Yes, well, it can be that hard. There are lots of intelligent people who aren't and can't be rich, although they want to be.
More than intelligence is required.
And apparently, for this guy, he's skilled in getting rich using uncouth methods. It's what he's familiar with, it's what comes easy for him (I suppose)
I think it's more likely, that 'word substitution' gets made an additional rights management feature authors can request (for an additional fee, of course)
No, they wouldn't. There are 100x as many underlings as C*Os.
The costs of paying a C*O more are small and justifiable to the organization (leadership is a critical part of the business). The cost of paying thousands of underlings more is huge, massive, the company won't want to do it, it's not in the shareholders' interests -- they'll want to find another way of making the C*Os happy, such as finding a manner of making an end-run around the rule,
A rule like that, by the way, cannot exist in a free market.
It's not fraud. I'm sure it will be clearly explained to the reader before they are allowed to purchase it, that the work has been "Modified for copyright/rights management purposes", and that the text may have minor differences from the print version of the work
It's sensible... but what about their pre-flight meals? It occurs polites who know each other might at times come to eat out together in private, when they're not flying a plane, but possibly some hours before boarding the plane.
And are there stipulations that they will never share any food or bring any snacks into the cabin shared between multiple pilots?
Given the long length of boring flights, I doubt that regulations could effectively keep pilots from snacking at times, and sharing food at times.
I have to think there are some types of emergencies where it could be essential or critical to have additional people in the cabin to quickly assist the pilots.
If they don't have keys, and the pilots are in too much a crisis to get up and open the door,
then they're in real trouble...
No check-ins... no access by the crew.. if the pilot becomes incapacitated, they are screwed:
Flight attendants have not had keys to open a plane’s cockpit door since the 2001 terrorist attacks, and there is no procedure in which they regularly check on pilots. The cabin crew communicates by phone or through chimes that can be heard in the passenger cabin.
Possibly they really were infected?
If it was first noted in July, published in Google search results and other sites that the site was infected, why did it take them so long to fix it?
I noted that when I search this evening Google no longer shows them as infected/dangerous, perhaps they fixed the issue?
Of the 163 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 1 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2009-10-24, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2009-10-22.
Malicious software includes 8 trojan(s), 6 exploit(s), 4 scripting exploit(s).
Malicious software is hosted on 5 domain(s), including keymydomains.com/, ncenterpanel.cn/, updatedate.cn/
1 domain(s) appear to be functioning as intermediaries for distributing malware to visitors of this site, including keymydomains.com/.
This site was hosted on 1 network(s) including AS21844 (THEPLANET).
Has this site hosted malware? No, this site has not hosted malicious software over the past 90 days.
Quite dangerous... what happens when your infected system sends spam or the infection downloader pulls a new version from the author and tries to spread itself to other machines in your corporate network, through a zero-day vuln you haven't patched yet?
Translation: ZFS takes over the whole disk; it misuses the term "file system" to mean some internal construct that is meaningless to the rest of the world. Another strike against it.
That above translation is basically nonsense.
ZFS does work better when it is managing entire disks, that's how it's meant to be used.
I can't quite see how you're claiming the ability to re-allocate space between disk labels is a disadvantage.
The number of times are beyond count, where i've seen systems run out of space on/usr, when there was _massive_ free space, the only problem was it was all in/var.
Humans suck at planning ahead.
ZFS is built on the same concepts used by computers to manage RAM. "Volume managers" (such as LVM) were a major hack. ZFS by comparison is a highly elegant solution.
Managing disks is hard and complicated;
Why do you say that?
Of course you can do the complicated things with ZFS, such as setting up multiple disk slices and running zfs on a slice but you don't need to, and there are good reasons not to.
Your thinking of proper volume management is probably quite wrong if you want to 'split up' disks. It really is a lot better to just use one or two pools, and manage only entire disks.
Sharing is hard and complicated because it involves security, users, name spaces, and networking. If there's a "simple command" to do it, that tells me that ZFS isn't doing it right.
You can of course setup all those things, but you don't have to. There are a lot of ways to implement security which don't require you implement share level security. In most NAS environments, physical isolation is the preferred method of security
You can do such things as
zfs set shareiscsi=on pool1/zvol1
zfs set sharenfs=on pool1/folder1
This does not preclude you from having setup portals, iniators, and access lists in your iscsitadm, or in OpenSolaris, COMSTAR.
And the original share command is still available,
i.e.
share -F nfs -o ro=@172.16.0.0/24 pool1/folder1
Before ZFS, you had to generally manually edit a file, and restart your NFS services, if you wanted to share something.
I tried the zfs commands you suggested but there aren't any of those available in my path,
The two programs used to work with zfs are 'zfs' and 'zpool'. Both of them are normally located in/usr/sbin
If your PATH is broken so you can't easily access the tools, it doesn't matter what filesystem you're using, you'll have a bad time.
I would suggest adding/usr/sbin to your PATH if it's not, or else use "/usr/sbin/zfs list" etc.
the user's, life is made harder?
The user's life is not made harder. It's no harder to learn "Zfs list" than to learn "df"
What is all so totally worth it? I haven't seen any advantages of zfs over hfsplus.
Copy on write filesystem, performance is excellent..
Unlimited impact snapshots which have no I/O performance impact, and has the ability to rollback to most recent snap, clone snapshot, etc; makes backup, replication type tasks easy. The ability to implement transactional unbreakable system upgrades, ala apt-clone.
RaidZ, to protect against drive failure
Ditto blocks and checksums to ensure data integrity, protect against silent data corruption, heal bad disk blocks.
No need to 'fsck'
No need to decide the size of each file system at creation time, 'quotas' are soft and can be changed, instead of having to re-format/fdisk to change sizes of a dataset.
No need to manage individual disks. No limits on number of disks imposed by the filesystem layers.
No arbitrary limits in zfs.
ZFS can scale to (in theory) 256 quadrillion zettabytes. Other filesystems have a max file size limit, and a max filesystem size limit.
Sharing a folder is a simple invokation of a "share" command.
Because 'df' shows mounted filesystems in the more traditional physical fashion. It's best to inspect dataset properties to see their status
zfs get available pool/path/to/dataset
zfs get all pool/path/to/dataset | grep used
zfs list
Another thing that can throw you off, if you have compression enabled (lzjb) and do dd if=/dev/zero of=blah.txt
And ^C it later... you can have a 50gb file using 0 bytes on disk
du -m blah.txt
Will show 0 bytes, but ls -l blah.txt will show its logical size.
It drives people unaware of zfs compression nuts.
Yes, there's a learning curve to some of the things in zfs... but it's all so totally worth it.
There are some things that are harder in zfs than otherwise. Most things are a hell of a lot easier, especially volume management with pools VS traditional volume managers.
Slashdot Mirror
It can't be that hard.
Yes, well, it can be that hard. There are lots of intelligent people who aren't and can't be rich, although they want to be.
More than intelligence is required.
And apparently, for this guy, he's skilled in getting rich using uncouth methods. It's what he's familiar with, it's what comes easy for him (I suppose)
Amazon has an incentive to do this for free, wha?
I think it's more likely, that 'word substitution' gets made an additional rights management feature authors can request (for an additional fee, of course)
Two thirds is not in the set of integers.
To say that a number N is divisible by D, or that D is a divisor of N indicates that D is an integer which divides N evenly, with no remainder.
No, they wouldn't. There are 100x as many underlings as C*Os.
The costs of paying a C*O more are small and justifiable to the organization (leadership is a critical part of the business). The cost of paying thousands of underlings more is huge, massive, the company won't want to do it, it's not in the shareholders' interests -- they'll want to find another way of making the C*Os happy, such as finding a manner of making an end-run around the rule,
A rule like that, by the way, cannot exist in a free market.
It's not fraud. I'm sure it will be clearly explained to the reader before they are allowed to purchase it, that the work has been "Modified for copyright/rights management purposes", and that the text may have minor differences from the print version of the work
Two words: One click.
Yeah, but that's just dolls.. good luck against the patent i'm getting on nested programs.
You can't write
while ( 1 ) {
fork();
}
Because that would be a nested program
Similarly
extern func2 (a,b );
extern next(a);
extern a0;
extern r1;
func1 ( int a ) {
if ( a == a0 )
return func2(a, r1);
else
return func2(a, func1( next(a) ));
}
Has a nested function, also to be my exclusive right under this 'nested programs' patent
Spammers
Stoners
Couch Potatos
Windows users
Bean counters
Lawyers
Salesmen
N00bs
It's sensible... but what about their pre-flight meals? It occurs polites who know each other might at times come to eat out together in private, when they're not flying a plane, but possibly some hours before boarding the plane.
And are there stipulations that they will never share any food or bring any snacks into the cabin shared between multiple pilots?
Given the long length of boring flights, I doubt that regulations could effectively keep pilots from snacking at times, and sharing food at times.
I have to think there are some types of emergencies where it could be essential or critical to have additional people in the cabin to quickly assist the pilots.
If they don't have keys, and the pilots are in too much a crisis to get up and open the door, then they're in real trouble...
No check-ins... no access by the crew.. if the pilot becomes incapacitated, they are screwed:
Flight attendants have not had keys to open a plane’s cockpit door since the 2001 terrorist attacks, and there is no procedure in which they regularly check on pilots. The cabin crew communicates by phone or through chimes that can be heard in the passenger cabin.
“Both said they lost track of time,” the report stated. It also said that the pilots had heard voices over their cockpit radios but ignored them.
If you're a Mac user then you're supposed to already be using the free Kindle reader on your iPhone/iTouch.
Nope. I have just a Mac mini, no iPhone/iTouch, the latter two are too bloddy expensive.
And ATT's G3 coverage currently sux. Stick with Verizon/Sprint, and the iPhone actually isn't even available.
Windows Vista has only 20% market share. Windows XP is an old and obsoleted OS no longer supported by its manufacturer.
And other OSes have significant market share as well..
As a MacOS and Linux user, I feel really left out put off by this move, why support only Vista and XP...?
Apparently it's not a new thing.
Possibly they really were infected? If it was first noted in July, published in Google search results and other sites that the site was infected, why did it take them so long to fix it? I noted that when I search this evening Google no longer shows them as infected/dangerous, perhaps they fixed the issue?
Safe browsing diagnostic:
What happened when Google visited this site?
Of the 163 pages we tested on the site over
the past 90 days, 1 page(s) resulted in
malicious software being downloaded and
installed without user consent. The last time
Google visited this site was on 2009-10-24,
and the last time suspicious content was
found on this site was on 2009-10-22.
Malicious software includes 8 trojan(s), 6 exploit(s), 4 scripting exploit(s).
Malicious software is hosted on 5 domain(s), including keymydomains.com/, ncenterpanel.cn/, updatedate.cn/
1 domain(s) appear to be functioning as intermediaries for distributing malware to visitors of this site, including keymydomains.com/.
This site was hosted on 1 network(s) including AS21844 (THEPLANET).
Has this site hosted malware?
No, this site has not hosted malicious software over the past 90 days.
Quite dangerous... what happens when your infected system sends spam or the infection downloader pulls a new version from the author and tries to spread itself to other machines in your corporate network, through a zero-day vuln you haven't patched yet?
Yeah... but the author was asking how to show them visually computer security risks.
Not how to get fired and sued by displaying imagery that would be offensive to the average person.
Translation: ZFS takes over the whole disk; it misuses the term "file system" to mean some internal construct that is meaningless to the rest of the world. Another strike against it.
That above translation is basically nonsense. ZFS does work better when it is managing entire disks, that's how it's meant to be used. I can't quite see how you're claiming the ability to re-allocate space between disk labels is a disadvantage.
The number of times are beyond count, where i've seen systems run out of space on /usr, when there was _massive_ free space, the only problem was it was all in /var.
Humans suck at planning ahead.
ZFS is built on the same concepts used by computers to manage RAM. "Volume managers" (such as LVM) were a major hack. ZFS by comparison is a highly elegant solution.
Managing disks is hard and complicated;
Why do you say that?
Of course you can do the complicated things with ZFS, such as setting up multiple disk slices and running zfs on a slice but you don't need to, and there are good reasons not to.
Your thinking of proper volume management is probably quite wrong if you want to 'split up' disks. It really is a lot better to just use one or two pools, and manage only entire disks.
Sharing is hard and complicated because it involves security, users, name spaces, and networking. If there's a "simple command" to do it, that tells me that ZFS isn't doing it right.
You can of course setup all those things, but you don't have to. There are a lot of ways to implement security which don't require you implement share level security. In most NAS environments, physical isolation is the preferred method of security
You can do such things as
zfs set shareiscsi=on pool1/zvol1
zfs set sharenfs=on pool1/folder1
This does not preclude you from having setup portals, iniators, and access lists in your iscsitadm, or in OpenSolaris, COMSTAR.
And the original share command is still available, i.e.
share -F nfs -o ro=@172.16.0.0/24 pool1/folder1
Before ZFS, you had to generally manually edit a file, and restart your NFS services, if you wanted to share something.
I tried the zfs commands you suggested but there aren't any of those available in my path,
The two programs used to work with zfs are 'zfs' and 'zpool'. Both of them are normally located in /usr/sbin
If your PATH is broken so you can't easily access the tools, it doesn't matter what filesystem you're using, you'll have a bad time. I would suggest adding /usr/sbin to your PATH if it's not, or else use "/usr/sbin/zfs list" etc.
the user's, life is made harder?
The user's life is not made harder. It's no harder to learn "Zfs list" than to learn "df"
What is all so totally worth it? I haven't seen any advantages of zfs over hfsplus.
Copy on write filesystem, performance is excellent..
Unlimited impact snapshots which have no I/O performance impact, and has the ability to rollback to most recent snap, clone snapshot, etc; makes backup, replication type tasks easy. The ability to implement transactional unbreakable system upgrades, ala apt-clone.
RaidZ, to protect against drive failure
Ditto blocks and checksums to ensure data integrity, protect against silent data corruption, heal bad disk blocks.
No need to 'fsck'
No need to decide the size of each file system at creation time, 'quotas' are soft and can be changed, instead of having to re-format/fdisk to change sizes of a dataset.
No need to manage individual disks. No limits on number of disks imposed by the filesystem layers.
No arbitrary limits in zfs. ZFS can scale to (in theory) 256 quadrillion zettabytes. Other filesystems have a max file size limit, and a max filesystem size limit.
Sharing a folder is a simple invokation of a "share" command.
Because 'df' shows mounted filesystems in the more traditional physical fashion. It's best to inspect dataset properties to see their status
zfs get available pool/path/to/dataset
zfs get all pool/path/to/dataset | grep used
zfs list
Another thing that can throw you off, if you have compression enabled (lzjb) and do dd if=/dev/zero of=blah.txt
And ^C it later... you can have a 50gb file using 0 bytes on disk
du -m blah.txt
Will show 0 bytes, but ls -l blah.txt will show its logical size.
It drives people unaware of zfs compression nuts.
Yes, there's a learning curve to some of the things in zfs... but it's all so totally worth it.
There are some things that are harder in zfs than otherwise. Most things are a hell of a lot easier, especially volume management with pools VS traditional volume managers.
Hearing that ZFS support was upcoming in Snowleopard is one of the things that encouraged me to switch my desktop from Windows XP to MacOS.
It is an understatement to say i'm disappointed to see Apple abandoning this.
Support for ZFS is not just a little feature checkbox, it's a major component of the OS.
It'd be like if Microsoft dropped/cancelled support for Solitaire from Windows....
However, they still desperately need a next generation filesystem and according to the linked article they're hiring filesystem engineers.
That doesn't make any sense.
It only makes sense to engineer a new filesystem if the other options are inadequate or unusable.
Engineering a new filesystem is hard and expensive.
For them to seek to do that, they must have rejected the effort to integrate ZFS for some technical reason.
The complexity of integrating ZFS pales into comparison to the massive cost of engineering and implementing a new filesystem from the ground up.
Let-alone getting the new filesystem to a level of maturity where you can trust it with your data (safelty)
I think the chance of Apple wanting to engineer a new FS so lightly are pretty slim.
More likely, they would add new features to HFS+ or make an incremental update.
hm.. Sparc International's an industry trade association setup by Sun some 10 years ago.
Basically, SPARC members are the companies that make SPARC-compatible devices.
My biggest issue with SPARC's sudden claim is that SparkFun has been around for 10 years, and well-known to the public.
Basically, it seems like they have sat on their rights for a long time, and waited way too long before taking any action.
They ought not to be allowed to proceed with their claim.
Google search output
This site may harm your computer.
www.sparc.org/
Boot from read-only removable media. Have a 'verification program' in the boot loader that verifies a signature on the OS bootstrap
Digitally sign everything that isn't encrypted, and contain the proper signatures/keys on the removable media that you always carry with you