That's a potential solution. The need is something like "have our webserver available 99.5% of the time" or "guaranteed database integrity" or something. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
All very good points. So if we knew the problem the poster was trying to solve, we'd be in a better position to evaluate the proposed solution.
For instance, does he need to guarantee an uninterrupted stream? Or does he just need to guarantee the server is "always available"? -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Your question: "Here's what the consultant told us is the solution to our problem. Where can we get the hardware?"
What you want to know: "Here's our problem. Here's the solution the consultant came up with. What improvements can/. suggest?"
For instance, why do you need dual-port NICs? If it's just for the throughput, why not just use 2 single-ports? This also provides redundancy in the hardware department. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Help yourself. Be sure to point him to the top of the thread. You know, where you displayed supposedly poor math and your purposeful misunderstandings. Your trolling in other words. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
I didn't say that, you mexican. I said brain power.
So did I. What are talking about? I wouldn't misquote you any more than you'd purposely misunderstand me. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
The US (in particular the FBI and probably the CIA/NSA) wants to keep encryption out of the hands of USians. (The reason doesn't matter for the purposes of this post). The best way to do this is to keep there from being any "encryption infrastructure" and the best way to THAT goal is to keep from having any standards.
And if you disallow exports, you can't create a world-wide standard. But whoops, the EU allows exports now, so we can standardize on that.
So the US is pissed for two reasons:
1) The EU will be the encryption (and thus privacy, etc) standards-bearer for the 21st century. This causes loss of money and face for the US. 2) The US can't keep EU encryption out of the hands of USians unless it also bans encryption imports. And since that action isn't compatible with the nominal "munitions" argument, it would tip their hand too much. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
As I understand it, MPI/PVM (which most [all?] Beowulf clusters consist of) require special programming techniques. That is, you can't just take your number crunching app, put it on the cluster and type "make" for it to work.
So who do you have doing the programming for this thing? Did they take special training, or is it easy to pick up for any programmer?
Finally, given the possible difficulty (and speciality) of using the above, has anyone considered using DIPC? -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Search 1 returns 78 items. Of the top 5 on the list, 0 are on target.
Search 2 returns 123 items. Of the top 5 on the list, 1 is on target.
What's the running total for on target hits among the top 5? 10%. What's the running total for on target hits among the top 10? Well, 1 hit in a sample size of 20 is 5%.
So to answer your question: "...wouldn't that be the top 10 items?"
No. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Second, your claim that "LinuxCare was a Ponzi scheme, it needed constant access to new investors, in order to pay its bills." is wrong in at least two ways.
A) Ponzi's don't have any output. LinuxCare did and does have a product.
B) Ponzi's are asymptotically increasing (meaning they just grow and grow, thus the vernacular "pyramid" scheme). LinuxCare was going to IPO just once and then run itself on that money + profits.
Third, geeks didn't (and don't) run either LinuxCare. Did you read the article? The founders of LC hired "Fernand", a former IBM exec (not programmer), to run the company. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
And that's putting it kindly. I saw references (I don't remember where) to Linuxcare's vast storehouse of Linux-related problem resolutions and so I used it a couple of times. Total crap. I would guess that less than 10% of the top 5 items returned were on target. And that 10% seemed to be cut 'n' pasted from Usenet postings and mailing lists.
An LC employee is quoted as calling the "knowledge center" a "simple search engine", but even that is giving the tool I used more credit than it deserves. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
If you had the photocopies stapled to the interior of the car such that anyone who wanted to read them had to get in, they probably WOULD impound the car.
Same with the computer: the illegal material i can't be taken without taking the hard drive with it. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Penthouse magazine contains pictures of naked women?? I was so busy reading the articles I never noticed! -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Instead of using legal action, they should offer a free "modeling session" to anyone turning in a porn pirate. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
"Quick" is not the point. The point is "unattended". What if I want to run a cron job that checks total free space every 30 minutes and send me an email if it gets below a specified level? And what if I don't want to "re-record" my script every time I add a drive? -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
I ported my company's product to Linux on Intel and of course I used the GNU toolset. The next step was Linux on Alpha and I kept getting suggestions to use the Compaq compilers/libs.
Forget it! If I stick with the tools all I have to do is type "make" and fix maybe 3 32/64 bit issues. If I switch tools I have to fix orders of magnitude more problems with the makefiles, libraries, etc. And who gives a rip about performance in an email server? It spends most of its time waiting for user input or talking over the network--the CPU is rarely if ever the bottleneck. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
"...no one is talking about banner file transfers.
Including me. I'm talking about illegal files on anonymous NFS shares. Does illegal usage automatically make a tool itself illegal?
"The subject is requiring services that provide directories of files to take appropriate action so that their servers are not conduits for illegal activity. That's hardly an unreasonable request."
Yes it is. Such a request goes beyond the behavior of similar services. For instance, telephones.
Back in the days of BBSs, a lot of people copied a lot of files via modem--but we never made any laws about "telephone companies are required to identify users".
Or how about any other illegal act (or conspiracy to commit such an act) over the phone? When you use a pay phone, there is no user tracking. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
"You are suggesting that covering material such as basic Apache setup is worthless unless one understands the most complex issues in Apache.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if you want to teach "Advanced RedHat Linux System Administration" you have to give more than a superficial glance at the the packages involved. That is, an advanced system admin should be able to do more than setup virtual hosting with Apache. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Pronouncing Intel's chip names make is so hard it goes for *everyone's* throat. Just saying "xeon" makes me want to hurl. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
"When 99.9% of activity is illegal, it doesn't take Einstein to divine the purpose of the tool."
Example: Tapes are becoming less popular for "official" distribution because CDs are about the same price and MUCH higher quality. That means that a higher percentage of tapes sales are going towards individual uses, including pirating. Your claim is that there is some value X such that when X% of tape sales are used for piracy tapes will suddenly be "intended for" piracy. Fallacy.
You keep harping on this "how long would Napster last" thing. How is that at all relevant? First of all, there's no way to tell. Second of all, no amount of illegal usage should constitute an "illegal tool". Are you saying that if NFS usage were to become largely (>80%) for hosting MP3s that would justify banning NFS as a technology?
BTW, I'm fully aware that you are a troll--I'm only responding to you because there are a few fuzzy-thinking, non-trolls who have similar ideas and who might be reading. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
"...Napster['s]...unstated intention is to trade illegal material.
Ah, I see. So having divined this fact (did it come to you in a dream?) we should immediately prosecute. By the way, I checked the chicken entrails this morning, here's what they said: "Reality Master 101 cheated on his taxes last year".
In any case, it doesn't matter what Napster's goals are. All they are actually doing is producing a piece of software for sharing files.
Sure, this sounds like the old "we just make the tool" argument, but in this case that argument has merit. There is a demonstrated need for legitimate, anonymous file-sharing on the Internet. There are several companies producing software to facilitate this. Two examples: Microsoft (Windows file-sharing), Sun (NFS). -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
"I know it's unpopular here on Slashdot for musicians to actually get paid for their work..."
I haven't heard anyone espouse that view. What I hear is people complaining about non-musicians getting paid for the musician's work. I also hear some complaining about paying musicians when they DON'T work (like, when I say cp nothing_else_matters.mp3/mnt/floppy).
"Napster exists for only one reason: To create an illegal market for copyrighted material."
Napster didn't create the market. The "copies of copyrighted works" market has been around as long as copyrights have.
"...Napster only exists by a loophole in the law."
What loophole is that? Why can tape manufacturors and claim "we're just a medium" but Napster can't? If your answer is "quality of copy" think instead of CD writers. If your answer is "ease of distribution" think instead of FTP. If your answer is "ability to search" think of archie and Google. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
I say we put the "digital" back in Digital Millenium Copyright Act: Everybody raise a finger! -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
I'm really glad someone did this review--now I know what to avoid.
I've been vaguely thinking that I'd like to take these classes/exams, but didn't know if I should spend the money. Your description makes it sound like the other training classes I've taken: mostly useless. Why useless? Let's think about who benefitted from the class. You mentioned three groups of people:
1) "in over their heads": These people didn't get anything out of it because it was too much. What little they might have gotten surely wasn't worth the cost. 2) Experts (such as the reviewer): Learned very little new since only the basics were covered (e.g. virtual host for Apache). What little they learned ("service" command) surely wasn't worth the cost. 3) Future instructors: Who knows how much they got out of it, but since the only purpose was to iterate an already useless process...
In short: "Covering the basics of an advanced topic" is a contradiction in terms. -- Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Slashdot Mirror
That's a potential solution. The need is something like "have our webserver available 99.5% of the time" or "guaranteed database integrity" or something.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
All very good points. So if we knew the problem the poster was trying to solve, we'd be in a better position to evaluate the proposed solution.
For instance, does he need to guarantee an uninterrupted stream? Or does he just need to guarantee the server is "always available"?
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Your question: "Here's what the consultant told us is the solution to our problem. Where can we get the hardware?"
/. suggest?"
What you want to know: "Here's our problem. Here's the solution the consultant came up with. What improvements can
For instance, why do you need dual-port NICs? If it's just for the throughput, why not just use 2 single-ports? This also provides redundancy in the hardware department.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Help yourself. Be sure to point him to the top of the thread. You know, where you displayed supposedly poor math and your purposeful misunderstandings. Your trolling in other words.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
I didn't say that, you mexican. I said brain power.
So did I. What are talking about? I wouldn't misquote you any more than you'd purposely misunderstand me.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Wish I had that kinda brain power.
You said it, not me.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
The US (in particular the FBI and probably the CIA/NSA) wants to keep encryption out of the hands of USians. (The reason doesn't matter for the purposes of this post). The best way to do this is to keep there from being any "encryption infrastructure" and the best way to THAT goal is to keep from having any standards.
And if you disallow exports, you can't create a world-wide standard. But whoops, the EU allows exports now, so we can standardize on that.
So the US is pissed for two reasons:
1) The EU will be the encryption (and thus privacy, etc) standards-bearer for the 21st century. This causes loss of money and face for the US.
2) The US can't keep EU encryption out of the hands of USians unless it also bans encryption imports. And since that action isn't compatible with the nominal "munitions" argument, it would tip their hand too much.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
As I understand it, MPI/PVM (which most [all?] Beowulf clusters consist of) require special programming techniques. That is, you can't just take your number crunching app, put it on the cluster and type "make" for it to work.
So who do you have doing the programming for this thing? Did they take special training, or is it easy to pick up for any programmer?
Finally, given the possible difficulty (and speciality) of using the above, has anyone considered using DIPC?
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Example for the slow:
Search 1 returns 78 items. Of the top 5 on the list, 0 are on target.
Search 2 returns 123 items. Of the top 5 on the list, 1 is on target.
What's the running total for on target hits among the top 5? 10%. What's the running total for on target hits among the top 10? Well, 1 hit in a sample size of 20 is 5%.
So to answer your question: "...wouldn't that be the top 10 items?"
No.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
First of all, LinuxCare != LinuxOne.
Second, your claim that "LinuxCare was a Ponzi scheme, it needed constant access to new investors, in order to pay its bills." is wrong in at least two ways.
A) Ponzi's don't have any output. LinuxCare did and does have a product.
B) Ponzi's are asymptotically increasing (meaning they just grow and grow, thus the vernacular "pyramid" scheme). LinuxCare was going to IPO just once and then run itself on that money + profits.
Third, geeks didn't (and don't) run either LinuxCare. Did you read the article? The founders of LC hired "Fernand", a former IBM exec (not programmer), to run the company.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
How many top 5 items are there in aggregate from 2 searches? 10. What's 10% of 10? 1.
Math is easy when you actually think rather than try to flame blindly.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
"...nebulous 'knowledge center'..."
And that's putting it kindly. I saw references (I don't remember where) to Linuxcare's vast storehouse of Linux-related problem resolutions and so I used it a couple of times. Total crap. I would guess that less than 10% of the top 5 items returned were on target. And that 10% seemed to be cut 'n' pasted from Usenet postings and mailing lists.
An LC employee is quoted as calling the "knowledge center" a "simple search engine", but even that is giving the tool I used more credit than it deserves.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
If you had the photocopies stapled to the interior of the car such that anyone who wanted to read them had to get in, they probably WOULD impound the car.
Same with the computer: the illegal material i can't be taken without taking the hard drive with it.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Penthouse magazine contains pictures of naked women?? I was so busy reading the articles I never noticed!
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Instead of using legal action, they should offer a free "modeling session" to anyone turning in a porn pirate.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
"Quick" is not the point. The point is "unattended". What if I want to run a cron job that checks total free space every 30 minutes and send me an email if it gets below a specified level? And what if I don't want to "re-record" my script every time I add a drive?
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
I ported my company's product to Linux on Intel and of course I used the GNU toolset. The next step was Linux on Alpha and I kept getting suggestions to use the Compaq compilers/libs.
Forget it! If I stick with the tools all I have to do is type "make" and fix maybe 3 32/64 bit issues. If I switch tools I have to fix orders of magnitude more problems with the makefiles, libraries, etc. And who gives a rip about performance in an email server? It spends most of its time waiting for user input or talking over the network--the CPU is rarely if ever the bottleneck.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
"...no one is talking about banner file transfers.
Including me. I'm talking about illegal files on anonymous NFS shares. Does illegal usage automatically make a tool itself illegal?
"The subject is requiring services that provide directories of files to take appropriate action so that their servers are not conduits for illegal activity. That's hardly an unreasonable request."
Yes it is. Such a request goes beyond the behavior of similar services. For instance, telephones.
Back in the days of BBSs, a lot of people copied a lot of files via modem--but we never made any laws about "telephone companies are required to identify users".
Or how about any other illegal act (or conspiracy to commit such an act) over the phone? When you use a pay phone, there is no user tracking.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
"You are suggesting that covering material such as basic Apache setup is worthless unless one understands the most complex issues in Apache.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if you want to teach "Advanced RedHat Linux System Administration" you have to give more than a superficial glance at the the packages involved. That is, an advanced system admin should be able to do more than setup virtual hosting with Apache.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Pronouncing Intel's chip names make is so hard it goes for *everyone's* throat. Just saying "xeon" makes me want to hurl.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
"When 99.9% of activity is illegal, it doesn't take Einstein to divine the purpose of the tool."
Example: Tapes are becoming less popular for "official" distribution because CDs are about the same price and MUCH higher quality. That means that a higher percentage of tapes sales are going towards individual uses, including pirating. Your claim is that there is some value X such that when X% of tape sales are used for piracy tapes will suddenly be "intended for" piracy. Fallacy.
You keep harping on this "how long would Napster last" thing. How is that at all relevant? First of all, there's no way to tell. Second of all, no amount of illegal usage should constitute an "illegal tool". Are you saying that if NFS usage were to become largely (>80%) for hosting MP3s that would justify banning NFS as a technology?
BTW, I'm fully aware that you are a troll--I'm only responding to you because there are a few fuzzy-thinking, non-trolls who have similar ideas and who might be reading.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
"...Napster['s]...unstated intention is to trade illegal material.
Ah, I see. So having divined this fact (did it come to you in a dream?) we should immediately prosecute. By the way, I checked the chicken entrails this morning, here's what they said: "Reality Master 101 cheated on his taxes last year".
In any case, it doesn't matter what Napster's goals are. All they are actually doing is producing a piece of software for sharing files.
Sure, this sounds like the old "we just make the tool" argument, but in this case that argument has merit. There is a demonstrated need for legitimate, anonymous file-sharing on the Internet. There are several companies producing software to facilitate this. Two examples: Microsoft (Windows file-sharing), Sun (NFS).
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
"I know it's unpopular here on Slashdot for musicians to actually get paid for their work..."
/mnt/floppy).
I haven't heard anyone espouse that view. What I hear is people complaining about non-musicians getting paid for the musician's work. I also hear some complaining about paying musicians when they DON'T work (like, when I say cp nothing_else_matters.mp3
"Napster exists for only one reason: To create an illegal market for copyrighted material."
Napster didn't create the market. The "copies of copyrighted works" market has been around as long as copyrights have.
"...Napster only exists by a loophole in the law."
What loophole is that? Why can tape manufacturors and claim "we're just a medium" but Napster can't? If your answer is "quality of copy" think instead of CD writers. If your answer is "ease of distribution" think instead of FTP. If your answer is "ability to search" think of archie and Google.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
I say we put the "digital" back in Digital Millenium Copyright Act: Everybody raise a finger!
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
I'm really glad someone did this review--now I know what to avoid.
I've been vaguely thinking that I'd like to take these classes/exams, but didn't know if I should spend the money. Your description makes it sound like the other training classes I've taken: mostly useless. Why useless? Let's think about who benefitted from the class. You mentioned three groups of people:
1) "in over their heads": These people didn't get anything out of it because it was too much. What little they might have gotten surely wasn't worth the cost.
2) Experts (such as the reviewer): Learned very little new since only the basics were covered (e.g. virtual host for Apache). What little they learned ("service" command) surely wasn't worth the cost.
3) Future instructors: Who knows how much they got out of it, but since the only purpose was to iterate an already useless process...
In short: "Covering the basics of an advanced topic" is a contradiction in terms.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?