P.S. - your second server should be able to handle the exact same load as the first server or its not going to be terribly helpful
Actually, each server should be able to handle the entire load of the cluster. A lot of people forget to pay attention to this. It's great that you have two servers in a cluster, so that if one fails the other still works, except when you HAVE to have two servers in the cluster for it to work at all.
Where I work we run our web solutions on clusters. This works great for redundancy, availability, etc. BUT, if we ever have less than two servers in the cluster, the system will go down anyway due to load. Our primary production cluster, therefore, is four servers.
Read prettymuch any EULA and you'll see the exact same thing. A lot of open source software has the same disclaimers attached, it is standard practice to avoid lawsuits due to bugs.
This wasn't included in the summary, but is what is really important. How many of those were FIXED in that same time period? More accurately the study would state something along these lines:
The Report:
25 vendor-confirmed vulnerabilities were disclosed for the Mozilla browsers during the first half of 2005, eighteen of these flaws were classified as high severity....
During the same period, 13 vendor-confirmed vulnerabilities were disclosed for IE, eight of which were high severity....
Okay....And now the important part.... (no, I don't have the actual data, but I'm sure it is available)
Of the 25 reported for Mozilla, 22 were fixed.... Of the 13 reported for IE, 2 were fixed....
NOTHING will ever be bug free. What's important is how long that bug remains.
At the same time, it's quite possible that the other 90% of the businesses sent the letter don't need to sign it. Only for certain uses would you need to sign it, if they don't meet those uses, why would they?
IANAL, but if a gun maker named their pistol "Felon's Favorite"(TM) or "Rob-Rite"(TM), then I'm sure they would be susceptible to either civil or criminal legal pleasantries.
Which is exactly what the supreme court said in the MGM vs. Grokster case. If you promote your product for illegal use, then you can be liable for that.
Network is a definite no, floppies and CDs are ok, but what about USB hard drives? Etc.
The main thing to keep in mind is that any writable media that touches a classified system becomes classified. In other words, you can use a USB Hard Drive, but it will have to have the same markings and be treated the same way as the main hard drive. CDs (non-writable ones) don't have that issue, as obviously they can't move data. Floppies do. There are specific standards for "cleaning" media that has touched a classified system.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the classification of the system is ALWAYS the highest classification of data that has touched the system. So, if you handle data that is "Secret" the system is treated as "Secret." If later you handle data that is "Top Secret" then the system will be "Top Secret" from then on, until it is "cleaned." Keep in mind that "Clean" means a complete removal of all data and traces of data from the system media.
As far as networks go, certain networks are "ok." However, any network that the system is on has to be rated for the classification of the data the system contains. i.e. You won't be connecting it to your local LAN or the Internet, but there ARE networks that it could be attached to, should the government decide that you need to have some sort of access.
Finally, and it doesn't sound like you're going to, but don't neglect physical security. The computer will have to be located in an area the only authorized personnel can have access to and even then, the media must be secured (usually in a safe) when not in use. The areas that the Air Force builds for theses types of systems are usually equivalent to a bank vault, including the door (that can be locked from the inside and that can refuse outside access from the inside). Also, if you end up connected to a network that is certified for classified material, you will have to consider the physical protection of the devices and media for the network.
Also keep in mind that certain classifications make requirements on electronic emissions from the computer. There are devices made to reduce or eliminate these, including power filtering blocks that go between the wall and the computer. Most of the options are bulky, and some are only applied to rooms.
Ultimately, your best bet is to call those responsible at DoD. They're the experts and they're the ones that can provide the best information for you.
Speaking of abusing someone's good name, Jeremy Malcolm, the attorney in charge of sending out the licensing letters in Australia, has a long history of voluntary and pro bono work for the Internet and open source communities. This includes serving on the boards of the Internet Society of Australia, the Western Australian Internet Association, Electronic Frontiers Australia, the Society of Linux Professionals (WA) and the Australian Public Access Network Association. He also received the Community Award in the 2004 AUUG Australian Open Source Awards for outstanding contribution to the understanding of para-technical and legal issues surrounding open source within the Australian context. He isn't a Scientologist and never has been, by the way, although he believes in freedom of religion for all.
Actually, that's exactly how first-to-file works. Say you invent X, but you haven't patented it yet. Someone else can claim to have inveted X and file. Then, becuase they were first to file, they have the rights, not you. Scary eh?
The original poster quotes the European System, but congress is trying to move the US system to be the same. Take a look at The Patent Reform Act of 2005. Groklaw, of course, has a good analysis of what would happen in this case if we had first-to-file.
This boils down to the real numbers that matter. It doesn't really matter if your index is "bigger" or not, it is about the results that are returned. The other thing that matters (and can't really be measured in a scientific manner) is relevance. It's easy to return results for a set of words, it is hard to return relevant results for a set of words. My personal experience is that Google returns more relevant and better ordered results than Yahoo!.
Reason I say this is that no one ports working ASP code to ASP.NET, because it is impossible to port : instead you must rewrite the entire application.
That "instead" sounds amazingly like what I said:
We've been moving this application over to ASP.NET over time
(re-implementing exiting features in.NET and coding all new features in.NET).
Suggestion: read what you're replying to. Not that I should expect so much from somone who posts AC.
For the record, you do NOT have to re-write the entire appicaiton. ASP and ASP.NET both use standard POST/GET to communicate with the next page in the chain and they really don't care if it was ASP, HTML, or anything else that communicates with it, as long as it uses the right POST/GET format. It's trivial (assuming you have a decent architecture) to introduce ASP.NET pages into an ASP application.
Just because you can't do it, doesn't mean it can't be done.
ASP.NET may be great for the smallest of projects or usable for large corporate enterprise apps, but there really isn't much middle ground to scale your designs. So I think you'll end up with a lot of poorly designed apps on this platform IMHO, because you have to be an expert OO wiz or wrestle with the VS designer (a total dead-ender).
.NET is extremely scalable, if you know how to code. If you can't grasp OO concepts, then stick to BASIC, because you're not going to be able to code in any modern programming language otherwise.
The docs give only the most trivial examples and they obviously weren't written by anyone who ever had to actually use the platform.
The documenation for.NET is some of the most useful and relevant documentaiton I've ever seen for any product, and even more so for a computer language. It's extremely in depth and detailed.
As far as examples go, there's more examples out there than I can keep up with. Between MSDN and GotDotNet you can find just about anything you'd ever need. And that's not counting the dozens of other sites (CodeProject, etc) that have tons of examples and articles.
The company I work for develops almost exclusively* in.NET. For years now we've developed a massive web application for managing data across the nation between hundreds of entities. We've been moving this application over to ASP.NET over time (re-implementing exiting features in.NET and coding all new features in.NET). This isn't a "public" website perse, as you have to be working for one of our clients to get to it, but it is used by thousands of users within those clients. We've architected it in such a way that we not only have a web front end, but we have Handhelds and Web Services that interact with it as well, all through.NET and all completely integrated (with the exception, of course, of functionality that hasn't been converted to.NET yet).
The only thing that is keeping us from moving to 2.0 is waiting for a set of core tools we use to be ported. After those tools are ported, we'll be converting everything in 1.1 to 2.0 and start developing exclusively in 2.0.
* Almost because.NET doesn't fit everything. We still use C++ for some projects simply because they don't need and can't have the framework installed to support a.NET App. And we still maintain a ton of VB/ASP code, though we're happily converting it to.NET as fast as resources allow.
When you say the president has an "anti-science" agenda, then, to what, exactly, are you referring?
I'd wager he was referring to all the real science reports that he and his administration have either modified, forced their writers to modify, or have completley concealed when they show the true scientific facts instead of what he wants them to say. Combine that with his policy decisions that are obviously based on things other than scientific fact. This president doesn't agree with any science, unless it happens to say what he wants it to.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, each server should be able to handle the entire load of the cluster. A lot of people forget to pay attention to this. It's great that you have two servers in a cluster, so that if one fails the other still works, except when you HAVE to have two servers in the cluster for it to work at all.
Where I work we run our web solutions on clusters. This works great for redundancy, availability, etc. BUT, if we ever have less than two servers in the cluster, the system will go down anyway due to load. Our primary production cluster, therefore, is four servers.
Read prettymuch any EULA and you'll see the exact same thing. A lot of open source software has the same disclaimers attached, it is standard practice to avoid lawsuits due to bugs.
Except that the JWST isn't built, and "sees" things quite differently from hubble.
This wasn't included in the summary, but is what is really important. How many of those were FIXED in that same time period? More accurately the study would state something along these lines:
The Report:
25 vendor-confirmed vulnerabilities were disclosed for the Mozilla browsers during the first half of 2005, eighteen of these flaws were classified as high severity....
During the same period, 13 vendor-confirmed vulnerabilities were disclosed for IE, eight of which were high severity....
Okay....And now the important part.... (no, I don't have the actual data, but I'm sure it is available)
Of the 25 reported for Mozilla, 22 were fixed....
Of the 13 reported for IE, 2 were fixed....
NOTHING will ever be bug free. What's important is how long that bug remains.
At the same time, it's quite possible that the other 90% of the businesses sent the letter don't need to sign it. Only for certain uses would you need to sign it, if they don't meet those uses, why would they?
Which is exactly what the supreme court said in the MGM vs. Grokster case. If you promote your product for illegal use, then you can be liable for that.
The main thing to keep in mind is that any writable media that touches a classified system becomes classified. In other words, you can use a USB Hard Drive, but it will have to have the same markings and be treated the same way as the main hard drive. CDs (non-writable ones) don't have that issue, as obviously they can't move data. Floppies do. There are specific standards for "cleaning" media that has touched a classified system.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the classification of the system is ALWAYS the highest classification of data that has touched the system. So, if you handle data that is "Secret" the system is treated as "Secret." If later you handle data that is "Top Secret" then the system will be "Top Secret" from then on, until it is "cleaned." Keep in mind that "Clean" means a complete removal of all data and traces of data from the system media.
As far as networks go, certain networks are "ok." However, any network that the system is on has to be rated for the classification of the data the system contains. i.e. You won't be connecting it to your local LAN or the Internet, but there ARE networks that it could be attached to, should the government decide that you need to have some sort of access.
Finally, and it doesn't sound like you're going to, but don't neglect physical security. The computer will have to be located in an area the only authorized personnel can have access to and even then, the media must be secured (usually in a safe) when not in use. The areas that the Air Force builds for theses types of systems are usually equivalent to a bank vault, including the door (that can be locked from the inside and that can refuse outside access from the inside). Also, if you end up connected to a network that is certified for classified material, you will have to consider the physical protection of the devices and media for the network.
Also keep in mind that certain classifications make requirements on electronic emissions from the computer. There are devices made to reduce or eliminate these, including power filtering blocks that go between the wall and the computer. Most of the options are bulky, and some are only applied to rooms.
Ultimately, your best bet is to call those responsible at DoD. They're the experts and they're the ones that can provide the best information for you.
Specificially:
You have a year to file after you make it public.
Actually, that's exactly how first-to-file works. Say you invent X, but you haven't patented it yet. Someone else can claim to have inveted X and file. Then, becuase they were first to file, they have the rights, not you. Scary eh?
The original poster quotes the European System, but congress is trying to move the US system to be the same. Take a look at The Patent Reform Act of 2005. Groklaw, of course, has a good analysis of what would happen in this case if we had first-to-file.
It's only a problem for them. The rest of us don't have any problems with it, and really don't care that they see it as a problem.
This boils down to the real numbers that matter. It doesn't really matter if your index is "bigger" or not, it is about the results that are returned. The other thing that matters (and can't really be measured in a scientific manner) is relevance. It's easy to return results for a set of words, it is hard to return relevant results for a set of words. My personal experience is that Google returns more relevant and better ordered results than Yahoo!.
How exactly is not talking to a "news" agency evil?
Just highlighting the irony.
They ARE the same, just someone did a crappy job of scaling the ones on the glolux.com site.
Then they might have been tempted to copy "methods and concepts" from Linux to Unixware....
Which is one of the things they're suing IBM for. Using their "methods and concepts" in the Linux Kernel....
That "instead" sounds amazingly like what I said: Suggestion: read what you're replying to. Not that I should expect so much from somone who posts AC.
For the record, you do NOT have to re-write the entire appicaiton. ASP and ASP.NET both use standard POST/GET to communicate with the next page in the chain and they really don't care if it was ASP, HTML, or anything else that communicates with it, as long as it uses the right POST/GET format. It's trivial (assuming you have a decent architecture) to introduce ASP.NET pages into an ASP application.
Just because you can't do it, doesn't mean it can't be done.
Now how do they get the shuttle back to FL so it can be launched again ?
Atop a 747.
...but where's my perl, python and ruby dot net (and I don't mean editor support)?
Right under your nose, if you bother to look:
http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/NET Perl and (experimental)Python
http://www.saltypickle.com/rubydotnet/Ruby/.NET compatability
http://www.zope.org/Members/Brian/PythonNetPython
http://www.ironpython.com/Python, again....
ASP.NET may be great for the smallest of projects or usable for large corporate enterprise apps, but there really isn't much middle ground to scale your designs. So I think you'll end up with a lot of poorly designed apps on this platform IMHO, because you have to be an expert OO wiz or wrestle with the VS designer (a total dead-ender).
.NET is extremely scalable, if you know how to code. If you can't grasp OO concepts, then stick to BASIC, because you're not going to be able to code in any modern programming language otherwise.
.NET is some of the most useful and relevant documentaiton I've ever seen for any product, and even more so for a computer language. It's extremely in depth and detailed.
The docs give only the most trivial examples and they obviously weren't written by anyone who ever had to actually use the platform.
The documenation for
As far as examples go, there's more examples out there than I can keep up with. Between MSDN and GotDotNet you can find just about anything you'd ever need. And that's not counting the dozens of other sites (CodeProject, etc) that have tons of examples and articles.
Oh, that wouldn't be good enough either? Where's pascal.net and cobol.net? Actually, Cobol.NET exist, unfortunately: http://www.adtools.com/products/windows/netcobol.h tml
The company I work for develops almost exclusively* in .NET. For years now we've developed a massive web application for managing data across the nation between hundreds of entities. We've been moving this application over to ASP.NET over time (re-implementing exiting features in .NET and coding all new features in .NET). This isn't a "public" website perse, as you have to be working for one of our clients to get to it, but it is used by thousands of users within those clients. We've architected it in such a way that we not only have a web front end, but we have Handhelds and Web Services that interact with it as well, all through .NET and all completely integrated (with the exception, of course, of functionality that hasn't been converted to .NET yet).
.NET doesn't fit everything. We still use C++ for some projects simply because they don't need and can't have the framework installed to support a .NET App. And we still maintain a ton of VB/ASP code, though we're happily converting it to .NET as fast as resources allow.
The only thing that is keeping us from moving to 2.0 is waiting for a set of core tools we use to be ported. After those tools are ported, we'll be converting everything in 1.1 to 2.0 and start developing exclusively in 2.0.
* Almost because
.NET works fine without IE. .NET 2.0/VS.NET 2k5 is even producing 100% standards compliant HTML code for controls, etc.
'it's got to get the final tier of reliability and predictability that I'm going to bet a multi-billion dollar corporation's future on.'
They can reliably predict that their Windows based servers will crash based on reliable and predictable conditions (i.e. The power is on.)
Surely that's what meant by reliable and predictable.... Someone bought into the Microsoft hype.
I'd wager he was referring to all the real science reports that he and his administration have either modified, forced their writers to modify, or have completley concealed when they show the true scientific facts instead of what he wants them to say. Combine that with his policy decisions that are obviously based on things other than scientific fact. This president doesn't agree with any science, unless it happens to say what he wants it to.