IBM ServeRAIDs -- I think these are dedicated controllers
Beware! Not all IBM ServeRAIDs are dedicated RAID controllers. In fact most of built-in ServeRAIDs are software ones: the (in)famous ServeRAID "e" series (ServeRAID 7e and ServeRAID 8e, that you can find in most xSeries 206/206m) as you can see in the ServeRAID Red Book: http://publib-b.boulder.ibm.com/Redbooks.nsf/Redbo okAbstracts/tips0054.html?Open
I don't think a real dedicated controller (like ServeRAID 6m) could have some impact on the CPU apart from saturating some I/O channel.
... if you can prove something, then you know it, otherwise you can only believe it. So the only possible answer is: "all I don't know". If it's much, then you have a problem.
Aha! Using the threat of a competitor to negotiate lower prices and/or better products/services: I remember something like this... wasn't it called "free competition"?
Eradicating or substituting MS completely is not an easy task (at the moment, maybe not even a possible one), but at least breaking its monopoly seems a target soon to be reached. And this is really greater news than some PCs migrated to Linux!
It's just a matter of calling things with their right name: if the authors called it stable, then someone has already tested it for me, if I have to test it, then it's a beta/unstable/devel/test/whatever.
Well, as long as no marketing is involved, I mean:)
Well, you may be right, even if ReiserFS works very well in recent kernels and ext3 hasn't been immune from bugs either. But that's not the point.
The problem is that when a component (a fundamental one like a filesystem!) is included in a kernel declared stable, I expect it to be stable too! Or, otherwise said, what can be stable in a kernel when a filesystem loose data??
If ReiserFS is not ready for production-level, don't put it in a stable branch or at least mark it "experimental!", I'd say.
"Pretty stable" is one thing... by "Stable" I mean "No data corruption/work loss", which is another one. Unfortunately 2.4.0 was "pretty stable" too, but until 2.4.18 reiserfs and block devices bugs caused many cases of data corruption, which costed to my firm quite a good amount of work and money.
Maybe I'm much too conservative on this, but I think that whichever software (expecially a kernel!) should not be considered "Stable" until the absence of crashes and data corruption has been thoroughly stress-tested. Sorry, but "it' been up for some days on some PC" is just not enough.
Flamebait? Maybe. But I really don't like the current attitude toward kernel versioning:
maybe it compiles -> devel compiles (quite) and seems to work -> stable no more serious bugs -> end of life, occasional maintanance
I think it shoud be:
maybe it compiles -> don't even release seems to work -> unstable no more serious bugs -> stable, thorough maintenance to squash last few bugs.
"End Of Life" of a stable version shoud happen only when a newer one goes stable. Waiting months to see the security breach on 2.4.20 corrected while no other stable kernel were around should happen NO MORE.
Forcing users to test new kernels by cheating on version numbers it's not a way to gain testers, but rather to loose many of them, after their data gets eaten...
> Good idea. I want my free phone, my free internet, and my free electricity as well.
He said "basic infrastructure", which is correct. Don't know where you live, but here in Italy, as in many other european countries, we pay phone, electricity and internet per-use. But the backbones and first deployments (the very basic infrastructure) of these three services are government funded. That is, free for the user.
Ok, now I'm pretty sure... the real "Comical Ali" is not the old man interviewed some days ago. He has obviously escaped Iraq to take the guide of SCO... but all his fans cannot be fooled by this McBride camouflage. He's the man! He's back!:)
Note what the trollish C/Net editor skips in its article:
Reaffirming that the minimum rules in the appendix to Resolution (74) 26do not go beyond granting a right of reply with respect of factual statements claimed to be inaccurate and that, as a consequence, the on-line dissemination of opinions and ideas falls outside the scope of this Recommendation;
"Reaffirming" refers to the Resolution (74) 26 where it is well specified that only false statements are affected by this "right to reply".
So the rest of the article is just C/Net trolling.
Please, RTFA and try to understand what the Council of Europe's proposition really is without getting trapped by Declan McCullagh pure trolling! This is the point: IF you criticize someone on your website AND IF this someone wants to reply to your criticism THEN you must give space to his reply.
This not only makes pure sense, but it's the obvious base for whatever notion of "freedom of speech".
If whichever John Smith in your blog insulted you and you want to reply, well this proposition says John must give space to your reply. God, what a european non-sense, uh?
Sorry... I've tried to write obfuscated code in both language, and you can believe me when I say that there is NO WAY, no matter how hard you try, to make a badly written PHP script less readable than a not-much-badly written Perl one.
OSS is not civil disobedience, no matter how it is presented. It's not protesting anything. It's not breaking any laws
You mean: "At the moment, it's not breaking any laws". Think patents, reverse engineering ban, DMCA... things can get worse by far.
Let's say that "OSS is not civil disobedience yet", but it may well be in the near future.
You seem to ignore that Italy has never been a socialist state. Here in Italy we have a copper wire cabling covering well over 90% of the territory since the late 70s, and many providers offering flat fees for local calls (till '95 even the former-monopolist Telecom Italia).
I think we simply are rich enough that even kids (not joking, a cell phone is the gift many many italian kids will probably receive this Xmas ) can afford to own and use a cell phone, so why not using them instead of a landline?
It doesn't seem the author spent much time trying to test his complains. Complain n.1 about browser, for example... the mentioned bug with KDE 2.2.2 was Klipper's fault, not Konqueror's. Problems with KDE 3.0 and forms where specific to RedHat (at least, SuSE didn't ever suffered them). Mozilla IS integrated with a DE... infact the same Konqueror can use KMozilla as a browser KPart.
But what about printers? The "Ideal printer install" suggested is exactly what SuSE already does!
Complain n.8 (automatically closing all the processes launched with a window that do no more have a window associated!!!) could make it for the worst DE suggestion ever. Complain n.10 is again addressed by SuSE's Sax in version 8.0.
Sure many of the problems are real ones, and documentation on how to do things surely lacks in many distributions... but one cannot complain if he hasn't at least tried harder.
> It's just as easy to do exactly the same thing with RH Tried: kdm hangs, ksycoca and Desktop corrupted.
> a lot easier, since SuSE generally sits on their ass and doesn't release ISOs Having the installation ISOs shoud make upgrading "much easier"? Do you know what you're speaking about??
> IMHO, because they're money-grubbing jerks Of course, of course... while RedHat is a Holy Charity...
> This guy probably tried installing the source from the KDE project Read The F...ine Article: "After downloading 37 rpm files totaling 69 MB, the upgrade destroyed my system!"
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I like servers "up and running in a day" by people "having no experience" almost as much as the tons of spam they keep sending to me...
What's next?
Google Earth instead of GEarth?
Google Maps instead of GMaps?
Google News instead of GNews?
But... wait...
Beware! Not all IBM ServeRAIDs are dedicated RAID controllers. In fact most of built-in ServeRAIDs are software ones: the (in)famous ServeRAID "e" series (ServeRAID 7e and ServeRAID 8e, that you can find in most xSeries 206/206m) as you can see in the ServeRAID Red Book:
http://publib-b.boulder.ibm.com/Redbooks.nsf/Redb
I don't think a real dedicated controller (like ServeRAID 6m) could have some impact on the CPU apart from saturating some I/O channel.
A nice page in italian on the JURI decision by an italian member of JURI itself (Monica Frassoni, verdi):
http://www.monicafrassoni.it/detail.php?id=771#
... if you can prove something, then you know it, otherwise you can only believe it. So the only possible answer is: "all I don't know". If it's much, then you have a problem.
Aha! Using the threat of a competitor to negotiate lower prices and/or better products/services: I remember something like this... wasn't it called "free competition"?
Eradicating or substituting MS completely is not an easy task (at the moment, maybe not even a possible one), but at least breaking its monopoly seems a target soon to be reached.
And this is really greater news than some PCs migrated to Linux!
Mmmm... If I wanted to improve the performance of my Linux PC by recompiling a single package, I'd rather go with glibc than with kernel.
I can live with it, no problem.
:)
It's just a matter of calling things with their right name: if the authors called it stable, then someone has already tested it for me, if I have to test it, then it's a beta/unstable/devel/test/whatever.
Well, as long as no marketing is involved, I mean
Well, you may be right, even if ReiserFS works very well in recent kernels and ext3 hasn't been immune from bugs either.
But that's not the point.
The problem is that when a component (a fundamental one like a filesystem!) is included in a kernel declared stable, I expect it to be stable too!
Or, otherwise said, what can be stable in a kernel when a filesystem loose data??
If ReiserFS is not ready for production-level, don't put it in a stable branch or at least mark it "experimental!", I'd say.
"Pretty stable" is one thing... by "Stable" I mean "No data corruption/work loss", which is another one.
Unfortunately 2.4.0 was "pretty stable" too, but until 2.4.18 reiserfs and block devices bugs caused many cases of data corruption, which costed to my firm quite a good amount of work and money.
Maybe I'm much too conservative on this, but I think that whichever software (expecially a kernel!) should not be considered "Stable" until the absence of crashes and data corruption has been thoroughly stress-tested. Sorry, but "it' been up for some days on some PC" is just not enough.
Flamebait? Maybe. But I really don't like the current attitude toward kernel versioning:
maybe it compiles -> devel
compiles (quite) and seems to work -> stable
no more serious bugs -> end of life, occasional maintanance
I think it shoud be:
maybe it compiles -> don't even release
seems to work -> unstable
no more serious bugs -> stable, thorough maintenance to squash last few bugs.
"End Of Life" of a stable version shoud happen only when a newer one goes stable. Waiting months to see the security breach on 2.4.20 corrected while no other stable kernel were around should happen NO MORE.
Forcing users to test new kernels by cheating on version numbers it's not a way to gain testers, but rather to loose many of them, after their data gets eaten...
The question that really count is when will the first stable version of 2.6.x be out. I mean 2.6.35 or such...
> Good idea. I want my free phone, my free internet, and my free electricity as well.
He said "basic infrastructure", which is correct. Don't know where you live, but here in Italy, as in many other european countries, we pay phone, electricity and internet per-use.
But the backbones and first deployments (the very basic infrastructure) of these three services are government funded. That is, free for the user.
Ok, now I'm pretty sure... the real "Comical Ali" is not the old man interviewed some days ago. :)
He has obviously escaped Iraq to take the guide of SCO... but all his fans cannot be fooled by this McBride camouflage. He's the man! He's back!
You'll find the latest draft here:
Note what the trollish C/Net editor skips in its article:
Reaffirming that the minimum rules in the appendix to Resolution (74) 26 do not go beyond granting a right of reply with respect of factual statements claimed to be inaccurate and that, as a consequence, the on-line dissemination of opinions and ideas falls outside the scope of this Recommendation;
"Reaffirming" refers to the Resolution (74) 26 where it is well specified that only false statements are affected by this "right to reply".
So the rest of the article is just C/Net trolling.
Please, RTFA and try to understand what the Council of Europe's proposition really is without getting trapped by Declan McCullagh pure trolling!
This is the point:
IF you criticize someone on your website AND IF this someone wants to reply to your criticism THEN you must give space to his reply.
This not only makes pure sense, but it's the obvious base for whatever notion of "freedom of speech".
If whichever John Smith in your blog insulted you and you want to reply, well this proposition says John must give space to your reply. God, what a european non-sense, uh?
Sorry... I've tried to write obfuscated code in both language, and you can believe me when I say that there is NO WAY, no matter how hard you try, to make a badly written PHP script less readable than a not-much-badly written Perl one.
... something like: "A distro worth using is a distro worth buying" :-)
OSS is not civil disobedience, no matter how it is presented. It's not protesting anything. It's not breaking any laws
You mean: "At the moment, it's not breaking any laws". Think patents, reverse engineering ban, DMCA... things can get worse by far. Let's say that "OSS is not civil disobedience yet", but it may well be in the near future.
Wake up! OSS IS already competing with software backed by a large company... that's what the article is about :)
(all prices are "unreasonable" when compared to zero/null/nothing)
You seem to ignore that Italy has never been a socialist state. Here in Italy we have a copper wire cabling covering well over 90% of the territory since the late 70s, and many providers offering flat fees for local calls (till '95 even the former-monopolist Telecom Italia).
I think we simply are rich enough that even kids (not joking, a cell phone is the gift many many italian kids will probably receive this Xmas ) can afford to own and use a cell phone, so why not using them instead of a landline?
It doesn't seem the author spent much time trying to test his complains.
Complain n.1 about browser, for example... the mentioned bug with KDE 2.2.2 was Klipper's fault, not Konqueror's. Problems with KDE 3.0 and forms where specific to RedHat (at least, SuSE didn't ever suffered them). Mozilla IS integrated with a DE... infact the same Konqueror can use KMozilla as a browser KPart.
But what about printers? The "Ideal printer install" suggested is exactly what SuSE already does!
Complain n.8 (automatically closing all the processes launched with a window that do no more have a window associated!!!) could make it for the worst DE suggestion ever.
Complain n.10 is again addressed by SuSE's Sax in version 8.0.
Sure many of the problems are real ones, and documentation on how to do things surely lacks in many distributions... but one cannot complain if he hasn't at least tried harder.
Why is this in the "funny" section??
Simple. Plain. Easy.
> Keyboard no longer stops working for no apparent reason
...
:-))
Working on KDE 8 hours a day... never seen that. Check your X installation.
> Runs well on modest hardware
K6-200 32Mb without a flaw.
> Default wallpaper no longer ripped off from OSX
You aren't using KDE from a distro, are you?
> KMail no longer corrupts its mail files
... maybe some sort of pre-alpha CVS snapshot compile, in fact
> Default browser handling works all the time
Guess what? It works all time.
> K* apps effort united with other projects trying to do the same thing
Like KOffice with OpenOffice/Abiword you mean? Or KWin with E? Or Arts with XMMS? Oh, well...
Doh!! Score:4 (Insightful SIC! ) for one of the worst troll ever? What were moderators thinking?
> Oh, don't be an idiot. :)
Ok, I'll try
> It's just as easy to do exactly the same thing with RH
Tried: kdm hangs, ksycoca and Desktop corrupted.
> a lot easier, since SuSE generally sits on their ass and doesn't release ISOs
Having the installation ISOs shoud make upgrading "much easier"? Do you know what you're speaking about??
> IMHO, because they're money-grubbing jerks
Of course, of course... while RedHat is a Holy Charity...
> This guy probably tried installing the source from the KDE project
Read The F...ine Article:
"After downloading 37 rpm files totaling 69 MB, the upgrade destroyed my system!"
You could sure build a better Troll... try again.