If we had IPv6 we would all have as many ips as we needed free of charge.
My ISP now has native IPv6. I wanted to set it up, but since I run OpenBSD as a gateway (and NAT), I can't use rtsold to do IPv6 autoconfig. I wrote an email to my ISP to ask for a fixed IPv6 block and I told them I assumed it would be at no charge. The ISP replies that at this time they don't have plans to allow fixed IPv6 blocks and it hadn't been decided what the pricing would be.
Believe me, they will change for IPv6 blocks, and I have a pretty consumer-friendly ISP for my country.
Better control, acceleration... and oddly enough comfort is another one, but comfort is highly subjective. I strongly prefer a hard drive over soft and cushy.
I forgot to say: you just want back the single-core machines because you forgot how it was before. Personally, I jumped on the "multiple core" bandwagon in 2003, before any dual cores were even on the radar (at least in the x86 world). I bought myself a (real) SMP machine. It was a revelation, as you could finally do something else while one of your cores was pegged. Sure, if you have a single task, doing a single thing and you don't care that you can barely do anything else, then indeed single core is the way to go. Usually, that's not the case, at least not for me. I'd always prefer dual-core over single. Now, the argument for more than two cores is weaker, but I don't even own machines with more than two cores. Well, okay, I have a quad i7, but I don't use it. My nettop does the job just fine.
Truly said like someone who never drove a sports car. It has other advantages, and they are not in top speed... But whatever, you are entitled to your opinion.
Let's say that the main problem I had was with "7 cores".... That's what prompted my reaction. If you'd have said 8, I'd shrug it off as another person not getting hyperthreading. What you have is 4 "real" cores, and 8 "logical" cores. I don't see where your idea of "7 cores" come from except from the stupid "Core i7" naming.
Thing is: the operating system alleviates the fact that many tasks are not parallelizable. The fact that they are idle is not a problem. Modern processors will be saving energy at that time, while still having enough oompha when needed. That is a "good thing". The inevitable car analogy: if you have a Porsche, you are rarely to never using the full 300++HP engine, normal cruising uses 20HP at cruising speeds. Yes, 20HP. Doesn't mean those remaining 280++HP aren't useful.
If your computer is at a load of 8.0 (in Linux terminology, one process on each logical core at all times) at all times you have a problem. You need a quicker CP or more cores, depending on the task at hand.
Personally, my main desktop is an Atom D525 and load is between 0.4 and 1.5. Given it has 4 logical CPUs (that darned Hyperthreading again), it still isn't maxed out. I am, however, fully aware that I will hit a performance wall if I'd suddenly decided to do stuff that this CPU is not made for.... like CAD.
i have an i7 and most of the time 5 of the 7 cores are idling
You have a very weird i7. There are two types of i7s, namely dual-cores and quad-cores. I know what you're going to say: "But, but, I see 8 CPU graphs in my task manager". That is called "Hyperthreading" and definitely aren't real cores, just extra instruction queues. Back in the P-IV days (when Intel started using it, the hyperthreading technique is older), you had one core and a second queue. On a hyperthreaded CPU it is (nearly?) impossible to get a situation in where all queues are filled up (that would be 100% on each "CPU").
So, assuming, you have a 4 core i7 (Not an 7 core), and 3 of them are used, you are actually using the CPU quite a bit more than you thought.
Finally, you come out with the old canard that applications aren't written for multi-core CPUs. In a sense that's true, because many problems aren't parallelizable and worse, may problems (especially on a desktop) are I/O bound. At the point of this writing, my CPU is waiting for me, because I'm typing and I'm slow in comparison to my computers CPU. You also neglecht completely that your operating system is optimized for multiple cores and it does make sure different applications get used on different cores. According to ps, I have 176 processes. Most of them are waiting for input, but if one does need to to some heavy lifting, it gets it and I have a second core (as I'm typing this one a Core 2 Duo) to do my quaint slow things. Given many many processes (on all modern operating systems) run in background, the advantage of many cores is evident.
Another "Middle-aged nerds who have never read LOTR" here... The Hobbit, I managed, but I found it rather... bland. LOTR. Started several times, never finished. Glad I'm not alone.
You're welcome. Nautilus is the Gnome file manager. What is waaaay more nifty than.gvfs samba mounts by Gnome is that you can mount ssh "shares". Basically, if you have ssh access to a Unix machine, you can mount its filesystem graphically using ssh. (Look into the "SSH" option instead of "Windows Share"). If you have ssh keys setup, then it won't even ask your password. Pure bliss, especially if you quickly need files from home while at work and obviously you'd never expose a samba server to the Internet.
Samba used to be the de-facto way to connect to Windows servers (an probably still is if you don't use Gnome. I don't use KDE, so I don't know for KDE), but these days it's mainly to be found on the server that actually serves files. You'll still need samba if you want to serve files from your desktop.
Oddly enough, I don't have Windows machines and I use Samba on my file server (which runs OpenBSD, to make it even weirder). This is mainly historical because I used to have Windows machines and back then it was the only reasonable way to serve files. Personally, I haven't found anything better. From what I've seen NFS (which would be the Unix way to do it) is way less "friendly" and less fine-grained. From what I've seen NFS is only an option if you have a LDAP infrastructure and who does that at home? (Yes, yes, I've been toying with the thought)
If you want permanently mounted shares on your client machine, independent from the logged in user, samba is still the way to go. You'll have to add an entry in fstab though.
Just to be fully technically accurate. Gnome does use the samba libraries. It doesn't run a samba server (smbd and nmbd, which is the NetBIOS naming service) if you don't configure it that way. From my home installation on which, I promise, never installed samba manually:
jawtheshark@tiger:~$ aptitude search samba | grep ^i i samba-common - common files used by both the Samba server i samba-common-bin - common files used by both the Samba server jawtheshark@tiger:~$ ps auxw | grep mbd jawtheshark 16687 0.0 0.0 7624 920 pts/5 S+ 17:38 0:00 grep --color=auto mbd jawtheshark@tiger:~$
It doesn't? I'm pretty much using a default Ubuntu 10.04 at home and a 11.10 at work. In Nautilus it's just File - Connect to Server - Windows Share... Fill in the stuff it needs to know, and you're good.
Cell phone posting, so that's why my post was short. Basically you could use it to locate the 'fattest' neighborhoods furthest away from a PD. A bit of ingenuity, please: you're on slashdot.
It doesn't need any... It talks directly to the scanner over USB or SCSI. Yes, I do have SCSI scanners, scanners that aren't even supported by XP, like the Minolta Dimage my dad has which was pretty expensive back in the day... It keeps showing as a "unkown device" in the device manager, but you can talk to it using the right software. Scanners have a standardized protocol called TWAIN (and there is a newer one, I need to look it up, but I'm sure you know where to find it on wikipedia)
The only thing I'm not certain of is that old parallel scanners might not be supported. My wifes Canon Lide 20 is not supported on Mac OS X 10.6 (which is what she uses), VueScan talks to it. No drivers installed. Just the program.
I'd say, just fucking try it instead of thinking that drivers are "something required"... System level drivers are in general not needed for stuff like printers and scanners. Think about it: if you have a PostScript printer, it will print by just sending bare PostScript in RAW to it. No drivers required. You can friggin do it with netcat to port 9100 if it's networked. For Scanners, similar things apply. This is not like a PCI card where you need to know memory mapped regions to talk with it, because scanners and printers (should) use standard protocols.
I know what you mean... Oh, you know the old joke, eh?
Little Johnny and his dad are at the pharmacy, and Johnny sees a packet of 3 condoms and asks dad what it's for. Dad replies that it's for high school kids, one for Friday, one for Saturday and one for Sunday. Johnny seems pleased and notices the box next to it, containing 6 condoms and again he asks dad. Dad calmly explains that it's for college students, one for each day of the week, except Sunday where they go home for dinner at moms. Johnny looks pleased and asks dad about the third package with a full dozen of condoms in them. With a deep sight, dad states it's for married men... one for January, one for February....
In every joke, there is a grain of truth. *deep sigh*
Except it's not legal to do that. (According to Microsoft, I wonder what courts say about it) Well, unless you run the VM on the OEM hardware it came with (for example Linux Host, VM guest with key that came with the hardware) and even then I think it's only allowed for XP Pro. However, I do exactly the same. For the few times I actually need Windows, it suffices.
It's also not allowed to replace the motherboard of a broken OEM machine unless it's 100% identical. Well, I have done that too and the key works. Heck, I have detached the OEM license stickers (hair dryer and a knife, just saying) from dumpster-sourced machines because I know I can reuse them (technically, not legally) on whatever hardware I like.
Can they detect that? Probably. I haven't had any of those OEM keys triggering WGA though.
I'm far from a 7 fan, but regarding scanners, I always suggest VueScan (http://www.hamrick.com) Worth every penny I spent on it. I haven't used it on Windows, but it works fine on OS X and Linux.
If it doesn't have a decent browser, Opera Mini is pretty nifty. I use it on my Sony Ericsson C702i. By todays standards, that's a feature phone even though it was sold as a smart phone back in the day. Why, yes, I do indeed have a three year old cellphone. It works, costs me basically nothing. I'm fine.
Let me state it bluntly: You will not get Windows Logo Certification if you don't support Multi-user/Limited-user setup. If there were a Linux-Logo certification, I'm sure the conditions would be similar.
You are right about them better partnering with one of the major distros. That would be the "Linux way", and the solution to all the (to me) bugs that exist. As said, I am member of the beta program, and I haven't found a way to easily file bug reports. From what I gather the only thing is the forums. That's no space for good bug reports.
The Linux-user target is much more savvy than the Windows user target and this means that bugs/problems like these should be addressed. I know how Windows users use their machines, I also know that I either have to repair their machines after a few months, or they need to get a new computer (adding a nice one to my dumpster diving collection). If I repair their computer, it's under my conditions and that means they lose admin under Windows. For me that's "problem solved". Don't play by my rules? No support by me.
I could ask the same about you and PCMCIA cards. I have had many, SCSI, NIC, modem, Wifi, and USB 2.0 and used them extensively and interchangably. I never managed to bend any pins.
Same thing with USB, though.
It is understandable, not excusable. On Windows we had years of broken software when the 9x line was merged to the NT line. Now it's nearly perfect, unless you need to run really old legacy applications. Linux is written from the bottom up to support multi-usage, and now they introduce the broken (old) concept of single-usage on multi-usage machines.
Indeed, but keep in mind that under Windows, if you install an application it will (usually) install multi-user. That should be their goal. They should do it right. I have no problem with the program being installed on/opt and the game data to be installed on/home. (Even though Steam, for example, gets it working multi-user outside of the equivalent of/home on Windows)
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for the short instructions, I'll note down this post and try it one of these days.
Any howtos you can link to? I only knew about the xvfb solution too.
My ISP now has native IPv6. I wanted to set it up, but since I run OpenBSD as a gateway (and NAT), I can't use rtsold to do IPv6 autoconfig. I wrote an email to my ISP to ask for a fixed IPv6 block and I told them I assumed it would be at no charge. The ISP replies that at this time they don't have plans to allow fixed IPv6 blocks and it hadn't been decided what the pricing would be.
Believe me, they will change for IPv6 blocks, and I have a pretty consumer-friendly ISP for my country.
Better control, acceleration ... and oddly enough comfort is another one, but comfort is highly subjective. I strongly prefer a hard drive over soft and cushy.
I forgot to say: you just want back the single-core machines because you forgot how it was before. Personally, I jumped on the "multiple core" bandwagon in 2003, before any dual cores were even on the radar (at least in the x86 world). I bought myself a (real) SMP machine. It was a revelation, as you could finally do something else while one of your cores was pegged. Sure, if you have a single task, doing a single thing and you don't care that you can barely do anything else, then indeed single core is the way to go. Usually, that's not the case, at least not for me. I'd always prefer dual-core over single. Now, the argument for more than two cores is weaker, but I don't even own machines with more than two cores. Well, okay, I have a quad i7, but I don't use it. My nettop does the job just fine.
Truly said like someone who never drove a sports car. It has other advantages, and they are not in top speed... But whatever, you are entitled to your opinion.
Let's say that the main problem I had was with "7 cores".... That's what prompted my reaction. If you'd have said 8, I'd shrug it off as another person not getting hyperthreading. What you have is 4 "real" cores, and 8 "logical" cores. I don't see where your idea of "7 cores" come from except from the stupid "Core i7" naming.
Thing is: the operating system alleviates the fact that many tasks are not parallelizable. The fact that they are idle is not a problem. Modern processors will be saving energy at that time, while still having enough oompha when needed. That is a "good thing". The inevitable car analogy: if you have a Porsche, you are rarely to never using the full 300++HP engine, normal cruising uses 20HP at cruising speeds. Yes, 20HP. Doesn't mean those remaining 280++HP aren't useful.
If your computer is at a load of 8.0 (in Linux terminology, one process on each logical core at all times) at all times you have a problem. You need a quicker CP or more cores, depending on the task at hand.
Personally, my main desktop is an Atom D525 and load is between 0.4 and 1.5. Given it has 4 logical CPUs (that darned Hyperthreading again), it still isn't maxed out. I am, however, fully aware that I will hit a performance wall if I'd suddenly decided to do stuff that this CPU is not made for.... like CAD.
You have a very weird i7. There are two types of i7s, namely dual-cores and quad-cores. I know what you're going to say: "But, but, I see 8 CPU graphs in my task manager". That is called "Hyperthreading" and definitely aren't real cores, just extra instruction queues. Back in the P-IV days (when Intel started using it, the hyperthreading technique is older), you had one core and a second queue. On a hyperthreaded CPU it is (nearly?) impossible to get a situation in where all queues are filled up (that would be 100% on each "CPU").
So, assuming, you have a 4 core i7 (Not an 7 core), and 3 of them are used, you are actually using the CPU quite a bit more than you thought.
Finally, you come out with the old canard that applications aren't written for multi-core CPUs. In a sense that's true, because many problems aren't parallelizable and worse, may problems (especially on a desktop) are I/O bound. At the point of this writing, my CPU is waiting for me, because I'm typing and I'm slow in comparison to my computers CPU. You also neglecht completely that your operating system is optimized for multiple cores and it does make sure different applications get used on different cores. According to ps, I have 176 processes. Most of them are waiting for input, but if one does need to to some heavy lifting, it gets it and I have a second core (as I'm typing this one a Core 2 Duo) to do my quaint slow things. Given many many processes (on all modern operating systems) run in background, the advantage of many cores is evident.
Another "Middle-aged nerds who have never read LOTR" here... The Hobbit, I managed, but I found it rather... bland. LOTR. Started several times, never finished. Glad I'm not alone.
You're welcome. Nautilus is the Gnome file manager. What is waaaay more nifty than .gvfs samba mounts by Gnome is that you can mount ssh "shares". Basically, if you have ssh access to a Unix machine, you can mount its filesystem graphically using ssh. (Look into the "SSH" option instead of "Windows Share"). If you have ssh keys setup, then it won't even ask your password. Pure bliss, especially if you quickly need files from home while at work and obviously you'd never expose a samba server to the Internet.
Samba used to be the de-facto way to connect to Windows servers (an probably still is if you don't use Gnome. I don't use KDE, so I don't know for KDE), but these days it's mainly to be found on the server that actually serves files. You'll still need samba if you want to serve files from your desktop.
Oddly enough, I don't have Windows machines and I use Samba on my file server (which runs OpenBSD, to make it even weirder). This is mainly historical because I used to have Windows machines and back then it was the only reasonable way to serve files. Personally, I haven't found anything better. From what I've seen NFS (which would be the Unix way to do it) is way less "friendly" and less fine-grained. From what I've seen NFS is only an option if you have a LDAP infrastructure and who does that at home? (Yes, yes, I've been toying with the thought)
If you want permanently mounted shares on your client machine, independent from the logged in user, samba is still the way to go. You'll have to add an entry in fstab though.
Just to be fully technically accurate. Gnome does use the samba libraries. It doesn't run a samba server (smbd and nmbd, which is the NetBIOS naming service) if you don't configure it that way. From my home installation on which, I promise, never installed samba manually:
It doesn't? I'm pretty much using a default Ubuntu 10.04 at home and a 11.10 at work. In Nautilus it's just File - Connect to Server - Windows Share... Fill in the stuff it needs to know, and you're good.
Cell phone posting, so that's why my post was short. Basically you could use it to locate the 'fattest' neighborhoods furthest away from a PD. A bit of ingenuity, please: you're on slashdot.
If I were a mugger, I'd use it to locate 'good' neighborhoods, and start mugging people there. A device to find new fat hunting grounds. I'd love it.
It doesn't need any... It talks directly to the scanner over USB or SCSI. Yes, I do have SCSI scanners, scanners that aren't even supported by XP, like the Minolta Dimage my dad has which was pretty expensive back in the day... It keeps showing as a "unkown device" in the device manager, but you can talk to it using the right software. Scanners have a standardized protocol called TWAIN (and there is a newer one, I need to look it up, but I'm sure you know where to find it on wikipedia)
The only thing I'm not certain of is that old parallel scanners might not be supported. My wifes Canon Lide 20 is not supported on Mac OS X 10.6 (which is what she uses), VueScan talks to it. No drivers installed. Just the program.
I'd say, just fucking try it instead of thinking that drivers are "something required"... System level drivers are in general not needed for stuff like printers and scanners. Think about it: if you have a PostScript printer, it will print by just sending bare PostScript in RAW to it. No drivers required. You can friggin do it with netcat to port 9100 if it's networked. For Scanners, similar things apply. This is not like a PCI card where you need to know memory mapped regions to talk with it, because scanners and printers (should) use standard protocols.
I know what you mean... Oh, you know the old joke, eh?
Little Johnny and his dad are at the pharmacy, and Johnny sees a packet of 3 condoms and asks dad what it's for. Dad replies that it's for high school kids, one for Friday, one for Saturday and one for Sunday. Johnny seems pleased and notices the box next to it, containing 6 condoms and again he asks dad. Dad calmly explains that it's for college students, one for each day of the week, except Sunday where they go home for dinner at moms. Johnny looks pleased and asks dad about the third package with a full dozen of condoms in them. With a deep sight, dad states it's for married men... one for January, one for February....
In every joke, there is a grain of truth. *deep sigh*
Not married, I wager? Sex after getting married? What have you been smoking? :-P
Except it's not legal to do that. (According to Microsoft, I wonder what courts say about it) Well, unless you run the VM on the OEM hardware it came with (for example Linux Host, VM guest with key that came with the hardware) and even then I think it's only allowed for XP Pro. However, I do exactly the same. For the few times I actually need Windows, it suffices.
It's also not allowed to replace the motherboard of a broken OEM machine unless it's 100% identical. Well, I have done that too and the key works. Heck, I have detached the OEM license stickers (hair dryer and a knife, just saying) from dumpster-sourced machines because I know I can reuse them (technically, not legally) on whatever hardware I like.
Can they detect that? Probably. I haven't had any of those OEM keys triggering WGA though.
I'm far from a 7 fan, but regarding scanners, I always suggest VueScan (http://www.hamrick.com) Worth every penny I spent on it. I haven't used it on Windows, but it works fine on OS X and Linux.
If it doesn't have a decent browser, Opera Mini is pretty nifty. I use it on my Sony Ericsson C702i. By todays standards, that's a feature phone even though it was sold as a smart phone back in the day. Why, yes, I do indeed have a three year old cellphone. It works, costs me basically nothing. I'm fine.
Let me state it bluntly: You will not get Windows Logo Certification if you don't support Multi-user/Limited-user setup. If there were a Linux-Logo certification, I'm sure the conditions would be similar.
You are right about them better partnering with one of the major distros. That would be the "Linux way", and the solution to all the (to me) bugs that exist. As said, I am member of the beta program, and I haven't found a way to easily file bug reports. From what I gather the only thing is the forums. That's no space for good bug reports.
The Linux-user target is much more savvy than the Windows user target and this means that bugs/problems like these should be addressed. I know how Windows users use their machines, I also know that I either have to repair their machines after a few months, or they need to get a new computer (adding a nice one to my dumpster diving collection). If I repair their computer, it's under my conditions and that means they lose admin under Windows. For me that's "problem solved". Don't play by my rules? No support by me.
Guess, I must have computers with good tolerance then. I'm still not convinced though. I liked the PCMCIA form factor very much.
I could ask the same about you and PCMCIA cards. I have had many, SCSI, NIC, modem, Wifi, and USB 2.0 and used them extensively and interchangably. I never managed to bend any pins. Same thing with USB, though.
It is understandable, not excusable. On Windows we had years of broken software when the 9x line was merged to the NT line. Now it's nearly perfect, unless you need to run really old legacy applications. Linux is written from the bottom up to support multi-usage, and now they introduce the broken (old) concept of single-usage on multi-usage machines.
Do it right the first time, I'd say.
Indeed, but keep in mind that under Windows, if you install an application it will (usually) install multi-user. That should be their goal. They should do it right. I have no problem with the program being installed on /opt and the game data to be installed on /home. (Even though Steam, for example, gets it working multi-user outside of the equivalent of /home on Windows)
So they couldn't have made a simple binary installer? Whoops!!! That's exactly what they did, but they omitted allowing a multi-user installation.