He encrypts the stuff on his computer, and suddenly the company no longes has access to the source?! This means there were no backups. And that means everyone involved was pretty stupid..
But what makes you think he would have thought to write "BEGIN TRANSACTION" (or maybe it was "BEGIN WORK"?) before starting the whole mess?
Especially if it's the first time you make a mistake like that..
Re:Open Source will change our civilisation.
on
Rebel Code
·
· Score: 1
E=mc^2, and once we figure out a practical way to use all the energy, energy-cost will really not be an issue.
Not that there aren't other factors that will make some things scarce anyway, but no small everyday thing will be expensive enough to make it worthwile to charge for it.
(Planets and the like will still be scarce though, of course. Living-space in general probably will.)
But napster (etc) is good for the unknown little guy. Very few people buy albums by artists they have never heard of, but you may well download such stuff (I know I do). Then, if it turns out to be good, you might go buy an album by them. (Or not of course, but it still ends up with more albums sold.) Provided they have albums of course. But if they don't, their popularity when free might convince someone to sign them..
I can choose to use a modem, yes. But this is
still better, so I use this. This does not mean I'm not entitled to complain. I would be perfectly willing to pay ten times as much to get reasonable terms of use for the same line (and that they actually cared when it went down). From day one (two or three years ago!) the answer has been that I'll have to wait until they offer a "commercial" alternative, and they never do, and obviously never will.
The only reason I can see for this is that they don't want my money. Which can't be it. So they must be idiots. And I hate that.
(Yes, I probably could run my own fiber or something, but the cost (including permits and stuff) is obviously waaaay above what I could pay. And I do BTW pay for four IPs.)
If there were competitors (there are not, no) I would be happy to go somewhere else, of course. Except that the "competitors" that do exist (*noone* has an option, you get the one you can get in your area, or you don't get anything) are usually just as bad..
(And the bit about not saying how much I get to use before they decide it's too much is just horrible. I don't use very much, so I don't worry, but some people might like to download lots of stuff, and I feel sorry for them.)
Do most people have a chioce? Mostly not, you
either use the one available (for "fast" access),
or you keep using a modem (which is more expensive even, since local calls are not free in most places).
Oh so it's been down the past week. Well, we know
you don't have a choice and will still use us. So
we don't care. Please don't call again. Thank you.
^-- That there is the attitude of my cable-ISP. And they have ludicrus terms too. (Only one computer (or four if you pay extra), no servers, we will cut you off if you use "too much" bandwith, we refuse to tell you how much this is, etc.)
But like you say, the 9585 is an MCA machine.
That counts for a sizeable increase in performance of anything not completely CPU+memory bound. (And besides, the 95x5s have a 64 bit memory-bus, a normal 486 doesn't. Or at least my 9595 has, and I would assume it did when it was a 486 too (same MB) (now P60).)
I have a crap ISA 486 (dx2/66) with two ne2k clones for my NAT-box, and it sometimes goes to about 10% time spent in interrupt-handlers, but otherwise it's about 1.5% max CPUuse for my cablemodem. A 486 is much better than needed for most (home) firewalls.
(Of course, with only 8mb RAM running a modern linux kernel is probably not so much fun.. A modern FreeBSD on mine (with 16mb) is fine though.)
Depends on what you mean by "one of these". The iPAQ can be expanded with a PCMCIA-slot. (But you can connect it to the net through an IRDA-modem too.. (Maybe not under Linux..))
*BSD is a much much better choice if you intend
to run qmail (and they do), at least was when linux was still
stuck with ext2. Why? Because ext2 doesn't garuantee that the file will still be there after a server crash, no matter what the program did (short of waiting way too long or sync()ing), unless you mount it sync, in which case bffs outperforms it greatly (and the BSD still wins).
(And in case you didn't know: qmail (unlike sendmail) will never lose mail in a server crash, provided you run it on a system that can keep the files over a crash.)
While this doesn't really seem very useful to me
(SQL is after all good at what it does..), it seems silly to make it for just one database. It's easier to use common APIs (ODBC?), or at least something custommade but generic, and try to keep the SQL generic too (nothing fancy is needed for this sort of thing anyway) from the start. It's soo much harder to change after the fact. (Not that they said anything about this, but I assume that means it's as MySQL-specific as it can be..)
It sounds like it. I *hate* that. It's bad enought that we have 2.x. It's almost, but not quite, enough to make you (me that is) run NetBSD just for that..
Everything I want has too high version numbers. Makes me depressed. Linux kernel 2.x. Debian 2.x. zsh 3.x. FreeBSD 4.x.. Damn..
Yes. A *dedicated* sysadmin is not a programmer. (Though he might be capable of being one.)
Thus there is a gap. I am a programmer and part-time sysadmin. In me there is not gap. =)
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget the chocolate. When there isn't enough in it, you can't call it chocolate. They suggested calling it fat instead. Appealing, no?
He encrypts the stuff on his computer, and suddenly the company no longes has access to the source?! This means there were no backups. And that means everyone involved was pretty stupid..
SELECT whatever FROM somewhere WHERE something ~ /somewhere.*over.*there/
No, but you can get more or less the same effect with most clients on OpenBSD:
Store temp-files on an MFS-filesystem (say /tmp).
Use encrypted swap.
Now the only place the file will ever be unencrypted is in RAM, and I doubt you'll ever be free of that. =)
(Well, anyone with r-access to the file while it's "live" in /tmp can read it, but still, it's much better than nothing.)
They saw the movie "Hackers"? Amazingly inaccurate, that movie.
And you can check it out here.
Especially if it's the first time you make a mistake like that..
Not that there aren't other factors that will make some things scarce anyway, but no small everyday thing will be expensive enough to make it worthwile to charge for it.
(Planets and the like will still be scarce though, of course. Living-space in general probably will.)
But napster (etc) is good for the unknown little guy. Very few people buy albums by artists they have never heard of, but you may well download such stuff (I know I do). Then, if it turns out to be good, you might go buy an album by them. (Or not of course, but it still ends up with more albums sold.) Provided they have albums of course. But if they don't, their popularity when free might convince someone to sign them..
The only reason I can see for this is that they don't want my money. Which can't be it. So they must be idiots. And I hate that.
(Yes, I probably could run my own fiber or something, but the cost (including permits and stuff) is obviously waaaay above what I could pay. And I do BTW pay for four IPs.)
If there were competitors (there are not, no) I would be happy to go somewhere else, of course. Except that the "competitors" that do exist (*noone* has an option, you get the one you can get in your area, or you don't get anything) are usually just as bad..
(And the bit about not saying how much I get to use before they decide it's too much is just horrible. I don't use very much, so I don't worry, but some people might like to download lots of stuff, and I feel sorry for them.)
Oh so it's been down the past week. Well, we know you don't have a choice and will still use us. So we don't care. Please don't call again. Thank you.
^-- That there is the attitude of my cable-ISP. And they have ludicrus terms too. (Only one computer (or four if you pay extra), no servers, we will cut you off if you use "too much" bandwith, we refuse to tell you how much this is, etc.)
I have a crap ISA 486 (dx2/66) with two ne2k clones for my NAT-box, and it sometimes goes to about 10% time spent in interrupt-handlers, but otherwise it's about 1.5% max CPUuse for my cablemodem. A 486 is much better than needed for most (home) firewalls.
(Of course, with only 8mb RAM running a modern linux kernel is probably not so much fun.. A modern FreeBSD on mine (with 16mb) is fine though.)
Damn I write too much..
Obviously, it will be saved at least once more, so I'll bet a bit into the future..
Depends on what you mean by "one of these". The iPAQ can be expanded with a PCMCIA-slot. (But you can connect it to the net through an IRDA-modem too.. (Maybe not under Linux..))
*BSD is a much much better choice if you intend to run qmail (and they do), at least was when linux was still stuck with ext2. Why? Because ext2 doesn't garuantee that the file will still be there after a server crash, no matter what the program did (short of waiting way too long or sync()ing), unless you mount it sync, in which case bffs outperforms it greatly (and the BSD still wins). (And in case you didn't know: qmail (unlike sendmail) will never lose mail in a server crash, provided you run it on a system that can keep the files over a crash.)
While this doesn't really seem very useful to me (SQL is after all good at what it does..), it seems silly to make it for just one database. It's easier to use common APIs (ODBC?), or at least something custommade but generic, and try to keep the SQL generic too (nothing fancy is needed for this sort of thing anyway) from the start. It's soo much harder to change after the fact. (Not that they said anything about this, but I assume that means it's as MySQL-specific as it can be..)
Everything I want has too high version numbers. Makes me depressed. Linux kernel 2.x. Debian 2.x. zsh 3.x. FreeBSD 4.x.. Damn..
But anyone can get a server certificate. Sure, it won't have to same user-info as that in the server, but how many users check that?
Yes. A *dedicated* sysadmin is not a programmer. (Though he might be capable of being one.) Thus there is a gap. I am a programmer and part-time sysadmin. In me there is not gap. =)
> We devote ourselves to the machine
Am I the only one thinking of Fred Saberhagens Berserker-books now? =)