I think it's great to be optimistic about linux growth. Nobody knows what's gonna happen in 5 years...
I agree. I just don't think Linux is "on the verge of driving out Microsoft" anytime soon. It takes a whole lot more than a good product to become a market leader.
Dell's support usually kicks ass. I recently had a monitor go bad (still had 6 months left of a 3-year warranty) and I had the replacement in 20 hours. Similar experiences in the past with hard drives, RAID controllers, etc.
This singular example is unfair to Dell. True, this model seems to have a design flaw. However, many other support organizations would probably blame this problem on user error, and make you eat the cost of replacement.
Dell has already spent lots o' money on you. Replacing this 2-year-old machine with a new one is out of the question. Just be glad they did what they did, and be more careful with those hinges.
Snarkiness aside . . . while it's easy for a for-profit to get an unclaimed.org, I think it would be a challenge to demonstrate rights to one in court.
... but I've often wondered if popular-candy-company would come along and snatch a.org...
I doubt it. Unless there's a Snickers Foundation or a Whatchamacallit Children's Fund, a for-profit candy company would have a hard time claiming rights to the.org name.
Anyone know how many turns of a coil runnig at 1Amp you'd need to make a 1cm by 1cm crosssection of this sort of stuff remain rigid against a newton of shear?
This is absolutely the future of commercial computing. Each new release of each major vendor's flagship database product is increasingly self-tuning, and these systems generally run better than their manually-tuned predecessors (due in part to the shortage of skilled workers).
The more that can be done automatically, the more of the IT staff's precious time can be dedicated to more complex tuning tasks, and/or new development. This will make IT more effective, not obsolete.
SubSelects: You don't need to do these, it can be worked around pretty easily.
Views: Good ridance. A maintenance nightmare.
You clearly have no knowledge whatsoever of databases. Maybe you don't use subselects in CS102: Intro to Databases, but there are many things that can ONLY be accomplished with subselects. The simplest subselects would be worked around using temporary tables (which unnecessarily complicates the application), and the more complex requirements cannot be worked around at all (go look up "nested subquery").
Views are one of the greatest things ever to happen to a real-world database system. Various applications like their data organized in different ways, and the creation of views allows a single dataset to be used for all. The workaround is to create and populate separate tables (now that's a "maintenance nightmare").
The bottom line: a "mission-critical" database needs to support these things, and the others listed above. People would much rather use a different system that supports these features than rewrite their existing applications around the limitations of MySQL.
Word is smart because it cheats by late-loading components. Sure it pops up in a second or two, but then if you load the Find+Replace dialog box, it grinds for a couple more seconds. And so on for other features.
So you might say . . . it chains together small components as needed?
Something monolithic must be starting, otherwise why does Word take so long to load, even on the fastest machine?
Word 97 takes 4 seconds to load here at work. That's on a P3-600, 128M, running NT4. I've got loads of applications running, including a long-running SQL Server insert query against a million-row test table (that resides on this machine), taking up 100% of the CPU.
And that's before memory caching kicks in . . . if I close it and open it again, it takes ~1.5 seconds.
Say what you will about Word, but it ain't slow.
Re:Rotten dot com expresses all of our feelings:
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2
chmod a+x/bin/laden
I guess that would be the trial. After that, you need one more command:
/bin/laden
Re:space imaging nyc image 09/12/2001
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2
Having lived in the South and not lived in the South, I can assure you bigotry lives everywhere. In the West, it seems to be focussed more on the Latin American and Mormon populations, because they are the prevalent minorities. In the South, African-Americans are the prevalent minority.
You're fooling yourself if you really believe Californians have risen above it. Bigotry lives everywhere.
Re:space imaging nyc image 09/12/2001
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2
If you don't live in the South, you might want to move there. I hear they have a lot of bigots down there also. ... I bet you've always thought of yourself as not one of "them". Welcome to their club.
heh . . . welcome to the club yourself. A generalization is a generalization. Bigotry lives everywhere.
486 DX processor.
2MB System RAM (4MB recommended). At least 2MB Hard drive space. This struck me as funny. I understand the point they're trying to make, but does this mean I'd better go out and get that 2MB upgrade I've been looking at for the past ten years for the 486DX I intend to run this on?
I'd like to see an object data model (ODM) open source database come into the scene. Now that would cause a ruckus, challenging both the bottom line and validity of the relational model!
Yeah, all the companies would immediately say "Let's base the future of our business on new and untested technology! Better yet, let's buy it from an unknown vendor!"
Please. The reason relational databases are still very much the dominant technology is that they work, they work well, and they've been working well for decades.
Oracle is saying that the Open Source comunity is not 'capable' of producing a dominant database
No. The point is that the design of a great DBMS takes a lot more unity than the large-scale projects OSS has tackled previously. In a DBMS, there must be an internal set of standards for everything from datatypes to join optimization logic.
Databases just don't lend themselves to fragmented development the way operating systems do. Frankly, I'm skeptical that an OSS project could (using current development practices) pull together and produce something as capable and stable as DB2 or Oracle.
The article mentions that the extreme complexity of database management systems is a barrier, which is true. There is one other thing the commercial vendors have that is a big challenge for the "underdog" OSS vendors: trust.
Companies keep everything on database systems. Hundreds of geek-hours must go into the design of a database application for a company. Whatever system a company chooses, they must be reasonably sure the system will:
almost never fail
be supported by a stable company and
integrate well with other systems, into the future.
A smaller price tag may be a good start to target smaller companies that don't rely heavily on database applications, but the reason Oracle can charge $15k/CPU for 9i Standard: the reputation is worth it.
I sit in an Aeron at work, and it's great! Truly comfortable for sitting on one's ass for many hours straight.
Of course, there's no way in hell I'd pay the $700 for one of these at home . . . but the laid-off VP whose office I lifted this one from doesn't seem to mind.
No, it's not entrapment. Entrapment involves a law enforcement agent enticing someone to commit a crime they otherwise would not have committed, had the agent not been involved.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. I just don't think Linux is "on the verge of driving out Microsoft" anytime soon. It takes a whole lot more than a good product to become a market leader.
Amen. The Optiplex is a rock-solid machine, and you do get what you pay for.
This singular example is unfair to Dell. True, this model seems to have a design flaw. However, many other support organizations would probably blame this problem on user error, and make you eat the cost of replacement.
Dell has already spent lots o' money on you. Replacing this 2-year-old machine with a new one is out of the question. Just be glad they did what they did, and be more careful with those hinges.
Just keep telling yourself that.
Snarkiness aside . . . while it's easy for a for-profit to get an unclaimed .org, I think it would be a challenge to demonstrate rights to one in court.
I doubt it. Unless there's a Snickers Foundation or a Whatchamacallit Children's Fund, a for-profit candy company would have a hard time claiming rights to the .org name.
42.
That's why it's encouraging that IBM is doing it, not some BS startup.
The more that can be done automatically, the more of the IT staff's precious time can be dedicated to more complex tuning tasks, and/or new development. This will make IT more effective, not obsolete.
Clearly, it's optimized for applications that perform
select *
from table1
over and over and over again.
Views: Good ridance. A maintenance nightmare.
You clearly have no knowledge whatsoever of databases. Maybe you don't use subselects in CS102: Intro to Databases, but there are many things that can ONLY be accomplished with subselects. The simplest subselects would be worked around using temporary tables (which unnecessarily complicates the application), and the more complex requirements cannot be worked around at all (go look up "nested subquery").
Views are one of the greatest things ever to happen to a real-world database system. Various applications like their data organized in different ways, and the creation of views allows a single dataset to be used for all. The workaround is to create and populate separate tables (now that's a "maintenance nightmare").
The bottom line: a "mission-critical" database needs to support these things, and the others listed above. People would much rather use a different system that supports these features than rewrite their existing applications around the limitations of MySQL.
So you might say . . . it chains together small components as needed?
Word 97 takes 4 seconds to load here at work. That's on a P3-600, 128M, running NT4. I've got loads of applications running, including a long-running SQL Server insert query against a million-row test table (that resides on this machine), taking up 100% of the CPU.
And that's before memory caching kicks in . . . if I close it and open it again, it takes ~1.5 seconds.
Say what you will about Word, but it ain't slow.
I guess that would be the trial. After that, you need one more command:
/bin/laden
You're fooling yourself if you really believe Californians have risen above it. Bigotry lives everywhere.
...
I bet you've always thought of yourself as not one of "them". Welcome to their club.
heh . . . welcome to the club yourself. A generalization is a generalization. Bigotry lives everywhere.
I can't imagine the new possibilities for http://goatse.cx. No, I won't imagine it.
486 DX processor.
2MB System RAM (4MB recommended).
At least 2MB Hard drive space. This struck me as funny. I understand the point they're trying to make, but does this mean I'd better go out and get that 2MB upgrade I've been looking at for the past ten years for the 486DX I intend to run this on?
- It's a PDA that's, uh, not portable
- It's a phone that costs way too much
- It's a complete overuse of technology
Gimme a freakin' break, and some freakin' technology that's useful!Yeah, all the companies would immediately say "Let's base the future of our business on new and untested technology! Better yet, let's buy it from an unknown vendor!"
Please. The reason relational databases are still very much the dominant technology is that they work, they work well, and they've been working well for decades.
No. The point is that the design of a great DBMS takes a lot more unity than the large-scale projects OSS has tackled previously. In a DBMS, there must be an internal set of standards for everything from datatypes to join optimization logic.
Databases just don't lend themselves to fragmented development the way operating systems do. Frankly, I'm skeptical that an OSS project could (using current development practices) pull together and produce something as capable and stable as DB2 or Oracle.
Companies keep everything on database systems. Hundreds of geek-hours must go into the design of a database application for a company. Whatever system a company chooses, they must be reasonably sure the system will:
- almost never fail
- be supported by a stable company and
- integrate well with other systems, into the future.
A smaller price tag may be a good start to target smaller companies that don't rely heavily on database applications, but the reason Oracle can charge $15k/CPU for 9i Standard: the reputation is worth it.Of course, there's no way in hell I'd pay the $700 for one of these at home . . . but the laid-off VP whose office I lifted this one from doesn't seem to mind.
No, it's not entrapment. Entrapment involves a law enforcement agent enticing someone to commit a crime they otherwise would not have committed, had the agent not been involved.
i guess the mods thought it was silly for you to point out the obvious