The plant can't have more genetic information than us
well it can, a lot off species have more base pairs then a human(If I remember my biology class correctly) it's all about redundancy and also a lot of info isn't used at all(well you could say there's a whole lot of cruft in in us)
Cricket - pretty much the same as mrtg, but a lot more advanced, based on rrdtool, in my opinion a lot more powerful then mrtg and easier to manage
NTOP a sniffer with a web interface, check out one of the newer snapshots. REALLY useful, probably one of the most useful programs i have ever come around(network admin wise)
both are web based
Palm has completed the initial effort to port its operating system from today's Motorola Dragonball chip, which is at the heart of current Palm handhelds, to chips based on designs from England's ARM.
That's new to me. This is pretty interesting because it means a departure from PALM's traditional market. As some already have pointed out it could be dangerous to compete directly with the PocketPC devices here, which have matured a lot lately.
A lot of people have been complaining about the fact that PALM has used the relatively slow Dragonball CPU's. I guess it will be hard to compete against the others in the market when in an comparison for CPU's 16/32 to 200 sticks out.
I still like Palms philosophy but handspring has made a pretty big impact with their devices just because they offer some kind of "upgradeability"
first off, I'm neither a kernel hacker nor a comp sci type, so I'm probably writing bullshit right now
Set aside discussions about NT or OpenVMS, wouldn't a design like the HURD(I'm not saying MK's are better or that I like theme more the monolithic systems) at least be a reasonyble approach to more system security.
If I understand correctly HURD and probably other Microkernels can run at lot more stuff in userland and that could at least be a advantage when you try to build a very secure system.
If Theo is really posting on./ today, it would be nice of him to eloborate a little more about this general thoughts on kernel design.
Now if I'm not mistaken, it's not about not publishing bugs, but rather about the bulletins themselves.
It seems MS has copyrighted their bulletins(not the bugs;-) ) and prohibit to distribute their copyrighted material.
I guess you can still publish the incident, but you would have to write your own "bulletin".
While I can understand that MS wants to protect their precious incredibly sophisticated and unique security bulletins I guess there are other reasons for this.
What MS tries to do for security reasons (at least that's what I think) is to establish their site as the only way to obtain official bulletins.
One can only suspect that they are scared that someone might post fake messages on those lists, making them in some way look official.
I'm an idiot, otherwise i wouldn't replay to such a flamebait. both rely on the principle that working together as a community will produce better results than each man for himself
yeah right, if you had anything to do with OSS you would have seen that commonly projects consist of a core team, and the a lot of people that regulary either submit bug reports or evn check in bug fixes.
Ever used CDE? While I think CDE is not all that bad(*duck*) if you compare on the basis of userfriendliness, kde/gnome both win.But then again that's all subjective
Linux has never produced any thing original
How in the world should a kernel produces something? If you mean the Linux, but I would rather say OpenSource Unix community, you are teribbly mistaken.
Just an example : as mentioned EFM.
EFM is in my opinion terribly innovative, the old filemanager concept taken to new heights.
And how much room is thee for innovation in the O/S market? While implementations may vary, concepts are largely similar.
since it free, you can't complain when you find out it isn't very good
yeah, if I pay RHAT a lot of money to support my system I can't complain? You bet I can! Recently looked at a EULA? People like MS and also Sun have succeded in the goal to hold liability from them. The only way a OSS Software Corp. can make money is by providing support for the product, therefore they have to take care of Quality.
Who do I go to if my closed Source product is not maintained properly?
While this certainly sound dangerous(and the powers given to authorities here seem pretty darn dangerous) I'm wondering about practicability.
I mean 7 years resaults in a bloody lot of data(especially if you want to record the phone calls digitally).
Even if you have the technical infrastructure for this kind of thing, your noise:information ratio will be pretty devastating, so you would have to employ an enormous workforce(or those strange beings that are always credited for creating my slashdot frontpage).
I think this is obviously the idea of some people who don't have good technical advisers(or someone wants to create jobs quite desperately).
Ok i was a lttle bit harsh, maybe. I know it is hard to administer a NT system.
What I wanted to point out is that a lot of people just take secruity too lightly. As you mention a lot of NT-Admins are not able to devote all or a lot of their time to administering.
Still I think it must be possible for a corp(I guess PHB are most to blame for a lot of this stuff) that relies heavily on their IT Infrastructure to pay someone(or even several people) to look after their servers. A security breach(even worse, a security breach that goes unnoticed, that's the real danger) can destroy a company that relies heavily on the web.
It didn't want to say administering NT itself is trivial, but rather that system security should be on the priority lists of everybody who relies on their servers and data. It is neccesary to educate people that they need to take strong security measures regarding their side just as they have to take care that there are virusscanners on the client machines.
Is patching really that hard?
Now unfortunately they don't mention which sites where affected and what the crackers actually did.
What I find really disturbing is the fact that for all of the 3 exploits(which are rather old) patches or configuration changes were avaiable. So you can bash Microsoft to death here for letting such security holes happen but at least they patched it. The question is wether or not the patches were avaiable before( I mean one of the holes was found in 99!)
Is it really that hard to patch your system regulary as an Sysadmin? You are responsible for a e-commerce system and you don't fiond the time to patch your system? I guess most people don't even bother to read securityfocus or a similar ressource or at least the MS security bulletins.
I guess a lot of corporations still think a security audit is some kinf of luxury and even more don't seem to remembers that it's not done with one check, security is soemthing you have to take care of constantely.
And what are we going to see?
People talking about master "hackers". In those cases the measures to close those holes seem pretty trivial(if the patches were avaiable on time, which you can't judge now).
is this the technology you mean?
It's stated that this technology actually bases on GSM. I can't judge if it's better then the normal GSM networks we have over here in Europe but I have to mention a few things
The thing you mention with the several differnet protocls, well, we had just that over here in europe a few years ago.
Every country had it's own standard which was used by the local company(a lot of monopolies, you are right, this has also certainly to a point hindered alot of stuff over here but things have changed).Look at this link.
So GSM is actually a multinational standard and I think it is a good thing to let the providers compete by service rather than protocol because when I here switch my network provider I can keep my phone. Still companies over here are innovating, for example one provider here is already beginnig to offer GPRS Service, another(we have 4 GSM providers here which I think is a lot for such a small country as Austria) has already offered data transfers with 28.8 kBps for 6 months now(via phone cards for notebooks, they basically just bundle several lines)
Competition is big here and so prices are relatively low, GSM at times(when normal telephones were still mostly in the hand of the state company, which has been fully privatized now)was almost the same as normal telephone calls.
I agree with you about the hazard of state monopolies but independent standards are generally a good thing.
The article is actually rather about mobile "internet" then pure GSM access.
Has anybody here ever had real Life experience with i-mode mobile "internet". I mean here ini Austria were I live WAP is offered by all 4 GSM Providers and a lot of people have WAP capable phones but still very little people use it because it is just crap(At least in my opinion.
Is this i-mode thingy really widely used in japan? What kind of things are people doing with it?
While I do aknowledge that there are certainly a lot of great opportunities for service which use WAP here in Austria the only really interesting one I've seen is a service which localizes you and then shows you the nearest pharmacies/restaurants/etc..
What do you think will be major Security improvements/features(kernel/base system) that are going to be added to OpenBSD?
Where is there still room for a lot of improvement? Also what are the goals of the OpenBSD project besides default Security?
well, at least the video phone part.
I think this mostly of marketing value. I guess Orange just wants to show off, something like "Hey look we got a video phone, we are the most advanced service provider on the market
I guess what we are going to see is something like a Ipaq H3600 with a attached camera and phone. Might actually be a nice gadget, I guess if the camera is of fairly good quality and the Device itself has enough memory it might actually be quite nice for some tasks, take a quick picture, send it off to someone(maybe something for Insurace agent and the like).
I mean there is at least some reason in buying such a thing instead of a digital camera, a pda and a cell phone.
I guess there are just major usabilty problems with a mobile video phone, just image holding that damn thing in front of you for half an hour.
Why? Well why should there be a lot of Interest in Darwin?
I can't judge if Darwin is technically very advanced or not because i haven't bothered to inform myself(which doesn't matter because I'm not a Developer). Why should I? I think the other Open Source Unices(yes I know Darwin is only the kernel) are already drawing the attention of Open Source Developers to them.
Why should someone bother to help Apple when they can help the effort of for example the OpenBSD folks.
Apple is releasing under a License which a lot of people might find to restrictive.
I'm not saying that Darwin is better or worse, but I just think that other Projects could use support much more than Darwin because they actually rely on Volunteers much more then the Apple paid Darwin
The question everybody asks is how much is Apple(speaking of the company, meaning Managment not the Developers) really in to Open Source? Are they really trying to give something to the community or are they just trying to gain publicity and free code?
Is it such a great new thing Apple is giving out here? Or is it just two wellknown concepts(Mach and BSD) thrown together?
The bas thing is that the fact that Darwin is not getting much attention might hold other companies from persuing Open Source Strategies
Well I guess this a interesting move by Microsoft and actually could turn out to be either bad or good for customers.
The point is: On what basis will MS certifiy apps, drivers ?
Does anybody know how the system works with drivers for Windows 2000?
I know that MS is certainly not going do certify for free, I think that is obvious but what does the MS certification really mean beside that fact that the publisher of the certified software has transferred a certain amount of money over to MS?
I mean it's relatively(very relative in fact) easy to certify drivers up to a certain extend, but apps?
If MS signs some program does that mean that they certify that it will work flawless(which seems somewhat impossible with all the Interactions in a system).
If i submit my program for certification does that mean I have to submit sourcecode?
This could turn out to be a measure by Microsoft to gain higher stabilty and industry respect for their platform but it might as well become a way of assuring total control over the platform which might piss a lot of developers of
I would certainly like to have some insight from someone who was or is in the process of getting a driver certified for Windows 2000.
I agree with you, partially.
I'm very aware that JFS's don't make RAID and Backup irrelevant. Still JFS's at least save you time after a crash and I think the still provide higher data Security because you have the Journalling Log, but probably you are more competent on that field
I still think,JFS's are important. Since I never workked on AIX I can't confirm wether JFS is really that horrible on that plattform.
However, if you look at ReiserFS you will see it is fact very fast and reliable.
However even if some or another JFS becomes the standard with Linux that doesn't mean you have to use it.
And stating you dropped AIX for Linux is quite ridicolous because the two don't really use the same hardware.
this article might give some insight
As you mentioned ReiserFS is quick with small files, which pretty much is most web content.
Also just look on the ReiserFS main page
look at the middle logo "Squid cache optimization
sponsored by ThresholdNetworks"
I'm absolutely no expert on file system concepts so don't take me too seriously.
Well I guess I would be easier to just talk about Linux, the kernel.
As already mentioned integrating some kind of Journalling Filesystem will maybe the most important task.
May it be XFS, JFS, ext3, ReiserFS, or Tux2, i think this will and must be one of the next addition to the kernel tree(probbably ReiserFS in 2.4.1).
There is no big and bright future for Linux if we don't get to a filesystem with better data integrity. I think that in fact the diversity of Jfs's is a great thing because:
It will create competition
There will be FS's optimized for certain tasks(something that is already happening now, look at ReiserFS SQUID Optimization)
The existence of XFS and JFS for Linux already shows that both IBM and SGI are really willing to put their Unix experience into the future of Linux (At least that's what I hope)
I think the involvment of companies like IBM and SGI will maybe the biggest chance for Linux over the next years
There is the Unix experience of two of the biggest players on the market going into the most active Developer community in the world.
We can really hope for a bright future
someone at cnet pointed to a site called
i-dns.net"
what they have listed under tech might actually be quite insightfull(even thought not technical) and may also prove the point that china can't actually block those other registration companies.
How can one Country block registration to domains written in a certain kind of script.
I mean it's not like one Goverment have control over one script because you have the largest population in the world wich is native to that script.
We are not talking about the TLD here are we? I mean it's not about ending your domain with 3 letters which stand for a country/organisation/etc.).
If we are really talking about the use of chinese characters in Domain names, how can one country have control over that?
Can someone give mor insight
If it doesn't work 100% with free software, it shouldn't be included.
That's a noble but very difficult task.
What do they mean with software? I guess they just mean LINUX right now.Even if you just use Linux as a plattform there arew still some problems.
For example just look at graphic cards.
If they say 100% working, does that also mean all features of the card are working? 3D Acceleration?
If you want that feature you already have quite a limited list of choices(even more limited if you think about Non-free drivers/NVIDIA anybody?)
If the really just use Linux(maybe *BSD) what distinguishes them from other linux hardware shops like VA or also the big makers who are already established(and probably willing to support linux big time)?
In theory the idea of some kind of p2p company is intruiging but I think I would be quite a task to bring so many different opinions under one hat.
I see the danger of big time hardware related Flamewars.
Still I would be a great thing if the Hardware cooperative succeded and even eventually provides a way of funding things like GNU or the Fsf.
Still I want trade better hardware for ideology(or maybe just to a certain extend)
While many might blame netscape for releasing a browser that for many(including me) doesn't feel the way a finished and competitable product should feel.
But Then again it was about time, Netscape was getting into serious timing troubles with netscape 6. MS is about to realease a beta of it's "Version 6" Browser and Netscape had to act.
What is a bit sad tough is that Netscape maybe released it just a little bit too early.
Why? Because M19(the next Mozilla Milestone) is labeled "stability and speed improvements" in mozilla.org's seamonkey milestone plan(yes i know there is a second plan which describes the mozilla and ns trunks more exactly)
Still, maybe waiting another month may have lead to a much more improved product.
On the other side in one month netscape's market share may very well be nonexistend(at least on windows, which sadly is the criterium)
Maybe this was the right move by netscape. Maybe a inperfect final release was better then another month of delay.
Whatever happens to netscape, I'm going to keep downloading mozilla nightlies while still watching other browsers such as konqueror
Swain says the driving force of the law changes is the wish to protect privacy
They actually present those laws as way to protect privacy!
First the make electronic eavesdropping etc illegal, which is a somewhat good thing.
But after those laws are voted for, they introduce massive spying powers to various govermental agencies.
Now, it would be nice if anybody from NZ could give us some more insight.
Is there a "public discussion" about those things?
What about oppositions parties?
I know of personal experience that it is pretty hard to explain why you are against such laws.
Most People are willing to accept some cuts at their privacy as long as it seems to them that it's a effective way to fight crimes
Where I live(Austria) we currently are in the midst of a major political scandal because as it seems various political forces have abused police data
Still a lot of people say "Why should I care, I have done nothing wrong".
So I guess a lot of people in NZ curently think "Hmm, doesn't affect me, I don't want to crack computers, actually it's a good thing that tghe goverment protects me of those filthy cyber criminals".
It's hard fighting against invasions of privacy when they are hidden well.
Slashdot Mirror
The plant can't have more genetic information than us
well it can, a lot off species have more base pairs then a human(If I remember my biology class correctly) it's all about redundancy and also a lot of info isn't used at all(well you could say there's a whole lot of cruft in in us)
Cricket - pretty much the same as mrtg, but a lot more advanced, based on rrdtool, in my opinion a lot more powerful then mrtg and easier to manage
NTOP a sniffer with a web interface, check out one of the newer snapshots. REALLY useful, probably one of the most useful programs i have ever come around(network admin wise) both are web based
Palm has completed the initial effort to port its operating system from today's Motorola Dragonball chip, which is at the heart of current Palm handhelds, to chips based on designs from England's ARM.
That's new to me. This is pretty interesting because it means a departure from PALM's traditional market. As some already have pointed out it could be dangerous to compete directly with the PocketPC devices here, which have matured a lot lately.
A lot of people have been complaining about the fact that PALM has used the relatively slow Dragonball CPU's. I guess it will be hard to compete against the others in the market when in an comparison for CPU's 16/32 to 200 sticks out.
I still like Palms philosophy but handspring has made a pretty big impact with their devices just because they offer some kind of "upgradeability"
first off, I'm neither a kernel hacker nor a comp sci type, so I'm probably writing bullshit right now
./ today, it would be nice of him to eloborate a little more about this general thoughts on kernel design.
Set aside discussions about NT or OpenVMS, wouldn't a design like the HURD(I'm not saying MK's are better or that I like theme more the monolithic systems) at least be a reasonyble approach to more system security.
If I understand correctly HURD and probably other Microkernels can run at lot more stuff in userland and that could at least be a advantage when you try to build a very secure system. If Theo is really posting on
Now if I'm not mistaken, it's not about not publishing bugs, but rather about the bulletins themselves. ;-) ) and prohibit to distribute their copyrighted material.
It seems MS has copyrighted their bulletins(not the bugs
I guess you can still publish the incident, but you would have to write your own "bulletin".
While I can understand that MS wants to protect their precious incredibly sophisticated and unique security bulletins I guess there are other reasons for this.
What MS tries to do for security reasons (at least that's what I think) is to establish their site as the only way to obtain official bulletins.
One can only suspect that they are scared that someone might post fake messages on those lists, making them in some way look official.
I'm an idiot, otherwise i wouldn't replay to such a flamebait.
both rely on the principle that working together as a community will produce better results than each man for himself
yeah right, if you had anything to do with OSS you would have seen that commonly projects consist of a core team, and the a lot of people that regulary either submit bug reports or evn check in bug fixes.
Ever used CDE? While I think CDE is not all that bad(*duck*) if you compare on the basis of userfriendliness, kde/gnome both win.But then again that's all subjective
Linux has never produced any thing original
How in the world should a kernel produces something? If you mean the Linux, but I would rather say OpenSource Unix community, you are teribbly mistaken.
Just an example : as mentioned EFM.
EFM is in my opinion terribly innovative, the old filemanager concept taken to new heights.
And how much room is thee for innovation in the O/S market? While implementations may vary, concepts are largely similar.
since it free, you can't complain when you find out it isn't very good
yeah, if I pay RHAT a lot of money to support my system I can't complain? You bet I can! Recently looked at a EULA? People like MS and also Sun have succeded in the goal to hold liability from them. The only way a OSS Software Corp. can make money is by providing support for the product, therefore they have to take care of Quality.
Who do I go to if my closed Source product is not maintained properly?
While this certainly sound dangerous(and the powers given to authorities here seem pretty darn dangerous) I'm wondering about practicability.
I mean 7 years resaults in a bloody lot of data(especially if you want to record the phone calls digitally).
Even if you have the technical infrastructure for this kind of thing, your noise:information ratio will be pretty devastating, so you would have to employ an enormous workforce(or those strange beings that are always credited for creating my slashdot frontpage).
I think this is obviously the idea of some people who don't have good technical advisers(or someone wants to create jobs quite desperately).
Ok i was a lttle bit harsh, maybe.
I know it is hard to administer a NT system.
What I wanted to point out is that a lot of people just take secruity too lightly. As you mention a lot of NT-Admins are not able to devote all or a lot of their time to administering.
Still I think it must be possible for a corp(I guess PHB are most to blame for a lot of this stuff) that relies heavily on their IT Infrastructure to pay someone(or even several people) to look after their servers. A security breach(even worse, a security breach that goes unnoticed, that's the real danger) can destroy a company that relies heavily on the web.
It didn't want to say administering NT itself is trivial, but rather that system security should be on the priority lists of everybody who relies on their servers and data.
It is neccesary to educate people that they need to take strong security measures regarding their side just as they have to take care that there are virusscanners on the client machines.
Is patching really that hard?
Now unfortunately they don't mention which sites where affected and what the crackers actually did.
What I find really disturbing is the fact that for all of the 3 exploits(which are rather old) patches or configuration changes were avaiable. So you can bash Microsoft to death here for letting such security holes happen but at least they patched it. The question is wether or not the patches were avaiable before( I mean one of the holes was found in 99!)
Is it really that hard to patch your system regulary as an Sysadmin? You are responsible for a e-commerce system and you don't fiond the time to patch your system? I guess most people don't even bother to read securityfocus or a similar ressource or at least the MS security bulletins.
I guess a lot of corporations still think a security audit is some kinf of luxury and even more don't seem to remembers that it's not done with one check, security is soemthing you have to take care of constantely.
And what are we going to see?
People talking about master "hackers". In those cases the measures to close those holes seem pretty trivial(if the patches were avaiable on time, which you can't judge now).
GSM also operates at 1800 (actually 900/1800 DualBand is most common is europe)
while GPRS is a extension to GSM, both bluetooth and WAP are independent standards
is this the technology you mean?
It's stated that this technology actually bases on GSM. I can't judge if it's better then the normal GSM networks we have over here in Europe but I have to mention a few things
The thing you mention with the several differnet protocls, well, we had just that over here in europe a few years ago.
Every country had it's own standard which was used by the local company(a lot of monopolies, you are right, this has also certainly to a point hindered alot of stuff over here but things have changed).Look at this link. So GSM is actually a multinational standard and I think it is a good thing to let the providers compete by service rather than protocol because when I here switch my network provider I can keep my phone.
Still companies over here are innovating, for example one provider here is already beginnig to offer GPRS Service, another(we have 4 GSM providers here which I think is a lot for such a small country as Austria) has already offered data transfers with 28.8 kBps for 6 months now(via phone cards for notebooks, they basically just bundle several lines)
Competition is big here and so prices are relatively low, GSM at times(when normal telephones were still mostly in the hand of the state company, which has been fully privatized now)was almost the same as normal telephone calls.
I agree with you about the hazard of state monopolies but independent standards are generally a good thing.
The article is actually rather about mobile "internet" then pure GSM access.
Has anybody here ever had real Life experience with i-mode mobile "internet". I mean here ini Austria were I live WAP is offered by all 4 GSM Providers and a lot of people have WAP capable phones but still very little people use it because it is just crap(At least in my opinion.
Is this i-mode thingy really widely used in japan? What kind of things are people doing with it?
While I do aknowledge that there are certainly a lot of great opportunities for service which use WAP here in Austria the only really interesting one I've seen is a service which localizes you and then shows you the nearest pharmacies/restaurants/etc..
Ahh, well I'm posting something offtopic. I just wanted to not that something like this has been done for NetBSD look at this link www.dubbele.com
What do you think will be major Security improvements/features(kernel/base system) that are going to be added to OpenBSD?
Where is there still room for a lot of improvement? Also what are the goals of the OpenBSD project besides default Security?
well, at least the video phone part.
I think this mostly of marketing value. I guess Orange just wants to show off, something like "Hey look we got a video phone, we are the most advanced service provider on the market
I guess what we are going to see is something like a Ipaq H3600 with a attached camera and phone. Might actually be a nice gadget, I guess if the camera is of fairly good quality and the Device itself has enough memory it might actually be quite nice for some tasks, take a quick picture, send it off to someone(maybe something for Insurace agent and the like).
I mean there is at least some reason in buying such a thing instead of a digital camera, a pda and a cell phone.
I guess there are just major usabilty problems with a mobile video phone, just image holding that damn thing in front of you for half an hour.
Why? Well why should there be a lot of Interest in Darwin?
I can't judge if Darwin is technically very advanced or not because i haven't bothered to inform myself(which doesn't matter because I'm not a Developer). Why should I? I think the other Open Source Unices(yes I know Darwin is only the kernel) are already drawing the attention of Open Source Developers to them.
Why should someone bother to help Apple when they can help the effort of for example the OpenBSD folks.
Apple is releasing under a License which a lot of people might find to restrictive.
I'm not saying that Darwin is better or worse, but I just think that other Projects could use support much more than Darwin because they actually rely on Volunteers much more then the Apple paid Darwin
The question everybody asks is how much is Apple(speaking of the company, meaning Managment not the Developers) really in to Open Source? Are they really trying to give something to the community or are they just trying to gain publicity and free code?
Is it such a great new thing Apple is giving out here? Or is it just two wellknown concepts(Mach and BSD) thrown together?
The bas thing is that the fact that Darwin is not getting much attention might hold other companies from persuing Open Source Strategies
Well I guess this a interesting move by Microsoft and actually could turn out to be either bad or good for customers.
The point is: On what basis will MS certifiy apps, drivers ?
Does anybody know how the system works with drivers for Windows 2000?
I know that MS is certainly not going do certify for free, I think that is obvious but what does the MS certification really mean beside that fact that the publisher of the certified software has transferred a certain amount of money over to MS?
I mean it's relatively(very relative in fact) easy to certify drivers up to a certain extend, but apps?
If MS signs some program does that mean that they certify that it will work flawless(which seems somewhat impossible with all the Interactions in a system).
If i submit my program for certification does that mean I have to submit sourcecode?
This could turn out to be a measure by Microsoft to gain higher stabilty and industry respect for their platform but it might as well become a way of assuring total control over the platform which might piss a lot of developers of
I would certainly like to have some insight from someone who was or is in the process of getting a driver certified for Windows 2000.
I agree with you, partially. ,JFS's are important. Since I never workked on AIX I can't confirm wether JFS is really that horrible on that plattform.
I'm very aware that JFS's don't make RAID and Backup irrelevant. Still JFS's at least save you time after a crash and I think the still provide higher data Security because you have the Journalling Log, but probably you are more competent on that field
I still think
However, if you look at ReiserFS you will see it is fact very fast and reliable.
However even if some or another JFS becomes the standard with Linux that doesn't mean you have to use it.
And stating you dropped AIX for Linux is quite ridicolous because the two don't really use the same hardware.
this article might give some insight
As you mentioned ReiserFS is quick with small files, which pretty much is most web content.
Also just look on the ReiserFS main page look at the middle logo "Squid cache optimization sponsored by ThresholdNetworks" I'm absolutely no expert on file system concepts so don't take me too seriously.
As already mentioned integrating some kind of Journalling Filesystem will maybe the most important task.
May it be XFS, JFS, ext3, ReiserFS, or Tux2, i think this will and must be one of the next addition to the kernel tree(probbably ReiserFS in 2.4.1). There is no big and bright future for Linux if we don't get to a filesystem with better data integrity. I think that in fact the diversity of Jfs's is a great thing because:
It will create competition
There will be FS's optimized for certain tasks(something that is already happening now, look at ReiserFS SQUID Optimization)
The existence of XFS and JFS for Linux already shows that both IBM and SGI are really willing to put their Unix experience into the future of Linux (At least that's what I hope)
I think the involvment of companies like IBM and SGI will maybe the biggest chance for Linux over the next years
There is the Unix experience of two of the biggest players on the market going into the most active Developer community in the world. We can really hope for a bright future
someone at cnet pointed to a site called i-dns.net"
what they have listed under tech might actually be quite insightfull(even thought not technical) and may also prove the point that china can't actually block those other registration companies.
How can one Country block registration to domains written in a certain kind of script.
I mean it's not like one Goverment have control over one script because you have the largest population in the world wich is native to that script.
We are not talking about the TLD here are we? I mean it's not about ending your domain with 3 letters which stand for a country/organisation/etc.).
If we are really talking about the use of chinese characters in Domain names, how can one country have control over that? Can someone give mor insight
If it doesn't work 100% with free software, it shouldn't be included.
That's a noble but very difficult task.
What do they mean with software? I guess they just mean LINUX right now.Even if you just use Linux as a plattform there arew still some problems. For example just look at graphic cards.
If they say 100% working, does that also mean all features of the card are working? 3D Acceleration?
If you want that feature you already have quite a limited list of choices(even more limited if you think about Non-free drivers/NVIDIA anybody?)
If the really just use Linux(maybe *BSD) what distinguishes them from other linux hardware shops like VA or also the big makers who are already established(and probably willing to support linux big time)?
In theory the idea of some kind of p2p company is intruiging but I think I would be quite a task to bring so many different opinions under one hat.
I see the danger of big time hardware related Flamewars.
Still I would be a great thing if the Hardware cooperative succeded and even eventually provides a way of funding things like GNU or the Fsf.
Still I want trade better hardware for ideology(or maybe just to a certain extend)
While many might blame netscape for releasing a browser that for many(including me) doesn't feel the way a finished and competitable product should feel.
But Then again it was about time, Netscape was getting into serious timing troubles with netscape 6. MS is about to realease a beta of it's "Version 6" Browser and Netscape had to act.
What is a bit sad tough is that Netscape maybe released it just a little bit too early.
Why? Because M19(the next Mozilla Milestone) is labeled "stability and speed improvements" in mozilla.org's seamonkey milestone plan(yes i know there is a second plan which describes the mozilla and ns trunks more exactly)
Still, maybe waiting another month may have lead to a much more improved product. On the other side in one month netscape's market share may very well be nonexistend(at least on windows, which sadly is the criterium)
Maybe this was the right move by netscape. Maybe a inperfect final release was better then another month of delay.
Whatever happens to netscape, I'm going to keep downloading mozilla nightlies while still watching other browsers such as konqueror
Swain says the driving force of the law changes is the wish to protect privacy
They actually present those laws as way to protect privacy! First the make electronic eavesdropping etc illegal, which is a somewhat good thing.
But after those laws are voted for, they introduce massive spying powers to various govermental agencies. Now, it would be nice if anybody from NZ could give us some more insight.
Is there a "public discussion" about those things? What about oppositions parties?
I know of personal experience that it is pretty hard to explain why you are against such laws.
Most People are willing to accept some cuts at their privacy as long as it seems to them that it's a effective way to fight crimes Where I live(Austria) we currently are in the midst of a major political scandal because as it seems various political forces have abused police data
Still a lot of people say "Why should I care, I have done nothing wrong".
So I guess a lot of people in NZ curently think "Hmm, doesn't affect me, I don't want to crack computers, actually it's a good thing that tghe goverment protects me of those filthy cyber criminals". It's hard fighting against invasions of privacy when they are hidden well.