It depends on their plan. I know we had a former employee run up a huge phone bill using our 800 number to dial in and use us as internet access.
Sure helped me illustrate my point about deleting accounts of former workers.
We are a fairly small company, before you jump all over this... It's hard to convince small company small time people to take computer security seriously.
Yeah, but how many users have at least a few non-mainstream needs? I'd wager on 50.000000% or more.:)
MS can play to the masses that just want an email/web applicance, but for people who do real work with the computer as a tool (not an applicance), we'll just continue to use non-MS OS's.
Yeah but look at part (b). You also must accept interference. Two people with Part 15 devices that interfere with each other have to work it out between themselves. The FCC only gets involved if a Part 15 device is interfering with licensed users, like hamradio, police radar, TV, commercial radio, etc.
Also, we should be careful when using the word "bandwidth" when talking wireless Internet. In the quote above, I think that it is supposed to mean datarates. However, bandwidth from an RF perspective can also mean frequency range
You are correct in that we must be careful with terminology, but even taken to mean RF bandwidth, my statement is still true.
At lower frequencies, bands will tend to be smaller. The 2.4Ghz band, IIRC is a couple hundred Mhz across. The 900Mhz band is only what... 5mhz wide?
These numbers are just off the top of my head, but I think you see my point.
Lower frequencies that can penetrate walls and trees aren't likely going to give you anything you'd consider broadband speeds. You might be able to get a couple Mbits at 900Mhz, but once you get more than a few people sharing it, it's not going to be so hot. To go even lower means less and less bandwidth available.
People who ask IBM for recommendations and support are generally the kind of people that want RH Enterprise Linux.
You are correct though, in that Red Hat is abandoning an entire market of small sites that don't want or need Enterprise Linux, they only need errata and more than 12 months of it.
It's not just her, I've seen many other half-baked reviews from that site. In generally it just seems like the writers don't know jack about the things they write about.
So if I take something at version 10 and rename it version 1, it's suddenly more forgivable if it sucks?
Anyway, that said, I think Fedora Core 1 is pretty nice, there is definitely more responsiveness, it looks like all those lowlatency patches and stuff are finally paying off, before Fedora test.95 or so, I really didn't see much difference, in fact it seemed worse, my xmms would skip a lot when changing desktops, and the kernel wouldn't let me nice anything, it would always renice X if I tried to give it less priority to keep xmms from skipping.
How do you do that? Every time I've seen someone try to replace major hardware components in Windows, the copy protection kicks in and you get a blue screen with a HAL error.
I've built many different storage servers, CPU is definitely not a limiting factor with most, unless you are doing software RAID5 and also running applications on the server.
I mostly use 3ware cards, with their hardware RAID5, or something from ACNC. The ACNC solution is nice, it costs a little more, but you still get to use cheap SATA hard disks, so the bang for the buck is still very high compared to legacy storage systems like SCSI.
You know, the funny thing is, non-mac users kept telling you all how much MacOS sucked and was behind the times, but mac users would defend it to the death. Now that OS X is out, it seems like the Mac users realized they were wrong all along.
Slashdot Mirror
This one time, at band camp...
So people who don't know that disabling an account doesn't really disable the account are morons?
It sounds like you are blaming the user for flaws in the software.
It depends on their plan. I know we had a former employee run up a huge phone bill using our 800 number to dial in and use us as internet access.
Sure helped me illustrate my point about deleting accounts of former workers.
We are a fairly small company, before you jump all over this... It's hard to convince small company small time people to take computer security seriously.
Yeah, but how many users have at least a few non-mainstream needs? I'd wager on 50.000000% or more. :)
MS can play to the masses that just want an email/web applicance, but for people who do real work with the computer as a tool (not an applicance), we'll just continue to use non-MS OS's.
Yeah but look at part (b). You also must accept interference. Two people with Part 15 devices that interfere with each other have to work it out between themselves. The FCC only gets involved if a Part 15 device is interfering with licensed users, like hamradio, police radar, TV, commercial radio, etc.
Heh, as a Ham radio operator, I can sympathize.
:)
I should have remembered it was 902-928, it's the same as our ham band, that all you Part 15 guys have made useless for ham radio.
Irony eh?
Welcome back!
Also, we should be careful when using the word "bandwidth" when talking wireless Internet. In the quote above, I think that it is supposed to mean datarates. However, bandwidth from an RF perspective can also mean frequency range
You are correct in that we must be careful with terminology, but even taken to mean RF bandwidth, my statement is still true.
At lower frequencies, bands will tend to be smaller. The 2.4Ghz band, IIRC is a couple hundred Mhz across. The 900Mhz band is only what... 5mhz wide?
These numbers are just off the top of my head, but I think you see my point.
Lower frequencies that can penetrate walls and trees aren't likely going to give you anything you'd consider broadband speeds. You might be able to get a couple Mbits at 900Mhz, but once you get more than a few people sharing it, it's not going to be so hot. To go even lower means less and less bandwidth available.
Thanks for the link, that is some helpful info.
People who ask IBM for recommendations and support are generally the kind of people that want RH Enterprise Linux.
You are correct though, in that Red Hat is abandoning an entire market of small sites that don't want or need Enterprise Linux, they only need errata and more than 12 months of it.
It's not just her, I've seen many other half-baked reviews from that site. In generally it just seems like the writers don't know jack about the things they write about.
So if you take an XP box, and change to a completely different motherboard and boot up, everything will just work? Like Linux has done for years?
Won't it make you activate it again?
So if I take something at version 10 and rename it version 1, it's suddenly more forgivable if it sucks?
.95 or so, I really didn't see much difference, in fact it seemed worse, my xmms would skip a lot when changing desktops, and the kernel wouldn't let me nice anything, it would always renice X if I tried to give it less priority to keep xmms from skipping.
Anyway, that said, I think Fedora Core 1 is pretty nice, there is definitely more responsiveness, it looks like all those lowlatency patches and stuff are finally paying off, before Fedora test
How do you do that? Every time I've seen someone try to replace major hardware components in Windows, the copy protection kicks in and you get a blue screen with a HAL error.
RIP Linux is better if you don't need a GUI. It's only 30 megs or so, so you can burn it onto a business card sized CD.
And even if they wern't, it would be putting money back into the economy which is never a bad thing...
Are you seriously asserting that government spending is never a bad thing?
Under the spreading chestnut tree, I sold you and you sold me.
If they have implemented said alorithms, why is the performance still so bad?
It's written in Java. As much as Java zealots deny it, the fact remains that Java apps are all really bloated and slow.
I've built many different storage servers, CPU is definitely not a limiting factor with most, unless you are doing software RAID5 and also running applications on the server.
I mostly use 3ware cards, with their hardware RAID5, or something from ACNC. The ACNC solution is nice, it costs a little more, but you still get to use cheap SATA hard disks, so the bang for the buck is still very high compared to legacy storage systems like SCSI.
Arts was an attempt at this, sorta. It's abandoned now, last I heard.
I don't see why you call that a troll, he's right, and further, you even agree with him!
The only link I see on that page is the one about using the clock chip off a motherboard. Are you in the process of updating it or something?
You admit to being responsible for installing spyware on thousands of people's computers?
I hope they catch you some day. You are no better than any other virus writer.
You know, the funny thing is, non-mac users kept telling you all how much MacOS sucked and was behind the times, but mac users would defend it to the death. Now that OS X is out, it seems like the Mac users realized they were wrong all along.