I take the shared memory extension for granted. All Unix and Linux X servers I've used in the last five years have it. Actually, this doesn't matter as much in practice as has been shown, much less then your cited 5%.
Please note that I do agree that X is too slow. But analysis of keithp and others have shown that this problem is caused by the inefficient implementation that doesn't care enough for latency, and not by the networking code.
If an X users doesn't need network transparency, chances are very high that she doesn't use any code that is network transparency related -- this is the current default, after all.
In such situations, X applications communicate with the graphics subsystem over shared memory, just like in Windows. The difference is that the graphics subsystem is not part of the kernel but in user-space, and is called a server in tech jargon.
So, now that we have already what you want -- can you please step back and let the knowledgable people improve X at those places where it would really matter?
You might be right about her, but not completely about me.
I'm not in the US, and the US outsourcing crazyness hasn't reached us (yet?). In addition, I don't do a lot of tech work any more, but hand helding on the management level. As a CEO of a consulting company, I'm not so easily replaced as software engineers or other techies. Basel II is more of a problem for me than outsourcing is.
So, Avi Rubin, a well-known security expert, said effectively that Mrs. Lamone does a shoddy job.
Mrs. Lamone is highly critical of telling that she does a shoddy job, facts not withstanding. Hmm, why am I not astonished?
The real problem is that Rubin's testimony won't have any effect, since politicians are too far away from the real world to take over responsibilities for their work. OTOH, that bands them together with CEOs of large companies - so maybe they're not so far away from the real world after all...:-)
To all the fuckers who didn't understand the parent post: Do a search for "creation science" on Google, or go to http://www.icr.org/ and read their bullshit.
And then understand that Laconian obviously knew that Creation Science has nothing to do with Science and that his post is both sarcastic and to the point.
FWIW, I had the chance to metamod the Troll moderation as Unfair.
Taking parts of song or a book is creation of a derivative work.
I was careful to state the case that a book might be written that is in the ST universe. You are not allowed to rip off whole sections. You are also not allowed to take a song text, or some music. Case law has established how much "taking" is allowed and which amount starts the infringement.
E.g., that's the only good thing about most of today's cover hits: It brings money back to the original authors if they didn't sell their right to license to sb else. But then, at least composers and singers seem to get some compensation if the song is played on radio; though I don't know of these schemes enough since I'm not from the US. (There is good Carlotta Carlyle mystery from Linda Barnes on this topic; and she usually has her facts right.)
Your reply is the perfect example why one must be careful to spell out which IP rights are infringed. The discussion at hand talks about copyrights - and if you write a new SF piece with Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, you won't create a "derivate work" from the viewpoint of copyright; even when you take liberally ideas from existing books, e.g., to write a f'up.
Some might want to avoid the term IP altogether, as argued by RMS. But he seems to live in a different world than I do. As long as I want to discuss the issue with results in mind, I'll use that term because they use it, too. But using it does not necessary imply being unprecise about IP rights and consequences.
He found the script on the net and gave credit. At that site (Christine Ang at Geocity) no reference to you is found, so he couldn't know anything about you.
We are in disagreement here. Show people tux when the discussion is about operating systems, and they have heard something about "that Linux thingy". Hell, Linux is not a geek thing any more - one of our major national newspapers (Die Zeit, I'm from Germany) brought a two-page article at the front-liner of their economics section this week. To speak with Geoffrey Moore, it has crossed the chasm. I'm writing position papers for CIOs about OSS, and that's definitively mainstream. (Incidentially, background research on the community is part of the reason I follow Slashdot.)
But your boss has nothing against paperclips and flying windows? Most probably that's because MS sales persons don't emphasize these aspects, but concentrate on product data sheets and business arguments. And they are very good in that, btw. In my experience, one of the most important first steps in selling OS solutions to a "boss" is creation of a product data sheet.
(Please note: I am one of those bosses. I'm the CEO of a consulting company that was founded in 1995 - and is still successful, even in this tight market.)
I'm in the computing business since 25 years, and most computer professionals I met do not judge a software package for its mascot.
As for suits - either they are good in their job; then I sell them Open Source with product sheets and ROI arguments. (If there is no ROI, I would not choose an OS solutions.) When they are bad, they have their prejudice anyhow. Then I either move forward or sell them their preferred solution, be it Microsoft, IBM, HP, or Sun. Look, suits use MS Office all the time and take up the paperclip. Some even expressed that the paperclip is not bad. Those folks won't be driven away by a penguin. If they are, you use the wrong communication approach.
You might be a graphics designer professional, but you doesn't seem to be a marketing professional who has been responsible for product campaigns. I'm neither, but I had to pay (my) money for them, and I learned a lot from them.
Tux is good(TM). Why? Because it is not a logo, it is a mascot that's associated to a brand (Linux). And as a mascot, it's near perfect, because pinguins are cool. Don't believe me? Go out with children or teenagers (hell, with most adults) to a sea park and notice where they stop and rest. Pinguins are among the must-stops, because people like them. And it's good marketing to associate that "like"-ness with the term "Linux".
Actually, it doesn't matter how the pinguin really looks, in the mind of the general public the connection "Linux = this new pinguin operating system that is neither Microsoft nor Apple" has been made. With "in the public" I mean that I can hear non-geeks talking about it at the next table in the pub. That's just like the animals on ORA covers, it doesn't matter which ones or how complex they are, the overall similarity is the part that gets communicated.
Come to think of it, dolphins might be good mascots for other projects.
Btw, please note that I'm writing about marketing and not about ads-only campaigns. As you did, too. And, last but not least, I agree with you on the lizard and the inconsistency of Mozilla's public face. Of course, because nobody thinks this is a lizard. It looks like a dinosaur - and dinosaurs are cool, too. Ask your children, they'll tell you. And I mean that earnestly - when one starts a marketing campaign, children are the most honest reviewers available. You just have to take their opinion seriously.
I have worked with several large organizations that use Samba to serve files to 10,000s of workstations. It works much better than W2K servers, not to speak of NT servers. Samba on a Sun HA cluster (e.g., F15K systems) is an appropriate choice for file sharing that is considered critical.
And please note that I don't say this because I'm anti-Microsoft. In fact, I'm the CEO of a company that is a MS partner, and I am very satisfied with MS' support for our company. (It's much better than that of most other proprietary vendors, though not in the league of Oracle and their ilk.) I regularily plan and deploy heterogenous infrastructures for very large installations (i.e., > 50,000 users) and can back up my opinion with real-world experience from several places. What are your credentials?
In the case that you meant it earnest ($p \approx 0$): Of course, for many companies, their SMB shares are mission critical. Not the client, but the server and the files.
Think about it this way - if I worked for Fox News and I wrote a scathing book about GWB on my own my own time then I
shouldn't be surprised if I was fired the next day.
Thank you for this concise description what's wrong in the US.
I can't see that "these things [...] will all, in the end, be failures."
In the end, they have been or are used to destroy civil rights of US citizens. As such, they are a full success. (You could add old and new McCarthy'ism to this list, too.)
And p > 0.5 for the hypothesis that desctruction of civil rights is not an unwelcome side-effect of such laws, IMHO.
Answer: Zero. Three companies try, but don't succeed.
Background: They need so long to handle their ligitations (two lawyers and >100 patents pending, 'nuff said) that ordinary people stop wondering and continue buying their old bulb brands.
While I agree with your sentiment, the German situation is actually different.
Munich changed from a US vendor with a German support organization (Microsoft Corp. and Microsoft GmbH) to a German vendor with a German support organization (SuSE and IBM Deutschland GmbH). Since support and education is a very important piece of the Munich cake, this piece of business was in local German hands already. The importance of technical independence is not seen as important as some/. readers would like to see it. I have been involved in Linux studies for the German government and that doesn't play a large role.
Concerning support, I've worked both with Microsoft and with IBM service at the enterprise level. You won't see much US influence / connection there. Not as much as you see at Sun or at Oracle. OTOH, in the case of problems, access to MS developers is hard to get, even within strategical alliances. Whereas access to developers of IBM or Sun is better. For Munich, access to SuSE engineers will be the easiest -- SuSE headquarters are just a few kilometers away. That may have been a factor in the decision.
If you really have time to follow up port scans, you should get a life. Even at our small/29 net, we receive roughly 4000 scan attempts on a quiet day. 1000 of them seems to be connected to immediate probing of known vulnerabilities. (I don't know exactly because we don't take the time to look on them closely.) Almost all of them come from dial-up IP numbers of large ISPs.
I much prefer to find a balance between necessary security precautions (e.g., keeping automatically up to date with patches) and going on with our business - which after all pays the salaries of my staff. All our security would not help us if we spent too much effort there and I cannot pay the paycheck any more.
Slashdot Mirror
Please note that I do agree that X is too slow. But analysis of keithp and others have shown that this problem is caused by the inefficient implementation that doesn't care enough for latency, and not by the networking code.
If an X users doesn't need network transparency, chances are very high that she doesn't use any code that is network transparency related -- this is the current default, after all.
In such situations, X applications communicate with the graphics subsystem over shared memory, just like in Windows. The difference is that the graphics subsystem is not part of the kernel but in user-space, and is called a server in tech jargon.
So, now that we have already what you want -- can you please step back and let the knowledgable people improve X at those places where it would really matter?
I'm not in the US, and the US outsourcing crazyness hasn't reached us (yet?). In addition, I don't do a lot of tech work any more, but hand helding on the management level. As a CEO of a consulting company, I'm not so easily replaced as software engineers or other techies. Basel II is more of a problem for me than outsourcing is.
Mrs. Lamone is highly critical of telling that she does a shoddy job, facts not withstanding. Hmm, why am I not astonished?
The real problem is that Rubin's testimony won't have any effect, since politicians are too far away from the real world to take over responsibilities for their work. OTOH, that bands them together with CEOs of large companies - so maybe they're not so far away from the real world after all... :-)
And then understand that Laconian obviously knew that Creation Science has nothing to do with Science and that his post is both sarcastic and to the point.
FWIW, I had the chance to metamod the Troll moderation as Unfair.
I was careful to state the case that a book might be written that is in the ST universe. You are not allowed to rip off whole sections. You are also not allowed to take a song text, or some music. Case law has established how much "taking" is allowed and which amount starts the infringement.
E.g., that's the only good thing about most of today's cover hits: It brings money back to the original authors if they didn't sell their right to license to sb else. But then, at least composers and singers seem to get some compensation if the song is played on radio; though I don't know of these schemes enough since I'm not from the US. (There is good Carlotta Carlyle mystery from Linda Barnes on this topic; and she usually has her facts right.)
Some might want to avoid the term IP altogether, as argued by RMS. But he seems to live in a different world than I do. As long as I want to discuss the issue with results in mind, I'll use that term because they use it, too. But using it does not necessary imply being unprecise about IP rights and consequences.
The German government doesn't own 30% of SuSE, as the article proclaims. This also raises doubts about the rest of these rumors.
He found the script on the net and gave credit. At that site (Christine Ang at Geocity) no reference to you is found, so he couldn't know anything about you.
We are in disagreement here. Show people tux when the discussion is about operating systems, and they have heard something about "that Linux thingy". Hell, Linux is not a geek thing any more - one of our major national newspapers (Die Zeit, I'm from Germany) brought a two-page article at the front-liner of their economics section this week. To speak with Geoffrey Moore, it has crossed the chasm. I'm writing position papers for CIOs about OSS, and that's definitively mainstream. (Incidentially, background research on the community is part of the reason I follow Slashdot.)
(Please note: I am one of those bosses. I'm the CEO of a consulting company that was founded in 1995 - and is still successful, even in this tight market.)
As for suits - either they are good in their job; then I sell them Open Source with product sheets and ROI arguments. (If there is no ROI, I would not choose an OS solutions.) When they are bad, they have their prejudice anyhow. Then I either move forward or sell them their preferred solution, be it Microsoft, IBM, HP, or Sun. Look, suits use MS Office all the time and take up the paperclip. Some even expressed that the paperclip is not bad. Those folks won't be driven away by a penguin. If they are, you use the wrong communication approach.
Tux is good(TM). Why? Because it is not a logo, it is a mascot that's associated to a brand (Linux). And as a mascot, it's near perfect, because pinguins are cool. Don't believe me? Go out with children or teenagers (hell, with most adults) to a sea park and notice where they stop and rest. Pinguins are among the must-stops, because people like them. And it's good marketing to associate that "like"-ness with the term "Linux".
Actually, it doesn't matter how the pinguin really looks, in the mind of the general public the connection "Linux = this new pinguin operating system that is neither Microsoft nor Apple" has been made. With "in the public" I mean that I can hear non-geeks talking about it at the next table in the pub. That's just like the animals on ORA covers, it doesn't matter which ones or how complex they are, the overall similarity is the part that gets communicated.
Come to think of it, dolphins might be good mascots for other projects.
Btw, please note that I'm writing about marketing and not about ads-only campaigns. As you did, too. And, last but not least, I agree with you on the lizard and the inconsistency of Mozilla's public face. Of course, because nobody thinks this is a lizard. It looks like a dinosaur - and dinosaurs are cool, too. Ask your children, they'll tell you. And I mean that earnestly - when one starts a marketing campaign, children are the most honest reviewers available. You just have to take their opinion seriously.
I have worked with several large organizations that use Samba to serve files to 10,000s of workstations. It works much better than W2K servers, not to speak of NT servers. Samba on a Sun HA cluster (e.g., F15K systems) is an appropriate choice for file sharing that is considered critical.
And please note that I don't say this because I'm anti-Microsoft. In fact, I'm the CEO of a company that is a MS partner, and I am very satisfied with MS' support for our company. (It's much better than that of most other proprietary vendors, though not in the league of Oracle and their ilk.) I regularily plan and deploy heterogenous infrastructures for very large installations (i.e., > 50,000 users) and can back up my opinion with real-world experience from several places. What are your credentials?
In the case that you meant it earnest ($p \approx 0$): Of course, for many companies, their SMB shares are mission critical. Not the client, but the server and the files.
a quick check seems to imply that the facts are OK, so this might really be Dave Bradley.
It might not be objective, but it is fair.
In the end, they have been or are used to destroy civil rights of US citizens. As such, they are a full success. (You could add old and new McCarthy'ism to this list, too.)
And p > 0.5 for the hypothesis that desctruction of civil rights is not an unwelcome side-effect of such laws, IMHO.
Answer: Zero. Three companies try, but don't succeed.
Background: They need so long to handle their ligitations (two lawyers and >100 patents pending, 'nuff said) that ordinary people stop wondering and continue buying their old bulb brands.
Munich changed from a US vendor with a German support organization (Microsoft Corp. and Microsoft GmbH) to a German vendor with a German support organization (SuSE and IBM Deutschland GmbH). Since support and education is a very important piece of the Munich cake, this piece of business was in local German hands already. The importance of technical independence is not seen as important as some /. readers would like to see it. I have been involved in Linux studies for the German government and that doesn't play a large role.
Concerning support, I've worked both with Microsoft and with IBM service at the enterprise level. You won't see much US influence / connection there. Not as much as you see at Sun or at Oracle. OTOH, in the case of problems, access to MS developers is hard to get, even within strategical alliances. Whereas access to developers of IBM or Sun is better. For Munich, access to SuSE engineers will be the easiest -- SuSE headquarters are just a few kilometers away. That may have been a factor in the decision.
Weren't you killed in one of the last Buffy flicks?
Note to myself: Must urgently make an appointment with my non-geek friends... :-)
Do you ever read the articles you're moderating?
I much prefer to find a balance between necessary security precautions (e.g., keeping automatically up to date with patches) and going on with our business - which after all pays the salaries of my staff. All our security would not help us if we spent too much effort there and I cannot pay the paycheck any more.