This is one Americanism that really pisses me off.
Learn the difference between the two, and use the
right one. To insure is to arrange financial or
other reimbursement, in the event that the unwanted
happens. To ensure is to take steps to prevent the
unwanted happening in the first place.
BTW, I don't care what dictionary.com may say. The
definitive guide to the language is the Oxford
English Dictionary, which says that in modern
English, "insure" is used almost exclusively to
mean protecting against losses.
No one cares about 802.11x. For a PDA, it's just a
non-issue. But the lack of Bluetooth is a real
problem. Sharp have come so close to
creating the perfect PDA. If it had Bluetooth,
I'd be buying one tomorrow, and importing it from
Japan. But it doesn't, which leaves a CF bluetooth
card as the only sensible alternative, and that's
far from ideal (the CF slot is better used to add
extra storage).
What is laughable is that Eugenia still had those old RPM dependency hell issues. You would have thought they would have been solved by now, or that somebody would have created a decent desktop based on a base distribution with decent package management tools.
Sigh. I know I shouldn't feel the trolls, but what
the hell. Repeat after me: Debian has exactly
the same dependency
problems as every other distribution. Exactly the same.
Anyone who believes otherwise just doesn't
understand the issues.
It comes about because you're mixing vendor
packages with third party packages. There's
nothing the vendor can do to fix a
broken 3rd party package, yet everyone still
blames RH. Quite why is beyond me.
It's nothing to do with dpkg being better than RPM
(it isn't), or apt being better than up2date
(perhaps it is, perhaps not, but the two are
broadly similar, and the difference between them
is slim if any).
Debian doesn't
tend to see this as much simply because there are
virtually no third party packages for it. Also,
Debian has a documented package naming convention,
which will go some way to minimizing these
problems for the few 3rd party packages that
there are. Note that Fedora also now includes a
package naming convention, and so is on a
par with Debian in that respect.
The hackers [...] who write the real low-level stuff that makes various OS's work - for example in Linux people like Alan Cox, Linus, RMS, ESR, davem
Ha ha ha. Yep, Cox, Linus and DaveM are without
doubt low level hackers. But RMS and ESR?
RMS is admittedly somewhere between high and low
level,
getting down to compilers and linkers,
but not down to kernel level. But ESR is strictly
a userland programmer.
ESR is the only one to have ever referenced "Aunt Tillie" in a msg.
I'm not convinced about this.
While I may not always agree with ESR,
I think he's innocent here. From memory,
Aunt Tillie was originally coined by David Woodhouse
on LKML. ESR picked it up and ran with it, sure
(adding a nephew, Melvin, his girlfriend Penelope,
and other characters
for no apparently good reason), but he didn't
originate the term.
This is only true for trivial cases (single machine
backup). In the real world, multiple machines back
up to a central server concurrently. When
that happens, Veritas uses it's own interleaved
format on tape, which isn't readable with tar.
There's no way, no how that they could write a volume manager or filesystem product that's even in the same league with VxFS and VxVM.
Of course there is. Not only is there a way, it's
being done right now. Witness the recent
addition of extents to ext3, and the (newly revived, IIRC) tux2 phase tree filesystem. See
also the huge advances that have been made
in the Linux LVM.
Yes, Veritas is ahead of the
pack at the moment. But they're catching up every
day, and Veritas don't have a sustainable product
offering[1] in the long term, in the same way that
Sun is starting to feel the pinch from Linux. Yes,
the low end tends to be laughed at by the high
end players. But over time, the low end gradually acquires more and more features until it's on a
par with the mid range and eventually high end.
Elements within Veritas
already know this, but whether management do is
another matter entirely.
[1] Veritas have three main products: Foundation Suite
(that is, VxFS and VxVM),
clustering and backups. Of those, the first two
are definitely under mid term
threat from free alternatives.
Huh? Can't say I've ever seen one. I've seen a few
in-page banner ads, but that's it. Of course, I
have popups switched off nowadays, but even before
I did that, I don't remember seeing any X10
popups...
Maybe you didn't read BOTH tests, Tet, because I did, and I think ext3 came in LAST PLACE in most tests.
Yep, I read both tests. They both show that ext3
in the default ordered mode is a filesystem with
pretty decent performance. If you're thinking about
ext3 in journalled mode, than see my other post in
this thread (and those of several others, too) about
why that's not a valid comparison.
The default mode is the one that performed the best
on average anyway.
xfs, for example, can run with an external journal (different drive or partition), but more importantly can also be set up with a guaranteed rate IO section
Really? Since when? Last time I looked, GRIO was
only on IRIX, and wasn't supported by XFS under
Linux. Incidentally, ext3 can use an external
journal as well.
Really? You must be looking at a different set of
benchmarks to me, because as I see it, ext3 is
running a close race with XFS to take second place
behind JFS. Remember, ext3's journalled mode is
journalling data as well, and hence it isn't fair
to compare it to other filesystems directly as it's
doing much more work (equally, ext2 comes out on
top for a number of things because it's doing
far less work). Others like reiserfs, XFS
and JFS are journalling metadata only (c.f., ext3's ordered mode).
I tend to run ext3 on all of my servers, because
while it's not necessarily the absolute fastest,
it's fast enough, and more importantly, it's rock
solid in terms of stability. I wouldn't touch
reiserfs with a 10 foot bargepole for
any of my machines, mostly because I don't trust
it (or Hans). Now it seems even the touted
performance benefits aren't really there either.
I've been considering JFS for a
while, and have had a test JFS filesystem running
for the last few months. Maybe I'll switch, but
even if I don't, ext3 is more than adequate.
Quit trying to make your unix box act like a toy and start using it the way it was designed to work, and you'll quickly find out it's a lot better that way.
If I had mod points, I'd be dishing them out right
about now. As it is, welcome to my friends list:-)
Remember when [...]/usr was a separate filesystem? No more.
Speak for yourself. It is on all of my systems,
and with good reason -- so it can be mounted
read only. I also have several other
filesystems (for equally good
reasons). I'm disappointed that current distributions
seem to take the "Stick it all in one big root fs"
approach. I guess it makes their lives easier.
But it doesn't make it right, and it's not a good idea.
It's very similar. You have a proxy at both ends,
each designed to minimise round trips. Apparently
NX is just better at it than LBX. I saw it demonstrated at the UKUUG Linux conference earlier
this year, and it was very impressive. The talk
was actually about CUPS, but the guy was demonstrating using slides from magicpoint or
openoffice or similar. At the end of it, he
said "Oh, by the way, these slides are running on
a desktop in Italy, being remotely displayed here
suing NX".
Very impressive indeed...
I've heard statements like these again and again,
and every time I thank the decision I made to use
OpenBSD on our firewalls. Their focus on security
really does pay dividends. Yes, they still get it
wrong from time to time. But they're far ahead of
the rest of the field.
Yikes! Remind me to never give you a job as an
admin for any of my computers. While that sort of
thing might be acceptable for a home desktop, it's
suicide on a corporate server...
FVWM has too much 'eye candy' and crowds the windows.
So turn it off. Fvwm is almost infinitely configurable. It's why I still use it. I've tried
some of the newer window managers, and always end
up returning to fvwm2. Nothing else has the
flexibility I need.
Style "*" BorderWidth 1, HandleWidth 1
Incidentally, I also use fvwm2 on my PS2 Linux
box, and on that I use narrower borders than I
do on my main desktop machine, purely to save
valuable screen real estate due to the lower
resolution.
Yep, that's what I do currently. But I'd much
rather it was integrated like the iPAQ, so that
I could use the CF slot for other things, like
extra storage, for example.
I love being able to [...] compile my own kernel to include some features the manufacturer left out.
If only it were that simple. The critical feature that they've omitted here is builtin Bluetooth.
I have two Zauruses, and it's the one feature
they're missing. Not including it on these new
models is little short of criminal, and it's not
something that can be fixed with a kernel compile:-(
Though I usually test with -j4 on dual proc and -j2 on single proc, on the theory it focuses the work more on the CPU and less on the disk.
Apparently with GNU make, to get best performance,
you should use -j(N+1)
for a machine with N CPUs, to ensure that the CPU
always has work to do. I suspect this doesn't scale
well to very large numbers of CPUs, but for N <= 4, it's probably a fair rule of thumb.
We have mandatory insurance in that it's a legal
requirement for anyone on the road to have an
insurance policy (except for cyclists, bizarrely).
However, unlike some other European countries,
we don't have automatic third party insurance paid
for by taxes. Consequently, there are many people
driving around without insurance (by some estimates,
over 15% of all road users). That sucks if you're
the innocent party in an accident with an uninsured vehicle.
With album sales reaching an all time high
(at least here in the UK -- I assume the US is
similar), why does the RIAA keep insisting
that online music is killing the industry?
I personally download music from the net
as a taster
to see which CDs I should buy. I appreciate that
there are some who do it purely to avoid having
to spend the money, but the evidence seems to
show that it's not a big enough problem to be
hurting the industry. Do you think that this
situation will continue, or will the balance
swing towards more people avoiding buying
music that they can download for free?
Slashdot Mirror
This is one Americanism that really pisses me off. Learn the difference between the two, and use the right one. To insure is to arrange financial or other reimbursement, in the event that the unwanted happens. To ensure is to take steps to prevent the unwanted happening in the first place. BTW, I don't care what dictionary.com may say. The definitive guide to the language is the Oxford English Dictionary, which says that in modern English, "insure" is used almost exclusively to mean protecting against losses.
802.11x ?
Mac and Linux sync ?
No one cares about 802.11x. For a PDA, it's just a non-issue. But the lack of Bluetooth is a real problem. Sharp have come so close to creating the perfect PDA. If it had Bluetooth, I'd be buying one tomorrow, and importing it from Japan. But it doesn't, which leaves a CF bluetooth card as the only sensible alternative, and that's far from ideal (the CF slot is better used to add extra storage).
Sigh. I know I shouldn't feel the trolls, but what the hell. Repeat after me: Debian has exactly the same dependency problems as every other distribution. Exactly the same. Anyone who believes otherwise just doesn't understand the issues. It comes about because you're mixing vendor packages with third party packages. There's nothing the vendor can do to fix a broken 3rd party package, yet everyone still blames RH. Quite why is beyond me. It's nothing to do with dpkg being better than RPM (it isn't), or apt being better than up2date (perhaps it is, perhaps not, but the two are broadly similar, and the difference between them is slim if any). Debian doesn't tend to see this as much simply because there are virtually no third party packages for it. Also, Debian has a documented package naming convention, which will go some way to minimizing these problems for the few 3rd party packages that there are. Note that Fedora also now includes a package naming convention, and so is on a par with Debian in that respect.
Ha ha ha. Yep, Cox, Linus and DaveM are without doubt low level hackers. But RMS and ESR? RMS is admittedly somewhere between high and low level, getting down to compilers and linkers, but not down to kernel level. But ESR is strictly a userland programmer.
In comparison, the UK figure is around 750%. Approximately 87% of the price we pay at the pump goes to the government in tax.
I'm not convinced about this. While I may not always agree with ESR, I think he's innocent here. From memory, Aunt Tillie was originally coined by David Woodhouse on LKML. ESR picked it up and ran with it, sure (adding a nephew, Melvin, his girlfriend Penelope, and other characters for no apparently good reason), but he didn't originate the term.
This is only true for trivial cases (single machine backup). In the real world, multiple machines back up to a central server concurrently. When that happens, Veritas uses it's own interleaved format on tape, which isn't readable with tar.
Of course there is. Not only is there a way, it's being done right now. Witness the recent addition of extents to ext3, and the (newly revived, IIRC) tux2 phase tree filesystem. See also the huge advances that have been made in the Linux LVM. Yes, Veritas is ahead of the pack at the moment. But they're catching up every day, and Veritas don't have a sustainable product offering[1] in the long term, in the same way that Sun is starting to feel the pinch from Linux. Yes, the low end tends to be laughed at by the high end players. But over time, the low end gradually acquires more and more features until it's on a par with the mid range and eventually high end. Elements within Veritas already know this, but whether management do is another matter entirely.
[1] Veritas have three main products: Foundation Suite (that is, VxFS and VxVM), clustering and backups. Of those, the first two are definitely under mid term threat from free alternatives.
Huh? Can't say I've ever seen one. I've seen a few in-page banner ads, but that's it. Of course, I have popups switched off nowadays, but even before I did that, I don't remember seeing any X10 popups...
Yeah, it's a dupe. This was posted last month.
Yep, I read both tests. They both show that ext3 in the default ordered mode is a filesystem with pretty decent performance. If you're thinking about ext3 in journalled mode, than see my other post in this thread (and those of several others, too) about why that's not a valid comparison.
The default mode is the one that performed the best on average anyway.
xfs, for example, can run with an external journal (different drive or partition), but more importantly can also be set up with a guaranteed rate IO section
Really? Since when? Last time I looked, GRIO was only on IRIX, and wasn't supported by XFS under Linux. Incidentally, ext3 can use an external journal as well.
Really? You must be looking at a different set of benchmarks to me, because as I see it, ext3 is running a close race with XFS to take second place behind JFS. Remember, ext3's journalled mode is journalling data as well, and hence it isn't fair to compare it to other filesystems directly as it's doing much more work (equally, ext2 comes out on top for a number of things because it's doing far less work). Others like reiserfs, XFS and JFS are journalling metadata only (c.f., ext3's ordered mode).
I tend to run ext3 on all of my servers, because while it's not necessarily the absolute fastest, it's fast enough, and more importantly, it's rock solid in terms of stability. I wouldn't touch reiserfs with a 10 foot bargepole for any of my machines, mostly because I don't trust it (or Hans). Now it seems even the touted performance benefits aren't really there either. I've been considering JFS for a while, and have had a test JFS filesystem running for the last few months. Maybe I'll switch, but even if I don't, ext3 is more than adequate.
If I had mod points, I'd be dishing them out right about now. As it is, welcome to my friends list :-)
Please don't even mention that. Someone might take you seriously, and I shudden are the mere thought of it...
Speak for yourself. It is on all of my systems, and with good reason -- so it can be mounted read only. I also have several other filesystems (for equally good reasons). I'm disappointed that current distributions seem to take the "Stick it all in one big root fs" approach. I guess it makes their lives easier. But it doesn't make it right, and it's not a good idea.
It's very similar. You have a proxy at both ends, each designed to minimise round trips. Apparently NX is just better at it than LBX. I saw it demonstrated at the UKUUG Linux conference earlier this year, and it was very impressive. The talk was actually about CUPS, but the guy was demonstrating using slides from magicpoint or openoffice or similar. At the end of it, he said "Oh, by the way, these slides are running on a desktop in Italy, being remotely displayed here suing NX". Very impressive indeed...
I've heard statements like these again and again, and every time I thank the decision I made to use OpenBSD on our firewalls. Their focus on security really does pay dividends. Yes, they still get it wrong from time to time. But they're far ahead of the rest of the field.
apt-get upgrade
Stick it in a cronjob.
Yikes! Remind me to never give you a job as an admin for any of my computers. While that sort of thing might be acceptable for a home desktop, it's suicide on a corporate server...
So turn it off. Fvwm is almost infinitely configurable. It's why I still use it. I've tried some of the newer window managers, and always end up returning to fvwm2. Nothing else has the flexibility I need.
Incidentally, I also use fvwm2 on my PS2 Linux box, and on that I use narrower borders than I do on my main desktop machine, purely to save valuable screen real estate due to the lower resolution.
Yep, that's what I do currently. But I'd much rather it was integrated like the iPAQ, so that I could use the CF slot for other things, like extra storage, for example.
If only it were that simple. The critical feature that they've omitted here is builtin Bluetooth. I have two Zauruses, and it's the one feature they're missing. Not including it on these new models is little short of criminal, and it's not something that can be fixed with a kernel compile :-(
Apparently with GNU make, to get best performance, you should use -j(N+1) for a machine with N CPUs, to ensure that the CPU always has work to do. I suspect this doesn't scale well to very large numbers of CPUs, but for N <= 4, it's probably a fair rule of thumb.
We have mandatory insurance in that it's a legal requirement for anyone on the road to have an insurance policy (except for cyclists, bizarrely). However, unlike some other European countries, we don't have automatic third party insurance paid for by taxes. Consequently, there are many people driving around without insurance (by some estimates, over 15% of all road users). That sucks if you're the innocent party in an accident with an uninsured vehicle.
With album sales reaching an all time high (at least here in the UK -- I assume the US is similar), why does the RIAA keep insisting that online music is killing the industry? I personally download music from the net as a taster to see which CDs I should buy. I appreciate that there are some who do it purely to avoid having to spend the money, but the evidence seems to show that it's not a big enough problem to be hurting the industry. Do you think that this situation will continue, or will the balance swing towards more people avoiding buying music that they can download for free?