Firefox's 20% seems to be doing fairly well *without* ActiveX.
And this is a bullshit reason - ActiveX is a fucking piece of shit from a security point of view. Why would any sane person want to support it if they were not forced into it? With websites now working well with FireFox and understanding that being standards compliant is a good thing, we are now moving back into the "All the world is IE"?
And they call themselves non-evil?!
Mucking Forons, all who support ActiveX in Chrome.
I call bullshit. I had a dual 1.4ghz/2G ram box sitting in the bedroom that swmbo and I shared. A friend gave me a powermac 450Mhz that had OS X 10.1 on it. As we upgraded to 10.2 and 10.3, we could see the speed increase. In fact, over a period of 6 months, both swmbo and I migrated to the 450Mhz OS X box simply because the usability factors outweigh anything else.
H1B is not just 3rd world - 1st world programmers have to come in via H1B visas as well.
I think what you want to say is lousy sucky programmers put out lousy sucky code, and that's not something that only H1Bs do. Plenty of lousy sucky American born programmers as well.
That's because you're a fucking moron - you're a engineer? Show me your engineering degree.
Anyone who was around would know that SCSI was damned expensive in those days, compared to what an average person makes - but it was still DAMNED CHEAP compared to the storage on the mainframes.
But/. seems to be invaded by loudmouth knowitalls who knows better than the PhDs who created the damned technology. Sure, *YOU* are an engineer because *YOU* decide *YOUR* definition is better than the guys who came up with the idea, and implemented it, whereas those of us who agree with those guys are mere laypeople. HOW FUCKING ARROGANT CAN THESE FUCKERS GET?
Oh great. Another moron who thinks a physical slot == a full bus. That's why have hacks around the damned IRQs - the original IBM PC had 8 physical slots too, but, you know what, it's damned funny how 8 IRQ signals wasn't enough.
I bet you think you will get 100% utilization on all the CPUs if you can stick 100 cpus in a box too, right?
Nobody is saying it doesn't work. What you are building, and what Sun built are two entirely different classes of equipment. If you don't understand that, and still believe your Yugo can outperform a Lexus, more power to you.
A desktop OS is a kernel plus programs that create the desktop analogy that allows users to interact with client programs.
And I'm confused - since Windows Server 2003 (or 2008 for that matter) runs with a desktop, internet explorer, outlook, media player, etc etc, does that make that a desktop OS?
So what's a citrix box then? Server or Desktop? What about a Vmware box running virtualized XP instances?
So, just because Microsoft forces you to use different programs arbitrarily, you consider that the defining line for "server" and "desktop"? Explain to me why a "server" needs a integrated "browser" with "media player" then.
And someone who doesn't understand what fedora is, and what rhell is probably shouldn't be discussing why one's server and one's not. Wait, that sounded a bit rude. Well, it's not meant to be. But you need to find out why fedora came about, and what is redcrap's intention for it before making definitive statements on what it is and is not.
Won't work. I still play starcraft and broodwar. I'm definitely not interested in paying more to play it. For your scheme to work, the subscription price needs to be small enough to entice me to continue to pay. At that level, the publishers aren't interested. What they are interested is the $15 or whatever people continue to pay for World of Warcraft. What they don't understand is that there's only *one* microsoft, *one* world of warcraft.
And furthermore, everyone knows Sun RRPs are just there to make the discounts they then offer you look better. No-one pays more than 50-80% of that if you buy more than a couple of things at a time and you have a decent VAR.
Oh man, you haven't seen IBM work that game. There's retail. Then there's preferred which is about 1/2 X. Then there's the "just because we love you discount" bringing things down to about 2/5 X. Still above reasonable, but, hey, senior management never got fired for buying IBM right?
Then, next year, you find out what the annual support and maintenance cost. 20%. Of the freaking *RETAIL* price.
I'm not sure which part of ZFS is considered "old". Glad RAID is working out for you. Be happy that you have not hit any of the issues that RAID has.
But we're in the terabyte size drive age now. If all you can do is raid, your data is going to go bye bye. You need ZFS. Go google for the intro paper they wrote on why use ZFS.
It's not like you can just grab 3 1TB SATA drives, throw them into RAID-5 and say that you've got 2TB of production ready storage. Well, you can, but you'd be an idiot.
That's exactly what Google and many others do, and they spend their money, and significantly less than this, on managing that storage effectively. It works. When it boils down to it, you can have all the exorbitantly expensive and brilliant 'enterprise ready' tools you want but the bottom line is you need redundancy - and that's pretty much it.
You're trolling, right? You spend money for reliability either on hardware engineering, or software engineering. If you're doing things on the scale Google is, obviously it saves you more money to do software engineering, since that can be replicated easily on a large scale. For most companies, even "enterprises", hardware reliability gives you a better bang for the buck, because you can't bloody afford multiple data centers.
You're not reading what you quoted. The hardware to *DRIVE* the HDs are not cheap. You're not talking about using ONE PCI bus for the entire server, for example.
Again - just because Microsoft says it is true doesn't make it so.
What is a server? The workload is different from a desktop? That's it?
So - what is the difference between a database server and a web server? What about file server?
So now we're talking about 4 different OSes then? Desktop/database server/webserver/file server?
That's all just bullshit. Oh, wait, you said something about tuning for additional cpus and how it uses more or less resources. That's just bullshit. How much of a performance delta are you talking about? Less than 1%? In which case, the damned screen saver you used would have more impact.
Slashdot Mirror
Firefox's 20% seems to be doing fairly well *without* ActiveX.
And this is a bullshit reason - ActiveX is a fucking piece of shit from a security point of view. Why would any sane person want to support it if they were not forced into it? With websites now working well with FireFox and understanding that being standards compliant is a good thing, we are now moving back into the "All the world is IE"?
And they call themselves non-evil?!
Mucking Forons, all who support ActiveX in Chrome.
I was in two minds about it, until I typed:
about:plugins
and the first line said - ActiveX
then I said no thank you, and moved on.
I call bullshit. I had a dual 1.4ghz/2G ram box sitting in the bedroom that swmbo and I shared. A friend gave me a powermac 450Mhz that had OS X 10.1 on it. As we upgraded to 10.2 and 10.3, we could see the speed increase. In fact, over a period of 6 months, both swmbo and I migrated to the 450Mhz OS X box simply because the usability factors outweigh anything else.
So, if you replace "system" with "shit" or "windows", do you still stand by it?
This just means that she gets to work on her creativity as well! Better living through household chemicals with additional help from the oven!
H1B is not just 3rd world - 1st world programmers have to come in via H1B visas as well.
I think what you want to say is lousy sucky programmers put out lousy sucky code, and that's not something that only H1Bs do. Plenty of lousy sucky American born programmers as well.
DAMNIT! Your Fruitcake card is hereby revoked!
Rule 0 - Do not talk about the Fruitcake.
Damn, you're right. Heh. I should know that. I claim being half asleep when I posted. Or something.
ahahahahahahahaha :)
That's because you're a fucking moron - you're a engineer? Show me your engineering degree.
Anyone who was around would know that SCSI was damned expensive in those days, compared to what an average person makes - but it was still DAMNED CHEAP compared to the storage on the mainframes.
But /. seems to be invaded by loudmouth knowitalls who knows better than the PhDs who created the damned technology. Sure, *YOU* are an engineer because *YOU* decide *YOUR* definition is better than the guys who came up with the idea, and implemented it, whereas those of us who agree with those guys are mere laypeople. HOW FUCKING ARROGANT CAN THESE FUCKERS GET?
Oh great. Another moron who thinks a physical slot == a full bus. That's why have hacks around the damned IRQs - the original IBM PC had 8 physical slots too, but, you know what, it's damned funny how 8 IRQ signals wasn't enough.
I bet you think you will get 100% utilization on all the CPUs if you can stick 100 cpus in a box too, right?
To the mucking foron who modded me down - go read the original paper on it. But if you could read, you wouldn't have modded me down.
Nobody is saying it doesn't work. What you are building, and what Sun built are two entirely different classes of equipment. If you don't understand that, and still believe your Yugo can outperform a Lexus, more power to you.
A desktop OS is a kernel plus programs that create the desktop analogy that allows users to interact with client programs.
And I'm confused - since Windows Server 2003 (or 2008 for that matter) runs with a desktop, internet explorer, outlook, media player, etc etc, does that make that a desktop OS?
So what's a citrix box then? Server or Desktop? What about a Vmware box running virtualized XP instances?
So, just because Microsoft forces you to use different programs arbitrarily, you consider that the defining line for "server" and "desktop"? Explain to me why a "server" needs a integrated "browser" with "media player" then.
And someone who doesn't understand what fedora is, and what rhell is probably shouldn't be discussing why one's server and one's not. Wait, that sounded a bit rude. Well, it's not meant to be. But you need to find out why fedora came about, and what is redcrap's intention for it before making definitive statements on what it is and is not.
Won't work. I still play starcraft and broodwar. I'm definitely not interested in paying more to play it. For your scheme to work, the subscription price needs to be small enough to entice me to continue to pay. At that level, the publishers aren't interested. What they are interested is the $15 or whatever people continue to pay for World of Warcraft. What they don't understand is that there's only *one* microsoft, *one* world of warcraft.
If you can't understand what I wrote, go back to trolling newegg please, kthx hand
And furthermore, everyone knows Sun RRPs are just there to make the discounts they then offer you look better. No-one pays more than 50-80% of that if you buy more than a couple of things at a time and you have a decent VAR.
Oh man, you haven't seen IBM work that game. There's retail. Then there's preferred which is about 1/2 X. Then there's the "just because we love you discount" bringing things down to about 2/5 X. Still above reasonable, but, hey, senior management never got fired for buying IBM right?
Then, next year, you find out what the annual support and maintenance cost. 20%. Of the freaking *RETAIL* price.
It does, using Fuse. If OP used ZFS via Fuse for production boxes, he's a bigger moron than I thought possible.
I'm not sure which part of ZFS is considered "old". Glad RAID is working out for you. Be happy that you have not hit any of the issues that RAID has.
But we're in the terabyte size drive age now. If all you can do is raid, your data is going to go bye bye. You need ZFS. Go google for the intro paper they wrote on why use ZFS.
Oh great. Another revisionist. RAID is Inexpensive, quit fucking around with the terminology.
It's not like you can just grab 3 1TB SATA drives, throw them into RAID-5 and say that you've got 2TB of production ready storage. Well, you can, but you'd be an idiot.
That's exactly what Google and many others do, and they spend their money, and significantly less than this, on managing that storage effectively. It works. When it boils down to it, you can have all the exorbitantly expensive and brilliant 'enterprise ready' tools you want but the bottom line is you need redundancy - and that's pretty much it.
You're trolling, right? You spend money for reliability either on hardware engineering, or software engineering. If you're doing things on the scale Google is, obviously it saves you more money to do software engineering, since that can be replicated easily on a large scale. For most companies, even "enterprises", hardware reliability gives you a better bang for the buck, because you can't bloody afford multiple data centers.
You're not reading what you quoted. The hardware to *DRIVE* the HDs are not cheap. You're not talking about using ONE PCI bus for the entire server, for example.
Again - just because Microsoft says it is true doesn't make it so.
What is a server? The workload is different from a desktop? That's it?
So - what is the difference between a database server and a web server? What about file server?
So now we're talking about 4 different OSes then? Desktop/database server/webserver/file server?
That's all just bullshit. Oh, wait, you said something about tuning for additional cpus and how it uses more or less resources. That's just bullshit. How much of a performance delta are you talking about? Less than 1%? In which case, the damned screen saver you used would have more impact.
Stop smoking that bullshit, will ya?
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/199609/msg00023.html
Just because you bought into Microsoft's "server" and "desktop" versions doesn't make it true ya know.