 months. The insanity needs to end. Of course IE 6 and IE 7 ... they ARE the insanity.
I've been wondering how Firefox or Chrome can accomplish such an upgrade. The Firefox binaries are in a /usr directory which ordinary users have no write/change access permission. The browser runs as the user using it, not as root. Even Flash fails to install (I tried it once on a machine I was getting ready to wipe clean and re-install) even though it could have put the shared object module in the user home directory.
Of course, with Windows' holey security model, it might work.
That's because today's linkers want to do it all in RAM. That means the executable file size PLUS all the information about all the libraries it's scanning, have to be together. Back in the day when mainframes first came out (32K was all that anyone would ever need), the linker worked on disk, reading and writing pieces of the executable it was building, only as needed. Of course back then, anything over 4K was bloat (except COBOL was allowed to go to 12K before being called bloatware). And we coded in assembly without all those millions of header defined symbols.
There's a simple answer for FF. Just leave out some FUNctionality from the 32-bit version. That would help push people to get 64-bit platforms, and donate the 32-bit junk to those who still have 16-bit junk who can then pass that stuff on to the people with 8-bit junk.
My Altair 8080 only has 2K of RAM, you insensitive clod!
You can never really understand why, just like I cannot understand why people like you want it to just pop or fade in an out all the time. It's just different preferences by different people. Live with a diverse world since you are stuck with it (short of aliens coming to your rescue ... or ours).
Obligatory ...
Emacs is a great operating system, if only it had a decent editor. :P
That still shows poor design.
Much of FF's bloat is due to added features only a subset of users want. What FF should do is what the Linux kernel does. And that is to make lots of parts be separately loaded modules. Unlike the kernel, these can easily be dynamically loaded by the program itself as needed, and even unloaded when not needed. Then stuff a given user never uses would never be loaded (it would just sit in the filesystem as a .so file somewhere). These modules would all be separately compiled (from the common headers that describe interfaces), and ... this is important for this issue ... separately linked.
My ASUS EEE netbook is 32-bit and only 1G RAM. The push for smaller and smaller machines (in the physical sense) is still resulting in small machines in the configuration sense (32 bits or less, 1 GB or less).
These small machines, of course, must accept lesser functionality to remain small. If that means a meaner leaner Firefox-lite, then so be it. But don't be surprised if you find me running the lite version on my big Xeon powered 2 socket 10 core 20 thread 48GB Xfce based desktop that runs in 64-bit mode. I still code in C and use text consoles, too. I can always link with libbloat if I ever need to make my programs look big.