The way companies get that kind of uptime is having two NT servers clustered together. When one fails the other attempts to recover and continue. Sun & IBM gurantee similar uptimes if you cluster (or multiplex in IBM terms) their boxes together, so 99.9% uptime gurantee isn't that uncommon.
The uptime gurantee really isn't terribly impressive (especially since it requires 2 boxes to do the work of one). Most applications (outside of the Internet) really don't require 99.9% uptime. What impresses me is the amount of transactions you can shove through a system and NT has never impressed me there.
I really don't care if my CPU has an ID or not, but if Intel is going to try and market sites so that they require the ID to be turned on, that's just stupidity. I can't believe after all of the pounding Intel has taken over this from consumer privacy groups they would continue this subject. Gee, I wonder why AMD outsold Intel for the first time.
AMD & Cyrix could have a lot of fun by also putting a CPU ID in their chips. They just need to put the SAME number in all of their chips. That would make Intel's site statistics real interesting.
In theory I think it's a good idea. I doubt the open source projects need this, but the binary-only software could really benefit from this. It would go a long way in helping ISV products because they could test against a standard, as opposed to testing all major distributions on all the platforms. It would also solve the problem of "splintering" versions of Linux that a lot of people outside of the Linux community seem to constantly predict.
I doubt, however, that it would actually work. The problem is that Linux software is changing so rapidly that any standards base would be swamped trying to keep up. A lot of software changes every few weeks, not every few years like traditional software. By the time any panel could agree on the Linux standard it would change and they would need to start over.
If people really want something like this, I think a greater benefit would be gained by participating in other Unix standards organizations and meeting their certification tests. A lot of the new vendors supporting Linux now also run on other Unix platforms. If making life easier on them is the goal, let's play nice with everyone instead of creating yet another standard.
Unfortunately the issue adressed in the paper is a concern. Maybe I dilusional, but lately more software seems to only work with certain versions of other libraries. For example, Window Maker, GNOME, & the Gimp seem to be very version specific on some of their libraries. A third party vendor would have a nightmare trying to ship a product against constantly moving target. The question is how do you "standardize" without slowing development to a halt?
While I don't like spam, I really doubt it should be made a jail-time offense.
I would just like a law which requires ALL spammers and people who sell mass-emailing lists to allow me to remove myself from their lists. Or possibley a law which states that requires spam to be identifable in some way which allows for ISPs do delete it before I get it. I have no doubt that commercial spam can be used effectively and in good taste, just don't force people to receive it. Most of the spam I get either doesn't have a remove option or, if it does, the recepients mail account is too full that when I reply my request is rejected.
And for all the people who say that junk snail mail and unsolicited door-to-door selling is just as annoying, I'd like to tell you that you can stop most of it. The post office will stop sending you junk email if you ask, most credit card companies and other direct marketers will take you off their lists if you ask. As for door-to-door sales, if you live in an appartment complain to the management and they can restrict that too, if you own your own home contact your local lawmakers and ask them to require a permit (believe it or not red-tape and registration fees will stop a tremendous amount of it).
I don't think that any law will ever stop all spam and I don't think it should be totally illegal. I just think there should be a way to turn it off if you don't want it. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that I need to listen to you, it just means that you can talk.
When I went shopping for an ergonomic keyboard a while back I went to all of my local computer stores and tried typing on all of them to find which ones had the best feel for me.
The one which felt the best for me was Acer Futura. It's just about the ugliest keyboard I've ever seen, the keypad is detachable (which I really don't like), the arrow keys and the page up/page down keys are strangely organized, but it has a great feel and if you like touchpads it has one built in. I think its sales really bombed because they were going for $40. US after a $20. rebate.
I will take a moment and flame Acer for screwing me out of $20. I bought 2 keyboards (one for home & another for work) and sent in both receipts with two rebate coupons in the same envelope. The receipts were from two different dates, but for some unknown reason Acer said I submitted a duplicate rebate and only honored one of them. No amount of complaining has gotten any response from them.
I think you put the wrong icon on this article. It should have been the "humor" one. Lord knows I laughed and laughed when I read it.
I have a better idea for the bug avoidance in W2K. When a bug occurs it should deposit $0.10 into your bank account. I figure that after about 5 days everyone will have earned enough money for the new PC required to run Windows and after 6 months everyone will have earned enough to retire and work on Linux full time.
Sending an email to the developers, how funny. How about sending an email message to Bill himself saying that his baby is broken?
Slashdot Mirror
The way companies get that kind of uptime is having two NT servers clustered together. When one fails the other attempts to recover and continue. Sun & IBM gurantee similar uptimes if you cluster (or multiplex in IBM terms) their boxes together, so 99.9% uptime gurantee isn't that uncommon.
The uptime gurantee really isn't terribly impressive (especially since it requires 2 boxes to do the work of one). Most applications (outside of the Internet) really don't require 99.9% uptime. What impresses me is the amount of transactions you can shove through a system and NT has never impressed me there.
I really don't care if my CPU has an ID or not, but if Intel is going to try and market sites so that they require the ID to be turned on, that's just stupidity. I can't believe after all of the pounding Intel has taken over this from consumer privacy groups they would continue this subject. Gee, I wonder why AMD outsold Intel for the first time.
AMD & Cyrix could have a lot of fun by also putting a CPU ID in their chips. They just need to put the SAME number in all of their chips. That would make Intel's site statistics real interesting.
In theory I think it's a good idea. I doubt the open source projects need this, but the binary-only software could really benefit from this. It would go a long way in helping ISV products because they could test against a standard, as opposed to testing all major distributions on all the platforms. It would also solve the problem of "splintering" versions of Linux that a lot of people outside of the Linux community seem to constantly predict.
I doubt, however, that it would actually work. The problem is that Linux software is changing so rapidly that any standards base would be swamped trying to keep up. A lot of software changes every few weeks, not every few years like traditional software. By the time any panel could agree on the Linux standard it would change and they would need to start over.
If people really want something like this, I think a greater benefit would be gained by participating in other Unix standards organizations and meeting their certification tests. A lot of the new vendors supporting Linux now also run on other Unix platforms. If making life easier on them is the goal, let's play nice with everyone instead of creating yet another standard.
Unfortunately the issue adressed in the paper is a concern. Maybe I dilusional, but lately more software seems to only work with certain versions of other libraries. For example, Window Maker, GNOME, & the Gimp seem to be very version specific on some of their libraries. A third party vendor would have a nightmare trying to ship a product against constantly moving target. The question is how do you "standardize" without slowing development to a halt?
While I don't like spam, I really doubt it should be made a jail-time offense.
I would just like a law which requires ALL spammers and people who sell mass-emailing lists to allow me to remove myself from their lists. Or possibley a law which states that requires spam to be identifable in some way which allows for ISPs do delete it before I get it. I have no doubt that commercial spam can be used effectively and in good taste, just don't force people to receive it. Most of the spam I get either doesn't have a remove option or, if it does, the recepients mail account is too full that when I reply my request is rejected.
And for all the people who say that junk snail mail and unsolicited door-to-door selling is just as annoying, I'd like to tell you that you can stop most of it. The post office will stop sending you junk email if you ask, most credit card companies and other direct marketers will take you off their lists if you ask. As for door-to-door sales, if you live in an appartment complain to the management and they can restrict that too, if you own your own home contact your local lawmakers and ask them to require a permit (believe it or not red-tape and registration fees will stop a tremendous amount of it).
I don't think that any law will ever stop all spam and I don't think it should be totally illegal. I just think there should be a way to turn it off if you don't want it. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that I need to listen to you, it just means that you can talk.
When I went shopping for an ergonomic keyboard a while back I went to all of my local computer stores and tried typing on all of them to find which ones had the best feel for me.
The one which felt the best for me was Acer Futura. It's just about the ugliest keyboard I've ever seen, the keypad is detachable (which I really don't like), the arrow keys and the page up/page down keys are strangely organized, but it has a great feel and if you like touchpads it has one built in. I think its sales really bombed because they were going for $40. US after a $20. rebate.
I will take a moment and flame Acer for screwing me out of $20. I bought 2 keyboards (one for home & another for work) and sent in both receipts with two rebate coupons in the same envelope. The receipts were from two different dates, but for some unknown reason Acer said I submitted a duplicate rebate and only honored one of them. No amount of complaining has gotten any response from them.
I think you put the wrong icon on this article. It should have been the "humor" one. Lord knows I laughed and laughed when I read it.
I have a better idea for the bug avoidance in W2K. When a bug occurs it should deposit $0.10 into your bank account. I figure that after about 5 days everyone will have earned enough money for the new PC required to run Windows and after 6 months everyone will have earned enough to retire and work on Linux full time.
Sending an email to the developers, how funny. How about sending an email message to Bill himself saying that his baby is broken?
FJ
Was that 5% cost per $1500 PC determined before or after Compaq decided to be a puppet?
With PC manufacturer profit margins so close and Compaq facing fierce competition, how much of a price break is Compaq getting for its testimony?
Please don't hurt me Bill... I'm just kidding... put the gun down...