Actually the problem could be amplified by speakers. I have just relistened to the EPIA 800 (from which I disconnected the speakers a while ago) and it does seem much quieter than the laptop. However, I can still detect a sound if I flood ping it from the server.
> On the ITX machine, you might be able to locate the power lines running to your sound card and isolate them a little better (get an EE friend to look at it)
My degree was EE, but mini-ITX boards have the sound hardware built in, and as I said the speakers are disconnected (which is another story - getting a network transparent sound server to work properly).
I have an EPIA 800 mini-itx machine with all the fans removed. It doesn't get hot because it's only used as an X thin client. My laptop also netboots if it is plugged into the network and stops all fans and drives. Whilst in use, both systems emit a not-insignificant amount of noise from (I believe) their ethernet chips. I.E. when something happens on the screen, the network traffic seems to cause a burst of white noise.
Does anyone know if it is possible to have a silent ethernet adapter and if so which ones are quieter?
Evolution is great stuff; it truly is an Outlook killer.
Whilst Evolution does seem to function well enough, it is a shame that silly bugs remain in this release, like the drawing problems in the screenshots (i.e. where "Lunch" is scheduled, the "L" collides with its widget's border).
From what I've read, udev is being ushered in because the main devfs maintainer is awol/unpopular. It is a shame to switch in some ways because udev does not have all the features of devfs. Makedev is required for udev and device modules aren't auto-loaded when the device is accessed as with devfs.
I went to see my MP (Member of Parliament) about this and explained to him that because it was similar to the DMCA which the US has had for 5 years, we could expect it to have the same unintended consequences.
A few days later I received a letter from him saying that he was asking questions of the Government's Department of Trade and Industry, and would get back to me with their responses.
Have others here tried this course of action? / Is there a coordinated effort out there?
I understand now that you are making that distinction and suggesting that Microsoft initiated the SCO action. However there is also much evidence that SCO's early behaviour was designed to persuade IBM to buy them (under threat of having their AIX licence "revoked").
Whilst the quality of average British cuisine might be uninspiring, the "finest quisine of the British Isles" is represented by some of the worlds best restaurants (the top 20 list in that link contains 3 British entries).
They're hoping to intimidate some huge company with the threat of audits and huge legal expenses vs. the relatively low cost of a site license.
That isn't it. They've switched to saying that only fortune 1000 companies can get a license in order to stop people from trying to get one. They know that they can't actually sell one and they're gambling on the idea that a fortune 1000 company won't publicise the fact that SCO wouldn't let them buy one.
They were in danger of people in the media (who run Linux) demanding to know why they can't buy a SCO license, but now that heat is conveniently deflected.
The tracks in the UK aren't cheap and lightweight - the defining characteristic that causes them to buckle is that the rail sections are longer than those on the continent, and have less in the way of inter-section spacing for the rails to expand into when they heat up.
It's plausible, although I read in The Times that the French use heavier steel which resists the expansion of the track. Also the ride quality on the continent is astonishingly better than that in the UK, so the rail inter-section spacing can't be a significant factor.
The article contains a photo of a train with the caption: Fewer tracks may buckle in heatwaves
The recent track buckling problem in the UK was caused by the use of cheap lightweight tracks (which is why our European neighbours were unaffected). I have to wonder though how the author of this article reaches the conclusion that simulating climate models will actually lead to less track buckling. It was already known that the tracks would buckle occaisionally, but those in charge of the railways planned for drivers to slow down and try to see buckled lines ahead (as if derailing at 60mph is acceptable!).
Raid-5 would give him 1200*2/3 = 800GB, but as the OS will see the 6 drives the best bet is to use mirroring to get 600GB because the performance of Raid-1 is so good (in Linux).
What I hope we don't see more of is the way that Sun use the indemnity issue to scare customers.
Sun have been suggesting that without indemnity SCO may come after you (which is nonsense). They have even gone as far as suggesting that SCO are right which is a truly disgusting way of coercing customers towards your product.
I really wish Sun would stop going on about indemnity. Scwartz says:
We will also indemnify you for Solaris, and if IBM says you don't need it, then why do they have so many lawyers suing people over patent and copy violations. But he must know that users do not need indemnifying against such violations.
Then:
If you use Linux on the server, even if we sold the distribution to you, you are on your own. He continues on and on about it. Sun are obsessed with this at the moment because they think they can worry PHBs. However the danger for them is that people purchasing Linux servers (an increasing market) will avoid Sun because they are really only interested in selling Solaris.
Granted it depends on your definition of gobs of RAM, but it does have a P4 2.2Ghz, 256MB DDR RAM,and Integrated Intel(R) 3D Extreme Graphics.
It costs $599. And that includes a 15inch TFT.
Anyway, even if you pay more for your desktop PCs I think you'll agree that thin client boxes needn't cost $600.
I can't help wondering whether McNealy has any idea what open source software is like. He almost comes up with a good marketing idea - Sun "gift wrapping" high quality (but bare) open source software - but he totally screws it up by defaming the open source stuff as untested and "you don't know where it came from".
He also suggests that unless you buy all your open source software from Sun (the Linux kernel isn't specifically mentioned) then SCO may come after you which is such an obvious FUD that it just further reduces his credibility.
The previous sentence of the article had Sun suggesting that Java users could switch to Solaris, so the comment that Sun could also devise a Linux-like OS is intended to mean that they could just come up with an OS with the same qualities (runs on any hardware, open source) as Linux but that was "clean" of SCO IP. It is this idea that is ridiculous.
And I'm sure the time spent on repairing PC hardware, the electricity saved, etc., would be more than worth the added cost.
They are still too expensive because the manufacturers get bulk discounts. There is no need for thin clients to cost more than Pentium 4 desktop PCs with HDD+DVD+Floppy drives, gobs of RAM and a 3D accelerator.,
A local high-school replaced Macs with PCs running Windows. I assume they did this because Mac OS is horrible, and Windows is a wonderful operating system.
Well, they probably also did that because of the price (or ignorance). In my example, the bank were not ignorant of proprietary thin clients and would have chosen on cost considerations, although those could have been long-term (i.e. maintainability of open vs. proprietary hardware).
In related news, there's an article on news.com.com that just seems crazy and doesn't do Sun any favours.The main problems with this article are not Sun's strange ideas (which constitute some of the shallowest media manipulation that I've recently seen), but author Michael Kanellos' jumbled up logic that only presents one side of the issue because he ignores the possibility that SCO are insane.
Here are some choice inaccuracies/curious statements (interspersed with my comments):
"You license Java--we will indemnify you on Linux," is how Jonathan Schwartz, executive vice president of software at Sun, said the program, if initiated, might work O.K. I don't see how Sun would think that they could do this but it's clear what they have in mind. Though what they mean by "license Java" is probably a detail that even they haven't worried about.
SCO's legal position has drawn the ire of open-source advocates, some of whom have hacked SCO's site. As I understand, SCO's site hasn't been hacked, so he is refering to the DoS by an unknown person.
Microsoft signed a multimillion-dollar licensing agreement with SCO that revolves around Unix-Linux compatibility issues Unix-Linux compatibility issues? Microsoft mentioned Unix-Windows compatibility, but surely noone would regurgitate that as the reason that Microsoft pay SCO.
Sun has publicly stated on several occasions that it will indemnify its Solaris customers against any liability Is this true? Do Sun offer significantly greater protection that Microsoft (i.e. purchase price of the software)?
Schwartz did not comment on how Sun could insulate its Java customers from a lawsuit from SCO, but there are a number of possibilities. So Sun are just posturing.
Sun could request that Java customers seeking indemnity switch from using Linux to Solaris. Microsoft could request a similar thing!
Sun could also, conceivably, devise a Linux-like OS I suppose I am capable of conceiving that, but it is a ridiculous idea.
Sun's license only extends to Solaris, said SCO spokesman Blake Stowell, not to Java related products So the whole idea was obviously nonsense from the start and Michael only wrote about it because Sun said it so people will take notice.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually the problem could be amplified by speakers. I have just relistened to the EPIA 800 (from which I disconnected the speakers a while ago) and it does seem much quieter than the laptop. However, I can still detect a sound if I flood ping it from the server.
> On the ITX machine, you might be able to locate the power lines running to your sound card and isolate them a little better (get an EE friend to look at it)
My degree was EE, but mini-ITX boards have the sound hardware built in, and as I said the speakers are disconnected (which is another story - getting a network transparent sound server to work properly).
- Brian
Perhaps partly, but I do get a (albeit quiet) whining noise if I run "ping -f terminal &>/dev/null".
- Brian
I have an EPIA 800 mini-itx machine with all the fans removed. It doesn't get hot because it's only used as an X thin client. My laptop also netboots if it is plugged into the network and stops all fans and drives.
Whilst in use, both systems emit a not-insignificant amount of noise from (I believe) their ethernet chips. I.E. when something happens on the screen, the network traffic seems to cause a burst of white noise.
Does anyone know if it is possible to have a silent ethernet adapter and if so which ones are quieter?
- Brian
Evolution is great stuff; it truly is an Outlook killer.
Whilst Evolution does seem to function well enough, it is a shame that silly bugs remain in this release, like the drawing problems in the screenshots (i.e. where "Lunch" is scheduled, the "L" collides with its widget's border).
- Brian.
> from the company with the worst QA record in the entire universe.
:-)
Although one of their most troublesome products runs your (non-existant) website
From what I've read, udev is being ushered in because the main devfs maintainer is awol/unpopular.
It is a shame to switch in some ways because udev does not have all the features of devfs.
Makedev is required for udev and device modules aren't auto-loaded when the device is accessed as with devfs.
- Brian
I went to see my MP (Member of Parliament) about this and explained to him that because it was similar to the DMCA which the US has had for 5 years, we could expect it to have the same unintended consequences.
A few days later I received a letter from him saying that he was asking questions of the Government's Department of Trade and Industry, and would get back to me with their responses.
Have others here tried this course of action? / Is there a coordinated effort out there?
What can be done after this?
- Brian
I understand now that you are making that distinction and suggesting that Microsoft initiated the SCO action. However there is also much evidence that SCO's early behaviour was designed to persuade IBM to buy them (under threat of having their AIX licence "revoked").
I sincerely doubted Microsoft's involvement for a while, this time though, the paranoid /.ers were on the money.
There can't be many like you that have doubted Microsoft's involvement, given that it has been clear since May 19th.
Whilst the quality of average British cuisine might be uninspiring, the "finest quisine of the British Isles" is represented by some of the worlds best restaurants (the top 20 list in that link contains 3 British entries).
- Brian
In with my newspaper last week there was a catalogue called "Expert Verdict - A World Of Innovations".
They sell a device that sounds like it would do this: Digital Card Media Player for 99.95 UKP.
- Brian
They're hoping to intimidate some huge company with the threat of audits and huge legal expenses vs. the relatively low cost of a site license.
That isn't it. They've switched to saying that only fortune 1000 companies can get a license in order to stop people from trying to get one. They know that they can't actually sell one and they're gambling on the idea that a fortune 1000 company won't publicise the fact that SCO wouldn't let them buy one.
They were in danger of people in the media (who run Linux) demanding to know why they can't buy a SCO license, but now that heat is conveniently deflected.
- Brian.
It's a strange thing for Canopy to blame "Hexamark Technologies". I can't find anything that relates to them on the web and wonder if they even exist.
Tons of OSS stuff is severely lacking in the documentation department
That's probably true, but tons of OSS stuff also has some of the best documentation you're likely to encounter.
The tracks in the UK aren't cheap and lightweight - the defining characteristic that causes them to buckle is that the rail sections are longer than those on the continent, and have less in the way of inter-section spacing for the rails to expand into when they heat up.
It's plausible, although I read in The Times that the French use heavier steel which resists the expansion of the track. Also the ride quality on the continent is astonishingly better than that in the UK, so the rail inter-section spacing can't be a significant factor.
The article contains a photo of a train with the caption: Fewer tracks may buckle in heatwaves
The recent track buckling problem in the UK was caused by the use of cheap lightweight tracks (which is why our European neighbours were unaffected). I have to wonder though how the author of this article reaches the conclusion that simulating climate models will actually lead to less track buckling. It was already known that the tracks would buckle occaisionally, but those in charge of the railways planned for drivers to slow down and try to see buckled lines ahead (as if derailing at 60mph is acceptable!).
Raid-5 would give him 1200*2/3 = 800GB, but as the OS will see the 6 drives the best bet is to use mirroring to get 600GB because the performance of Raid-1 is so good (in Linux).
- Brian.
What I hope we don't see more of is the way that Sun use the indemnity issue to scare customers.
Sun have been suggesting that without indemnity SCO may come after you (which is nonsense). They have even gone as far as suggesting that SCO are right which is a truly disgusting way of coercing customers towards your product.
- Brian
If they only way you can flog your hardware is by using scare tactics, then you are *really* selling a pile of crap.....
Or their hardware is good and they are idiots.
I really wish Sun would stop going on about indemnity. Scwartz says:
We will also indemnify you for Solaris, and if IBM says you don't need it, then why do they have so many lawyers suing people over patent and copy violations.
But he must know that users do not need indemnifying against such violations.
Then:
If you use Linux on the server, even if we sold the distribution to you, you are on your own.
He continues on and on about it. Sun are obsessed with this at the moment because they think they can worry PHBs. However the danger for them is that people purchasing Linux servers (an increasing market) will avoid Sun because they are really only interested in selling Solaris.
- Brian.
Over at Dell:s pecial61.htm
http://www.dell.com/us/en/dhs/offers/specials_3x_
Granted it depends on your definition of gobs of RAM, but it does have a P4 2.2Ghz, 256MB DDR RAM,and Integrated Intel(R) 3D Extreme Graphics. It costs $599. And that includes a 15inch TFT.
Anyway, even if you pay more for your desktop PCs I think you'll agree that thin client boxes needn't cost $600.
- Brian.
Another hilarious one, thanks for that.
I can't help wondering whether McNealy has any idea what open source software is like. He almost comes up with a good marketing idea - Sun "gift wrapping" high quality (but bare) open source software - but he totally screws it up by defaming the open source stuff as untested and "you don't know where it came from".
He also suggests that unless you buy all your open source software from Sun (the Linux kernel isn't specifically mentioned) then SCO may come after you which is such an obvious FUD that it just further reduces his credibility.
- Brian.
The previous sentence of the article had Sun suggesting that Java users could switch to Solaris, so the comment that Sun could also devise a Linux-like OS is intended to mean that they could just come up with an OS with the same qualities (runs on any hardware, open source) as Linux but that was "clean" of SCO IP. It is this idea that is ridiculous.
- Brian
And I'm sure the time spent on repairing PC hardware, the electricity saved, etc., would be more than worth the added cost.
They are still too expensive because the manufacturers get bulk discounts. There is no need for thin clients to cost more than Pentium 4 desktop PCs with HDD+DVD+Floppy drives, gobs of RAM and a 3D accelerator.,
A local high-school replaced Macs with PCs running Windows. I assume they did this because Mac OS is horrible, and Windows is a wonderful operating system.
Well, they probably also did that because of the price (or ignorance). In my example, the bank were not ignorant of proprietary thin clients and would have chosen on cost considerations, although those could have been long-term (i.e. maintainability of open vs. proprietary hardware).
- Brian
In related news, there's an article on news.com.com that just seems crazy and doesn't do Sun any favours.The main problems with this article are not Sun's strange ideas (which constitute some of the shallowest media manipulation that I've recently seen), but author Michael Kanellos' jumbled up logic that only presents one side of the issue because he ignores the possibility that SCO are insane.
Here are some choice inaccuracies/curious statements (interspersed with my comments):
"You license Java--we will indemnify you on Linux," is how Jonathan Schwartz, executive vice president of software at Sun, said the program, if initiated, might work
O.K. I don't see how Sun would think that they could do this but it's clear what they have in mind. Though what they mean by "license Java" is probably a detail that even they haven't worried about.
SCO's legal position has drawn the ire of open-source advocates, some of whom have hacked SCO's site.
As I understand, SCO's site hasn't been hacked, so he is refering to the DoS by an unknown person.
Microsoft signed a multimillion-dollar licensing agreement with SCO that revolves around Unix-Linux compatibility issues
Unix-Linux compatibility issues? Microsoft mentioned Unix-Windows compatibility, but surely noone would regurgitate that as the reason that Microsoft pay SCO.
Sun has publicly stated on several occasions that it will indemnify its Solaris customers against any liability
Is this true? Do Sun offer significantly greater protection that Microsoft (i.e. purchase price of the software)?
Schwartz did not comment on how Sun could insulate its Java customers from a lawsuit from SCO, but there are a number of possibilities.
So Sun are just posturing.
Sun could request that Java customers seeking indemnity switch from using Linux to Solaris.
Microsoft could request a similar thing!
Sun could also, conceivably, devise a Linux-like OS
I suppose I am capable of conceiving that, but it is a ridiculous idea.
Sun's license only extends to Solaris, said SCO spokesman Blake Stowell, not to Java related products
So the whole idea was obviously nonsense from the start and Michael only wrote about it because Sun said it so people will take notice.
- Brian