Generally it would not hurt, but this is, after all, Slashdot so contributors assume a certain amount of "general knowledge".
An esoteric ABI so barely used that dropping its support is being considered by Linux most definitely does not qualify as general knowledge. Hell being general knowledge alone would likely be grounds for it to remain supported.
Well I've got a 50/50 success rate on both HDDs and SSDs, though admittedly I've only had 2 SSD failures to date rather than a larger number of HDD failures. That includes live monitoring of SMART parameters and excludes replacing risky drives at end of life (the last 2 drives I retired had no sign of failure but had over 7 years of head flying hours on them so it was time to go).
Control board failures are common enough that it was a well known process to swap out control boards of identical drives back in the day in the hope that mechnically the drive is okay. This doesn't work these days due to boards being more "custom" which is to say that parameters are configured in the boards unique to drives in factories.
Still a superior browser. Even does email pretty well, so you don't have to download a separate program for that
OMG bloat!
I used to use seamonkey quite a lot. Firefox Quantum put an end to it. It has long since stopped being a superior browser when the competition is significantly faster and loading webpages and far more crash resistant.
2 years ago I would have been right with you with your recommendation. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your view) times change.
That's horseshit. There are many and quite common failure modes for HDD without warning including some of the mechanical wearout style ones which have incredibly soft and interprative SMART statistics.
I take it you've never had sudden head failure of a HDD, control board failure? Random failures happen and you should consider yourself lucky if your HDD is dying due to one of the very limited mechanical cases that are detectable by SMART.
Oh? Are we going to vote for a different political party next election who out of spite will decide that any spaceship launched from Australia must not be capable of withstanding a vacuum?
You're not creating content on a TV but rather consuming defined content. The only question is how accurately do you reproduce the Rec2020 colourspace. The exception being those people who use TVs as monitors, but then they clearly don't care about quality anyway.
No, because 99.99% of consumers don't know specifications to save themselves. Among these consumers is the person who posted the question given that he's asking about sRGB and AdobeRGB, neither of which are relevant to the Rec2020 colour space that is specified for HDR content.
Consumers care about specs, it's why marketing departments advertise a bagillion to 1 contrast ratios, push for 8K pixels while lying about which dimension they are talking about, and each trying to out do the other in how "colourful" their displays are.
Broadly speaking, TV's are for consumers, monitors for creators.
And broadly speaking the distinction is irrelevant and there're plenty of consumers who actually care about their TV's ability to accurately reproduce the rec2020 colour space as required by 10bit HDR content.
No it's not. HDR TVs we're not talking about performance, but rather marketing. The reality is 10bit HDR TVs have a defined colour gamut: Rec: 2020 and when purchasing a HDR TV you should definitely review it's ability to cover Rec2020 properly.
Some small companies went completely under and were swallowed up by larger manufacturers due to massive defects.
Some large companies had their HDD division go completely under. Looking at you IBM, I owned two of your IBM "Death"star series HDDs and somehow went through the warranty process 7 times on them.
Backups handle random failures just as well as wearout failures. I'm happy that SSDs have surpassed HDDs by removing the wearout related failures (to a large extent anyway).
I am an engineer, one that specialises in reliability analysis. Maybe if the author of TFA was too he'd understand how utterly stupid his comments are.
Random failures happen, they happen on SSDs, and they happen on HDDs (and montherboards, monitors, vga cards, cpus, ram, psus, etc. ) If the writer is in any way "unnerved" then he should be looking at his own backup strategy and take a chill pill.
The issue with SSDs is that there really is only one wearout related failure mode, and that is reading and writing / life left. The problem with SSDs is that randomised failures dominate which is perfectly expected given the wear of a typical drive should see it run into the 10 year mark which is well into the end of expected device for consumer electronics. The exception to that is overheating, and that along with wearout can give you an indicator of SMART, but SMART does not typically show sudden and random failures.
The difference from the classical HDD is that for the lack of mechanics, there is actually quite a lot of scope for random electrical failure on the components. They run hotter, harder, and a manufactured with cutting edge technology rather than tried and tested technology or technology with obviously accessible failure modes. This makes them far more likely than a typical HDD to just suddenly up and die.
It also means that a well made drive should also outlive a HDD which is my own personal experience. I've not had anything other than first generation SSDs die on me, and for all the good SMART does in predicting failures, it doesn't do shit in preventing them.
The software systems of the SSD and the OS driver side are written by idiots.
Hardly. The software systems of SSD are written by people who know SSDs well. That you bought an OCZ drive is just unlucky. Firmware related failures were only common in the early days of SSDs.
A low level tool that knows your particular SSD driver chipset could trivially access the vast majority of flash cells on your SSD drive.
And would know none of what to do with it because wear leveling is not something you can predict and decode later. You can only store it. If the component which stores this knowledge is dead then nothing can save you.
And SMART warning do NOT apply to SSD drives. SMART is for electro-mechanical systems with statistical models of gradual failure. SMART is FAKED for SSD.
SMART is a system for drive reporting metrics. Nothing is "faked" for SSDs and SMART sure as hell isn't for mechanical related issues only. There are several SMART values specifically created to report SSD related wearout mechanism including 171 - flash program fail, 172 - erase fail, 173 -wear level count, 192 - unsafe shutdown, 194 - internal temperature, 226 - media wear, 233 - wearout indicator, 241, 242 - read and written.
A catastrophic SSD failure is when the 'wrong' memory cell dies, and the software locks up.
You're good at writing words without any meaning what so ever.
Oh hey nice anecdote. Let me share some with you too. I have had RAM die unexpectedly without warning. I've had motherboards die unexpectedly without warning. I've had video cards die unexpectedly without warning. I've had CPUs go tits up in infant mortality. My last monitor just one day let smoke out for no reason what so ever. I have a PSU on order right now as the motherboard is throwing warnings about the voltage rails.
And... wait for it... you know it's coming.... I've had HDDs die without warning and sure as hell no SMART warnings losing all data in the process.
Electronics die. Often at end of life, statistically quite randomly, and even scarier sometimes shortly after being put in service. SSDs aren't unique, amazing or unnerving. SMART is not there to give you early warning of random failures, it's there to give you an attempt to predict wearout / end of life related failures. No parts are immune, and they sure as hell aren't unnerving.
I'd think that SMS as the only 2FA option is a problem with paypal.
No. Any other 2FA method that uses your mobile phone would be at risk of an app like this.
Using SMS as the only 2FA option is an "imperfection" with Paypal but it most definitely is not a "problem". A problem would be offering no 2FA at all.
However the apps for the device, I download for the most part usually work well, and are not malware.
And you can get all those same protections by not willfully and manually enabling secondary sources as required for 3rd party app stores.
You can be safe if you're not a complete idiot, but we should never develop devices exclusively for the protection of complete idiots in the way Apple does.
My company doesn't understand this either. We use Microsoft authenticator for 2FA codes. Problem is, software used on the phone (e.g. SAP Concur) then request for 2FA authorisation from the same phone. It's the biggest waste of time in the world given that it already knows I'm on an approved phone and helpfully bypasses the first factor.
Note that I am responding to a post that was supported with only anecdotes. Why should one person's anecdotes override another's?
The GP's anecdotes are 100% in line with the cultural and historic practices of the country. Yours are not. People's anecdotes don't invalidate each other, not unless everyone has the same anecdote,... then we call that data.
Often it's only on paper
Which is a key step to make it happen in practice. There's a difference between companies that fail to implement something they talk about and companies that don't even talk about it in the first place. Many American companies are the former.
Slashdot Mirror
Generally it would not hurt, but this is, after all, Slashdot so contributors assume a certain amount of "general knowledge".
An esoteric ABI so barely used that dropping its support is being considered by Linux most definitely does not qualify as general knowledge. Hell being general knowledge alone would likely be grounds for it to remain supported.
I'd say you must be new here if you expect people to RTFA, but your UID is a respectable 4 digits...
Or another way of putting it, his UID can be expressed in 11bits and is therefore obsolete and we should consider dropping support.
Well I've got a 50/50 success rate on both HDDs and SSDs, though admittedly I've only had 2 SSD failures to date rather than a larger number of HDD failures. That includes live monitoring of SMART parameters and excludes replacing risky drives at end of life (the last 2 drives I retired had no sign of failure but had over 7 years of head flying hours on them so it was time to go).
Control board failures are common enough that it was a well known process to swap out control boards of identical drives back in the day in the hope that mechnically the drive is okay. This doesn't work these days due to boards being more "custom" which is to say that parameters are configured in the boards unique to drives in factories.
Cut them off.
Will you pay for the lost income?
What would be -sufficient proof- this didn't happen?
Give it up man. The moon landing was filmed in a studio in LA, and the earth is flat.
Still a superior browser. Even does email pretty well, so you don't have to download a separate program for that
OMG bloat!
I used to use seamonkey quite a lot. Firefox Quantum put an end to it. It has long since stopped being a superior browser when the competition is significantly faster and loading webpages and far more crash resistant.
2 years ago I would have been right with you with your recommendation. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your view) times change.
That's horseshit. There are many and quite common failure modes for HDD without warning including some of the mechanical wearout style ones which have incredibly soft and interprative SMART statistics.
I take it you've never had sudden head failure of a HDD, control board failure? Random failures happen and you should consider yourself lucky if your HDD is dying due to one of the very limited mechanical cases that are detectable by SMART.
Oh? Are we going to vote for a different political party next election who out of spite will decide that any spaceship launched from Australia must not be capable of withstanding a vacuum?
You're not creating content on a TV but rather consuming defined content. The only question is how accurately do you reproduce the Rec2020 colourspace. The exception being those people who use TVs as monitors, but then they clearly don't care about quality anyway.
No, because 99.99% of consumers don't know specifications to save themselves. Among these consumers is the person who posted the question given that he's asking about sRGB and AdobeRGB, neither of which are relevant to the Rec2020 colour space that is specified for HDR content.
Consumers care about specs, it's why marketing departments advertise a bagillion to 1 contrast ratios, push for 8K pixels while lying about which dimension they are talking about, and each trying to out do the other in how "colourful" their displays are.
Broadly speaking, TV's are for consumers, monitors for creators.
And broadly speaking the distinction is irrelevant and there're plenty of consumers who actually care about their TV's ability to accurately reproduce the rec2020 colour space as required by 10bit HDR content.
No it's not. HDR TVs we're not talking about performance, but rather marketing. The reality is 10bit HDR TVs have a defined colour gamut: Rec: 2020 and when purchasing a HDR TV you should definitely review it's ability to cover Rec2020 properly.
Some small companies went completely under and were swallowed up by larger manufacturers due to massive defects.
Some large companies had their HDD division go completely under. Looking at you IBM, I owned two of your IBM "Death"star series HDDs and somehow went through the warranty process 7 times on them.
SSDs really are unpredictable timebombs
So are HDDs. Just because you have wearout related failure modes that make their life even shorter doesn't mean controller failures don't happen.
There's nothing magic about SSDs. Random failures happen. Have a backup / business continuity strategy.
Backups handle random failures just as well as wearout failures. I'm happy that SSDs have surpassed HDDs by removing the wearout related failures (to a large extent anyway).
I'm not a goddam engineer.
I am an engineer, one that specialises in reliability analysis. Maybe if the author of TFA was too he'd understand how utterly stupid his comments are.
Random failures happen, they happen on SSDs, and they happen on HDDs (and montherboards, monitors, vga cards, cpus, ram, psus, etc. ) If the writer is in any way "unnerved" then he should be looking at his own backup strategy and take a chill pill.
SSDs have a few wearout related metrics. HDDs have many. Both devices can suffer from randomised failures but these cannot be predicted by SMART.
Not exactly comparable.
The issue with SSDs is that there really is only one wearout related failure mode, and that is reading and writing / life left. The problem with SSDs is that randomised failures dominate which is perfectly expected given the wear of a typical drive should see it run into the 10 year mark which is well into the end of expected device for consumer electronics. The exception to that is overheating, and that along with wearout can give you an indicator of SMART, but SMART does not typically show sudden and random failures.
The difference from the classical HDD is that for the lack of mechanics, there is actually quite a lot of scope for random electrical failure on the components. They run hotter, harder, and a manufactured with cutting edge technology rather than tried and tested technology or technology with obviously accessible failure modes. This makes them far more likely than a typical HDD to just suddenly up and die.
It also means that a well made drive should also outlive a HDD which is my own personal experience. I've not had anything other than first generation SSDs die on me, and for all the good SMART does in predicting failures, it doesn't do shit in preventing them.
So much wrong in so little post, where to start:
The software systems of the SSD and the OS driver side are written by idiots.
Hardly. The software systems of SSD are written by people who know SSDs well. That you bought an OCZ drive is just unlucky. Firmware related failures were only common in the early days of SSDs.
A low level tool that knows your particular SSD driver chipset could trivially access the vast majority of flash cells on your SSD drive.
And would know none of what to do with it because wear leveling is not something you can predict and decode later. You can only store it. If the component which stores this knowledge is dead then nothing can save you.
And SMART warning do NOT apply to SSD drives. SMART is for electro-mechanical systems with statistical models of gradual failure. SMART is FAKED for SSD.
SMART is a system for drive reporting metrics. Nothing is "faked" for SSDs and SMART sure as hell isn't for mechanical related issues only. There are several SMART values specifically created to report SSD related wearout mechanism including 171 - flash program fail, 172 - erase fail, 173 -wear level count, 192 - unsafe shutdown, 194 - internal temperature, 226 - media wear, 233 - wearout indicator, 241, 242 - read and written.
A catastrophic SSD failure is when the 'wrong' memory cell dies, and the software locks up.
You're good at writing words without any meaning what so ever.
Oh hey nice anecdote. Let me share some with you too. I have had RAM die unexpectedly without warning. I've had motherboards die unexpectedly without warning. I've had video cards die unexpectedly without warning. I've had CPUs go tits up in infant mortality. My last monitor just one day let smoke out for no reason what so ever. I have a PSU on order right now as the motherboard is throwing warnings about the voltage rails.
And ... wait for it ... you know it's coming .... I've had HDDs die without warning and sure as hell no SMART warnings losing all data in the process.
Electronics die. Often at end of life, statistically quite randomly, and even scarier sometimes shortly after being put in service. SSDs aren't unique, amazing or unnerving. SMART is not there to give you early warning of random failures, it's there to give you an attempt to predict wearout / end of life related failures. No parts are immune, and they sure as hell aren't unnerving.
I'd think that SMS as the only 2FA option is a problem with paypal.
No. Any other 2FA method that uses your mobile phone would be at risk of an app like this.
Using SMS as the only 2FA option is an "imperfection" with Paypal but it most definitely is not a "problem". A problem would be offering no 2FA at all.
However the apps for the device, I download for the most part usually work well, and are not malware.
And you can get all those same protections by not willfully and manually enabling secondary sources as required for 3rd party app stores.
You can be safe if you're not a complete idiot, but we should never develop devices exclusively for the protection of complete idiots in the way Apple does.
People need to understand that SMS is NOT 2FA...
My company doesn't understand this either. We use Microsoft authenticator for 2FA codes. Problem is, software used on the phone (e.g. SAP Concur) then request for 2FA authorisation from the same phone. It's the biggest waste of time in the world given that it already knows I'm on an approved phone and helpfully bypasses the first factor.
It even replicates 20 year old memory leaks like Firefox used to.
Note that I am responding to a post that was supported with only anecdotes. Why should one person's anecdotes override another's?
The GP's anecdotes are 100% in line with the cultural and historic practices of the country. Yours are not. People's anecdotes don't invalidate each other, not unless everyone has the same anecdote, ... then we call that data.
Often it's only on paper
Which is a key step to make it happen in practice. There's a difference between companies that fail to implement something they talk about and companies that don't even talk about it in the first place. Many American companies are the former.