Does the red hat version of apt-get (yum? I've used debian exclusively for a long time, so I forget what command it was) not prompt you when it wants to overwrite a config file? On any debian (or debian derived) machine I've used, apt-get always asks what you want to do if your config file is different than the package's.
If yum(?) blows away configs without prompting, that's pretty bad.
To be sure, red hat ballsed it up, but if you're running a service that "can't go down", you HAVE to test your patches out. If you don't have spare physical machines, test them in a virtual machine or repartion your workstation to have enough room for a server install.
If it's important enough to not go down, it's important enough to test.
A good example would be PhysX processors or ultra-high end soundcards, NOT rambus. Rambus was prohibitively expensive and high latency to boot. Dual channel DDR + clock scaling came across and ate its lunch.
Sorry, I misinterpreted what you said. It's hard to get inflection out of text.
There are, however, many "SEO evangelists" (for lack of a better term) who get ludicrously defensive about their professions. I must've mentally associated you with them. Sorry.
>> But if I have a website selling Apple Pies and I link every instance of the word "Apple Pie" to the front page of the site, how, really, can you have an issue with that?
Because it's fucking annoying? It boggles my mind that somehow that would make a site more 'interesting'. That's a prime example of what I said in the other part of the thread. Switching between fonts/colors/underline every couple words is just painful, and nobody would want to read a site like that. I wish everyone would turn that +site_ranking into a -site_ranking. Thank god that google doesn't give a +site_ranking to people that combine flash and marquee tags together, otherwise it would be all over the place.
I don't understand the vitriol when people suggest SEO is unethical.
Since you've been a professional in that industry for a decade, there won't be any sense in trying to get you to see it from the other side, but the SEO industry, by and large, produces negative externalities that they don't take into account. Google, et al spend a lot of time figuring out what is 'interesting', and you game the system. Good for you, good for your clients, but bad for everyone else who has to put up with searching for something and finding a shitty shitty website with no content, but millions of links back within itself. Of course, my time doesn't matter to you, it's just the number of eyeballs you get to the page.
It's an arms race, but unlike a conventional arms race (with guns and such), you don't have any threat from your competitors, just from getting banhammered by google. Every once in a while, people get hammered, but it's not nearly enough to keep the unscrupulous people from keeping going.
So yes, I do see a giant difference between paying google $50k for advertising and paying you $25k (or whatever the price is) to 'Optimize' a website. If you want prominence on google or whatever other website, either pay the market price for an advertisement, or make a legitimately interesting website. When you 'optimise' a site to make it more interesting than it really is, it's just disappointing.
>And ethically -- I don't see how you can argue that it's OK for a company to be on the top of the search results page if they pay Google $200k a month, but dammit, if they create a lot of internal links on their site they're doing something wrong.
The difference to me as a consumer is that Google tries to delineate when a link is a 'sponsored link' and when it's legitimate because of it's organic rank. In my mind, the difference is big, and I handle the two different kinds of 'attention' differently.
Fair enough, I hadn't thought about that. But a hypothetical 3000x2000*32bpp framebuffer takes up ~170 megs of ram. A more reasonable framebuffer of 1024x768 takes up 25 megs. Neither of those are anywhere close to the 1.75Gigs the GP was talking about. Texture memory isn't memory mapped (excluding space for the AGP window)
If you're typing a reply and then expand A GP post, it erases the reply you were writing. Kinda frustrating when you need to recheck what someone said.
Also, even when I"m logged in (with good karma), I don't have the option to submit directly, and the preview button often hangs.
Graphics card memory won't be normally addressable with regular CPU opcodes, would they? You have to manually pipe data across the PCI/AGP/PCIe busses to make it to the card. They certainly don't sit in process address space.
x86-64 is a superset of x86. Visual Studio works under X86-64
While the IDE doesn't run under IA64, microsoft has a feature where you can run the IDE on one machine and then remotely compile/debug on the Itanium machine.
I love the idea of other architechtures as much as the next person, but realistically, unless there's a seismic shift in the computing world, I'll never use anything but X86 on my workstations. It's a poor argument when arguing for OSS software.
AFAIK, visual studio is separate from the microsoft compiling toolchain (I seem to remember you can use mingw with it), so you can cross-compile your targets to other architechtures (for example embedded devices)
Yeah, you're right. The pound is a measure of force, so it's mass * gravity when you're measuring an orange (for example). The equivalent unit in the imperial system to the kg is the slug, which is 1 pound / gravity (which I think is 16.4 ft/sec^2 in the imperial system)
That's true, but if he's talking about graphics things, there is a LOT that is emulated. Google "DIB engine wine" for a look.
Basically, unless you're using DirectX/OpenGL, windows makes assumptions about the graphics layer that can't be directly done in X. AFAIK (it's hard to understand), many of the earlier windows libraries give the program direct shared access to where they are rendering, but X11 has the program and the actualy framebuffer divided by the X11 layer. Emulating that blows in terms of performance.
If his program is using directX, there is also an emulation layer to convert the calls to opengl.
Who gets to decide what is acceptable and what isn't?
What's different between our actions that allows mine to be chastised and yours to be immune? It's not like I said that your breathing was a harm to society. That would be extreme. Pointing out that using a computer (I'm going to assume that you live in either the US or EU due to your english level) which probably has chips that were produced in foundries in Taiwan, shipped to China, assembled and then shipped again around the world to wherever you lived might be equally harmful as taking a flight from US->EU. I don't think it's an absurd stretch to say the two actions have a comparable amount of environmental impact.
So, again, who gets to decide what is acceptable and what isn't? What criteria does that individual (or group) use?
Seriously. Why do you care if I quote my height in feet rather than in meters while I'm in the US?
When I'm in other countries, I use metric. When I deal with other countries, I use metric. If I'm building a house, I use the imperial system and it's not a big deal.
From your english level, it sounds like you're a native english speaker. Should we insist that everyone speak english? I think it's an undue burden to have to translate all the time.
(before the, "You're an american, you probably don't speak any languages". I'm trilingual. My parents are Brazilian and I speak Portuguese at home, and I've studied and spent a significant amount of time in Germany, so my German's not shabby either)
If you want to look at it that way, EVERYONE pays for EVERY choice that ANYONE makes.
Unless you want everyone to move back to a primitive sustenance farming situation, where your actions will only affect your immediate surroundings, you'll have to accept that people living and doing the things people do has an effect on the world around us.
I see you're typing on a PC, are we all supposed to pay for that choice you made? (with few exceptions) Producing electronics and shipping them 1/2way across the world has tons of externalities.
Slashdot Mirror
Does the red hat version of apt-get (yum? I've used debian exclusively for a long time, so I forget what command it was) not prompt you when it wants to overwrite a config file? On any debian (or debian derived) machine I've used, apt-get always asks what you want to do if your config file is different than the package's.
If yum(?) blows away configs without prompting, that's pretty bad.
To be sure, red hat ballsed it up, but if you're running a service that "can't go down", you HAVE to test your patches out. If you don't have spare physical machines, test them in a virtual machine or repartion your workstation to have enough room for a server install.
If it's important enough to not go down, it's important enough to test.
A good example would be PhysX processors or ultra-high end soundcards, NOT rambus. Rambus was prohibitively expensive and high latency to boot. Dual channel DDR + clock scaling came across and ate its lunch.
Reread my above comment and replace 'interesting' with 'relevant to my interests'. I'm not trying to make the statement that somehow Google is:
"You see Google as a great chartiable organization that tries to "find out what's interesting.""
I'm not saying it's out of altruism, it was a poor choice of words on my (and others, apparently) part.
Reread it and comment on my assertion that SEOs are, in effect, trading on negative externalities.
Sorry, I misinterpreted what you said. It's hard to get inflection out of text.
There are, however, many "SEO evangelists" (for lack of a better term) who get ludicrously defensive about their professions. I must've mentally associated you with them. Sorry.
>> But if I have a website selling Apple Pies and I link every instance of the word "Apple Pie" to the front page of the site, how, really, can you have an issue with that?
Because it's fucking annoying? It boggles my mind that somehow that would make a site more 'interesting'. That's a prime example of what I said in the other part of the thread. Switching between fonts/colors/underline every couple words is just painful, and nobody would want to read a site like that. I wish everyone would turn that +site_ranking into a -site_ranking. Thank god that google doesn't give a +site_ranking to people that combine flash and marquee tags together, otherwise it would be all over the place.
I don't understand the vitriol when people suggest SEO is unethical.
Since you've been a professional in that industry for a decade, there won't be any sense in trying to get you to see it from the other side, but the SEO industry, by and large, produces negative externalities that they don't take into account. Google, et al spend a lot of time figuring out what is 'interesting', and you game the system. Good for you, good for your clients, but bad for everyone else who has to put up with searching for something and finding a shitty shitty website with no content, but millions of links back within itself. Of course, my time doesn't matter to you, it's just the number of eyeballs you get to the page.
It's an arms race, but unlike a conventional arms race (with guns and such), you don't have any threat from your competitors, just from getting banhammered by google. Every once in a while, people get hammered, but it's not nearly enough to keep the unscrupulous people from keeping going.
So yes, I do see a giant difference between paying google $50k for advertising and paying you $25k (or whatever the price is) to 'Optimize' a website. If you want prominence on google or whatever other website, either pay the market price for an advertisement, or make a legitimately interesting website. When you 'optimise' a site to make it more interesting than it really is, it's just disappointing.
>And ethically -- I don't see how you can argue that it's OK for a company to be on the top of the search results page if they pay Google $200k a month, but dammit, if they create a lot of internal links on their site they're doing something wrong.
The difference to me as a consumer is that Google tries to delineate when a link is a 'sponsored link' and when it's legitimate because of it's organic rank. In my mind, the difference is big, and I handle the two different kinds of 'attention' differently.
Fair enough, I hadn't thought about that. But a hypothetical 3000x2000*32bpp framebuffer takes up ~170 megs of ram. A more reasonable framebuffer of 1024x768 takes up 25 megs. Neither of those are anywhere close to the 1.75Gigs the GP was talking about. Texture memory isn't memory mapped (excluding space for the AGP window)
If you're typing a reply and then expand A GP post, it erases the reply you were writing. Kinda frustrating when you need to recheck what someone said.
Also, even when I"m logged in (with good karma), I don't have the option to submit directly, and the preview button often hangs.
Graphics card memory won't be normally addressable with regular CPU opcodes, would they? You have to manually pipe data across the PCI/AGP/PCIe busses to make it to the card. They certainly don't sit in process address space.
Your signature is the most ridiculous thing:
You're pulling what this guy tried to pull
If 911 doesn't answer, that's a violation of the First Amendment? I don't follow. Did you drop a sarcasm tag?
You have the right to say what you want. You don't have the guarantee of an audience.
x86-64 is a superset of x86. Visual Studio works under X86-64
While the IDE doesn't run under IA64, microsoft has a feature where you can run the IDE on one machine and then remotely compile/debug on the Itanium machine.
I love the idea of other architechtures as much as the next person, but realistically, unless there's a seismic shift in the computing world, I'll never use anything but X86 on my workstations. It's a poor argument when arguing for OSS software.
AFAIK, visual studio is separate from the microsoft compiling toolchain (I seem to remember you can use mingw with it), so you can cross-compile your targets to other architechtures (for example embedded devices)
Yeah, you're right. The pound is a measure of force, so it's mass * gravity when you're measuring an orange (for example). The equivalent unit in the imperial system to the kg is the slug, which is 1 pound / gravity (which I think is 16.4 ft/sec^2 in the imperial system)
Ah, thanks.
I remember reading somewhere that the liquid fuel for a space shuttle launch is in the ballpark of a quarter million dollars.
the day that my grandmother is leaving persistent terminal sessions around is the day I pick up cross-stitching.
It's an advanced thing to do, why would it influence "linux on the desktop (tm)"
That's true, but if he's talking about graphics things, there is a LOT that is emulated. Google "DIB engine wine" for a look.
Basically, unless you're using DirectX/OpenGL, windows makes assumptions about the graphics layer that can't be directly done in X. AFAIK (it's hard to understand), many of the earlier windows libraries give the program direct shared access to where they are rendering, but X11 has the program and the actualy framebuffer divided by the X11 layer. Emulating that blows in terms of performance.
If his program is using directX, there is also an emulation layer to convert the calls to opengl.
IANAWH (wine hacker) so I could be off.
Who gets to decide what is acceptable and what isn't?
What's different between our actions that allows mine to be chastised and yours to be immune? It's not like I said that your breathing was a harm to society. That would be extreme. Pointing out that using a computer (I'm going to assume that you live in either the US or EU due to your english level) which probably has chips that were produced in foundries in Taiwan, shipped to China, assembled and then shipped again around the world to wherever you lived might be equally harmful as taking a flight from US->EU. I don't think it's an absurd stretch to say the two actions have a comparable amount of environmental impact.
So, again, who gets to decide what is acceptable and what isn't? What criteria does that individual (or group) use?
Seriously. Why do you care if I quote my height in feet rather than in meters while I'm in the US?
When I'm in other countries, I use metric. When I deal with other countries, I use metric. If I'm building a house, I use the imperial system and it's not a big deal.
From your english level, it sounds like you're a native english speaker. Should we insist that everyone speak english? I think it's an undue burden to have to translate all the time.
(before the, "You're an american, you probably don't speak any languages". I'm trilingual. My parents are Brazilian and I speak Portuguese at home, and I've studied and spent a significant amount of time in Germany, so my German's not shabby either)
It has nothing to do with ingenuity. Thanks though.
It's a simple cost/benefit analysis. It would cost a ton of money to do, and we don't see tons of benefit in the switch.
Why do you care so much if I quote my height in meters or feet?
If you want to look at it that way, EVERYONE pays for EVERY choice that ANYONE makes.
Unless you want everyone to move back to a primitive sustenance farming situation, where your actions will only affect your immediate surroundings, you'll have to accept that people living and doing the things people do has an effect on the world around us.
I see you're typing on a PC, are we all supposed to pay for that choice you made? (with few exceptions) Producing electronics and shipping them 1/2way across the world has tons of externalities.