Install this on your system, change to/usr/src/redhat/SPECS/ (or wherever is appropriate for your distro), and do rpm -bb memtest86.spec. This will generate a memtest RPM in/usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/ (or again, wherever...). Installing this rpm will set up a memtest entry in your lilo.conf -- very handy. We do this by default for all of our installs at Boston University.
The old one works fine in some cases, but not consistantly or reliably. Some pages just don't load properly, and other times the page loads, but about 5 minutes later you notice your computer is realllly slow, and discover that there's half a dozen PSM processes all using as much CPU as they can.
As far as I can tell, the new one fixes both of these problems.
almost all of these questions can be answered with a variable holding a certain numerical value.
The problem (and what makes these games fun) is that the answer to the question depends on more than a simple number -- they all depend on the state of the other questions, and all sorts of other factors in the game. It's the emergent properties that are interesting -- and that are hard to quantify.
Perhaps in the long run that's how we'll justify skipping commercials...if we want to see the show "as it is being broadcast", then the price we pay is commercials. If we choose to wait some period of time, then we get to skip them.
Ok, but with a TiVo, the required timeshift is five or ten minutes, instead of having to wait until the show is over....
Maybe. But what inherent *right* do you have to make money selling cookies?
Particularly, if I come up with a similar recipe on my own -- perhaps even a better one -- and that becomes more popular, is that "effectively stealing"?
What if I start making cakes, and people decide they prefer those to cookies? I'm getting some of the money you would have made otherwise.
There's a lot of ifs and coulds and conditions involved -- pretty far removed from the simple "I took your cookies" situation in the real world.
Intellectual property laws were invented for the benefit of society. Currently, they're being used *against* society. Something's wrong.
Why are thoughts and ideas like physical property?
The cookies you've baked have a physical existence, and if someone takes them, you'll be bereft of chocolatey goodness. If someone, however, uses your cookie receipe without your permission, nothing is actually "taken" -- and there's *more* cookies in the world. And when it comes right down to it, isn't that what we all want?
Even though I don't agree with you, I have but one thing to say. Please, please PLEASE stop it with the house analagies [sic]. Please use something else.
This is such a good point that it needs some attention drawn to it beyond yapping about the typo. Houses are physical and in the real world, and so many things don't match up. First of all, every host on the internet is potentially a server, and potentially contains useful, intended-for-the-public information. How can you tell if a given host is meant to be accessed remotely? Well, you connect to it and look. This isn't the equivalent of checking the doorknob of a house -- it's more like looking in a shop window to see if they're open. (And that analogy is full of flaws too.)
Sure, we could depend completely on centralized human-created directories, but that puts control back in the hands of the few. The internet isn't supposed to be Just More Television. If it becomes illegal to connect to port 80 of someone's machine to see if they're running a web server, that's a huge loss for us all. You might think http is different somehow, but do you really want the goverment maintaining a list of what ports are legal to use for services?
Well, no. The "by definition" I'm talking about isn't inherent instability. It's that.0 releases are where it's okay to make radical changes that break backwards compatibility -- which is necessarily to avoid the buildup of kruft.
Take a look at the linux kernel development process. Eventually Linus just says: "Ok, this one is 2.4.0", but it still takes some time for it to really become solid. A problem with pre-releases is that they're often so broken that people don't take them seriously. Red Hat Linux 7 was a pretty decent release all around, but made a lot of radical changes, with the new XFree86, new compiler, etc. Changing to those things needed to happen, but it takes some time of serious use for it all to come together perfectly.
Couldn't find these "previous arguments", but: red hat increments the major version number when there's something (usually a libc change) that breaks backwards compatibility. That's a good way to use version numbers.
VIA's definitely likely to have a cheaper solution, and I'll be really interested to see the performance -- the regular 760 is marginally faster than VIA's current offerings, from what I've read.
And of course, we've all waited long enough for dual athlon systems -- I dunno if I can hold out for the second chipset release.:)
* "Thunder K7" (S2462). This dual-Socket A mainboard for AMD Athlon CPUs will be based on AMD-760MP chipset. It will support PC2100/PC1600 DDR SDRAM and feature an AGP Pro slot. The board will also support ATA-100, Ultra160 SCSI and will have 64bit/33MHz PCI slots and 2 LAN controllers onboard. TYAN has already showcased this mainboard at all large shows this year. Its mass manufacturing should start this quarter.
* "Thunder K7X" (S2466) This is one more dual-Athlon mainboard. However, it is based on AMD-760MPX chipset. Like the previous model it also supports PC2100/PC1600 DDR SDRAM, ATA-100, Ultra160 SCSI and has an AGP Pro slot, 64bit/66MHz PCI slots and 2 LAN controllers onboard. The board will start sampling in May and the mass pieces will appear in July-August.
Read the comment I was replying to. For the comparison I was making, it doesn't matter what microsoft does in q3 -- only what they had done in three years (or two and a half, really) after they started.
But, as an aside, I'm fully confident that mozilla in q3 will beat ie6. Current nightly builds are superior to ie5.5 in many (but of course not all) ways, even in their half-baked state.
1. Get the GPG key of the maintainer from a trusted source.
2. Add it to your GPG keyring using "gpg --import keyfile.txt"
3. Do "rpm -K somepackage.rpm".
4. If it's signed properly by someone on your keyring, it'll say "md5 gpg OK". If not signed at all, it'll just say "md5 OK". If signed, but not by someone you know, or if it's been tampered with, it'll say "md5 GPG NOT OK".
IE 1.0 was released with Windows 95, in August of 1995. From all reasonable accounts, IE wasn't very good until version 5, which was released March 1999. That's three and a half years.
The Mozilla project started with Gecko in Oct 1998. Even if you start with the less-charitable date of April 1998 (when the Communicator source was opened -- and turned out to not actually be very useful), it's still only three years 'til right now. (And remember, IE didn't start from scratch -- they began with the Spyglass Mosaic codebase.)
If you look at the current Mozilla roadmap, even the "if we're unlucky" plan calls for 1.0 to be out by Q3 of this year -- plenty of time to beat IE 5.0 by your suggested metric.
Slashdot Mirror
Good for them. Like I said, that's what we do with BU Linux. ("Gee"?)
I've got a src rpm for memtest86 2.5 at http://www.mattdm.org/misc/memtest/memtest86-2.5-2 .src.rpm.
/usr/src/redhat/SPECS/ (or wherever is appropriate for your distro), and do rpm -bb memtest86.spec. This will generate a memtest RPM in /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/ (or again, wherever...). Installing this rpm will set up a memtest entry in your lilo.conf -- very handy. We do this by default for all of our installs at Boston University.
Install this on your system, change to
The old one works fine in some cases, but not consistantly or reliably. Some pages just don't load properly, and other times the page loads, but about 5 minutes later you notice your computer is realllly slow, and discover that there's half a dozen PSM processes all using as much CPU as they can.
As far as I can tell, the new one fixes both of these problems.
almost all of these questions can be answered with a variable holding a certain numerical value.
The problem (and what makes these games fun) is that the answer to the question depends on more than a simple number -- they all depend on the state of the other questions, and all sorts of other factors in the game. It's the emergent properties that are interesting -- and that are hard to quantify.
the new PSM2 (in the nightly builds, will be in next milestone) actually *works* for https sites.
Perhaps in the long run that's how we'll justify skipping commercials...if we want to see the show "as it is being broadcast", then the price we pay is commercials. If we choose to wait some period of time, then we get to skip them.
Ok, but with a TiVo, the required timeshift is five or ten minutes, instead of having to wait until the show is over....
(Not that I think that this is "stealing".)
"Take"? Who said anything about "taking"? Taking implies that I have it, and you don't. That's exactly what's not happening.
Maybe. But what inherent *right* do you have to make money selling cookies?
Particularly, if I come up with a similar recipe on my own -- perhaps even a better one -- and that becomes more popular, is that "effectively stealing"?
What if I start making cakes, and people decide they prefer those to cookies? I'm getting some of the money you would have made otherwise.
There's a lot of ifs and coulds and conditions involved -- pretty far removed from the simple "I took your cookies" situation in the real world.
Intellectual property laws were invented for the benefit of society. Currently, they're being used *against* society. Something's wrong.
Why are thoughts and ideas like physical property?
The cookies you've baked have a physical existence, and if someone takes them, you'll be bereft of chocolatey goodness. If someone, however, uses your cookie receipe without your permission, nothing is actually "taken" -- and there's *more* cookies in the world. And when it comes right down to it, isn't that what we all want?
Even though I don't agree with you, I have but one thing to say. Please, please PLEASE stop it with the house analagies [sic]. Please use something else.
This is such a good point that it needs some attention drawn to it beyond yapping about the typo. Houses are physical and in the real world, and so many things don't match up. First of all, every host on the internet is potentially a server, and potentially contains useful, intended-for-the-public information. How can you tell if a given host is meant to be accessed remotely? Well, you connect to it and look. This isn't the equivalent of checking the doorknob of a house -- it's more like looking in a shop window to see if they're open. (And that analogy is full of flaws too.)
Sure, we could depend completely on centralized human-created directories, but that puts control back in the hands of the few. The internet isn't supposed to be Just More Television. If it becomes illegal to connect to port 80 of someone's machine to see if they're running a web server, that's a huge loss for us all. You might think http is different somehow, but do you really want the goverment maintaining a list of what ports are legal to use for services?
Maybe. That's certainly *less* broken.
Well, bero does point out on his web page a lot of problems that might be in your code. Have you checked for those?
Software which requires IP addresses and doesn't understand DNS is broken.
Well, no. The "by definition" I'm talking about isn't inherent instability. It's that .0 releases are where it's okay to make radical changes that break backwards compatibility -- which is necessarily to avoid the buildup of kruft.
Take a look at the linux kernel development process. Eventually Linus just says: "Ok, this one is 2.4.0", but it still takes some time for it to really become solid. A problem with pre-releases is that they're often so broken that people don't take them seriously. Red Hat Linux 7 was a pretty decent release all around, but made a lot of radical changes, with the new XFree86, new compiler, etc. Changing to those things needed to happen, but it takes some time of serious use for it all to come together perfectly.
Couldn't find these "previous arguments", but: red hat increments the major version number when there's something (usually a libc change) that breaks backwards compatibility. That's a good way to use version numbers.
cached
VIA's definitely likely to have a cheaper solution, and I'll be really interested to see the performance -- the regular 760 is marginally faster than VIA's current offerings, from what I've read.
:)
And of course, we've all waited long enough for dual athlon systems -- I dunno if I can hold out for the second chipset release.
Point oh releases, by definition, break things and cause confusion. This point-one is really nice -- very stable and well-put-together all around.
From http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/#987261890
Good idea. But who are you?
(I don't mean that snidely -- I'm serious. What are you going to do to assure that trustedrpm.net means anything?)
Read the comment I was replying to. For the comparison I was making, it doesn't matter what microsoft does in q3 -- only what they had done in three years (or two and a half, really) after they started.
But, as an aside, I'm fully confident that mozilla in q3 will beat ie6. Current nightly builds are superior to ie5.5 in many (but of course not all) ways, even in their half-baked state.
1. Get the GPG key of the maintainer from a trusted source.
2. Add it to your GPG keyring using "gpg --import keyfile.txt"
3. Do "rpm -K somepackage.rpm".
4. If it's signed properly by someone on your keyring, it'll say "md5 gpg OK". If not signed at all, it'll just say "md5 OK". If signed, but not by someone you know, or if it's been tampered with, it'll say "md5 GPG NOT OK".
I can't decide if this is a troll or an attempt at humor. Either way....
Hmmm, I think you're right. So long ago that I'm forgetting. I certainly remember how pathetic IE 1.0 was, though....
Anyway, that's beside the point, which is that Microsoft sure took plenty of time to get IE to be a decent browser.
And even that is a side point: the main thing is that Mozilla really will kick ass at 1.0.
IE 1.0 was released with Windows 95, in August of 1995. From all reasonable accounts, IE wasn't very good until version 5, which was released March 1999. That's three and a half years.
The Mozilla project started with Gecko in Oct 1998. Even if you start with the less-charitable date of April 1998 (when the Communicator source was opened -- and turned out to not actually be very useful), it's still only three years 'til right now. (And remember, IE didn't start from scratch -- they began with the Spyglass Mosaic codebase.)
If you look at the current Mozilla roadmap, even the "if we're unlucky" plan calls for 1.0 to be out by Q3 of this year -- plenty of time to beat IE 5.0 by your suggested metric.