Not true. IBM has used PowerPC chips in RS/6000s and might still use them in lower-end pSeries workstations. The POWER chips are generally the higher-end (think Xeon), while the PowerPC is more general-purpose (lower cost, lower performance). The later POWER are also 64-bit, while the PowerPC is still 32.
That's what I'm thinking. NeXTStep ran on x86 and Darwin runs on x86, so running OS X on x86 seems like a natural step, especially for a server market, where most of the software is running on x86 already anyway. Of course, why you'd want an expensive proprietary OS to run the same servers that you can run on a free BSD or Linux, I cannot say.
There's stability from lack of failure, but there is also stability in platform lifetime. I package and support a number of add-ons and each one of those takes time to produce and test; with EL, I've got 5 (now 7, I think) years of vendor support in the form of updates (even indirect updates, through CentOS), so the time I spend working on EL pays off longer than time spent doing the same thing for Fedora, where I've got 18 months or so. (Probably a little more with Fedora Legacy, but I don't know how well that's going--I stopped following after I migrated my 7.3 systems to EL3.)
I suspect the OP meant WBEL and CentOS. The only thing better about Whitebox is the name; "CentOS" is a great product/project with a lousy name; "Whitebox Enterprise Linux" is a great name for an inferior (to CentOS) product/project. I wish they'd merge--CentOS becomes Whitebox in name only and retains the community, quality and timeliness.
That's their choice, and entirely besides the point. The point is that just because something is deemed a "release" doesn't endow it with magical powers of stability. A release can be just as alpha-quality and buggy as a CVS snapshot and belief to the contrary is simply illusion.
I don't think that is besides the point. With a "release" people can expect that:
The software builds and installs, at least for common platforms.
The software passes tests and ensures a modicum of stability.
... and providing you generally stick to that, something magical will happen:
People will actually download and use your software!
Even if you don't stick to that, some people will still try it, just due to the aforementioned illusion, for the same reason people buy brand name when a generic has no discernable difference.
If you really want to strip down to the barest of bones, try tinywm. Maybe not generally useful, but great for kiosks, under-powered systems, etc. In only 44 LoCs!
I guess this really isn't a turnkey solution... Sorry. You might try Snap appliances, but I suspect turnket solutions are going to cost way more than you could really justify for personal/home storage.
I use software RAID for most installations. Hardware RAID comes with a high price tag and is a pain to manage (not to mention that the on-disk formats vary not only between vendors but also models, so replacing a dead RAID card can be troublesome at best). Avoid those cheap hardware IDE RAID things; they're cheap because they're slow and not very reliable--software RAID in Linux is quite reliable and fast. Depending on your budget and storage requirements, you could go with IDE or SATA drives (you'll probably need to buy external controllers). I'm not generally keen on RAID5, but if you can afford a hot spare, it's probably your best option.
I usually just make one large MD device and then use LVM to split it up as necessary and grow the logical volumes as necessary. If you just want media storage, you'd probably be fine skipping the LVM and using one large filesystem.
Where was this little black box located? It's not separate from the computer, it's *part* of the computer! And, apparently, just an I/O device at that...
But you are rejecting discussion based on umprovability. We experience a universe that either is or isn't designed. Proving that it wasn't designed or proving that it was designed is ultimately impossible but based on the complexity and consistency with which it operates one person may have the hunch that it is designed, while other may have the hunch that it is an amazing grouping of coincidences and nothing more.
Close, but not quite. The assertion that the universe is designed simply does not make sense--it is not a semantically meaningful statement. In order for something to be designed, we have to know what it means for something not to be designed--the notions of "intelligent" and "designed" are comparative notions and therefore require a basis for comparison. We have no basis for comparison.
It seems to be a meaningful assertion because of false analogy. We can compare, for example, two stacks of Legos--one a box just opened and poured out and the other bricked up like the Millenium Falcon--and we can say that one is designed and one is not. By analogy, we might look at the laws the universe appears to follow and see some appearance of design. But it isn't meaningful because we cannot imagine--much less have experience of--an undesigned universe. The Lego stacks we can compare because each is separate--we can be independent of each to make observations. But we cannot be independent of our universe to make observations. I will gladly revise my opinion in the future should we become able.
Furthermore, the term "law" is itself misleading, since the laws we know most intimately are proscriptive laws--they tell us to do something or to not do something. But the "laws" of science are descriptive laws--they describe patterns we have observed.
I do not say that the universe it not designed--all I can say is that I have not seen a good reason to think that it is designed, therefore I cannot reasonably hold that belief.
That is the point of the whole story: Belief on what can not be proven. Your question is sort of pointless because you can't prove it either way. You didn't RTFA or even the title of the story, did you?
It sounds like the title is about all you've read. The site and its articles aren't about things believed willy-nilly; the articles are experts describing their hunches based on their years of experience and synthesizing information outside their fields. It is not about experts having beliefs without cause--it's about experts having beliefs with cause but not rigorously proven (yet anyway). That is a critical distinction to make. To quote:
This is an alternative path. It may be that it's okay not to be certain, but to have a hunch, and to perceive on that basis. There is also evidence here that the scientists are thinking beyond their individual fields. Yes, they are engaged in the science of their own areas of research, but more importantly they are also thinking deeply about creating new understandings about the limits of science, of seeing science not just as a question of knowing things, but as a means of tuning into the deeper questions of who we are and how we know.
These questions are not about making vague statments and leaving them at belief; they are about stimulating thought and discussion--not about simply accepting a belief and rejecting discussion based on unprovability.
Aparently that has already been answered by the partent with a resounding Yes!.
That was a mistake on my part. The quesion was meant to be: Have you ever experienced a universe that was not designed?
No, not really. Design is one of those things that indicates intelligent origin, that's all. You can call a DVD player "designed", but yet you can't point to a naturally-occurring DVD player growing wild on some jungle or being mined from the earth.
You've just restated what I said: Design implies an abstraction (a function of intelligence) of a purpose from nature and then creation (by man) of something for that purpose.
How would you know what a universe that wasn't designed looked like? Have you ever experienced a universe that was designed? "Design" is one of those things that we as humans recognize in relation to things not designed; we compare, say, a chair with a fallen tree. Both can be appropriated for the task of sitting, but one is designed and other other not (presuming, of course, we're talking about a knocked over). How would you recognize if the universe werre not designed?
BTW, if you're really interested in the question and not merely espousing it as a foundation for other less tenable beliefs, I recommend that you read Bertrand Russell's "Why I Am Not a Christian (And Other Essays)" and George Smith's ""Atheism: The Case Against God."
If you think it's bad on a PC with a couple of SCSI drives, you should try waiting for even the initial console messages on an RS/6000 with half a dozen or so drives. There's something to be said for a very thorough POST, but you can only say it so many times before you get bored in the 20-30 minutes it may take.
Exit polls from 2000
on
The Nader Factor
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Some points:
* Nader only got twice as many Dems as Repubs; and those combined were only half the number of Independents.
* Compare Nader's 2% of Dems with the Repubs %8 of Dems--4x as many Democrats voted Republican as voted for Nader.
What is it Christians don't like to hear? Oh right:
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thy say to thy brother, "Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?" Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
There are also a lot of idiot cyclists who don't let pedestrians know they're there. All it takes is a $5 bell and the gumption to use it and we'd all get along a little better. I can be heard dinging all around town...
If you were apathetic, you won't bother reading the flammage in the politics section, and you certainly wouldn't bother posting (unless you're drunk and just having fun). I think you're like many of us--aware of the limitations of your knowledge and frightened by the likelihood of being wrong.
At some point, though, you either decide to commit yourself to something and charge headlong into the foray or you stick with the safe option and sit on your ass.
Slashdot Mirror
Not true. IBM has used PowerPC chips in RS/6000s and might still use them in lower-end pSeries workstations. The POWER chips are generally the higher-end (think Xeon), while the PowerPC is more general-purpose (lower cost, lower performance). The later POWER are also 64-bit, while the PowerPC is still 32.
That's what I'm thinking. NeXTStep ran on x86 and Darwin runs on x86, so running OS X on x86 seems like a natural step, especially for a server market, where most of the software is running on x86 already anyway. Of course, why you'd want an expensive proprietary OS to run the same servers that you can run on a free BSD or Linux, I cannot say.
RHEL ES Basic Edition is $349 (which is no doubt what the OP meant).
There's stability from lack of failure, but there is also stability in platform lifetime. I package and support a number of add-ons and each one of those takes time to produce and test; with EL, I've got 5 (now 7, I think) years of vendor support in the form of updates (even indirect updates, through CentOS), so the time I spend working on EL pays off longer than time spent doing the same thing for Fedora, where I've got 18 months or so. (Probably a little more with Fedora Legacy, but I don't know how well that's going--I stopped following after I migrated my 7.3 systems to EL3.)
I suspect the OP meant WBEL and CentOS. The only thing better about Whitebox is the name; "CentOS" is a great product/project with a lousy name; "Whitebox Enterprise Linux" is a great name for an inferior (to CentOS) product/project. I wish they'd merge--CentOS becomes Whitebox in name only and retains the community, quality and timeliness.
I don't think that is besides the point. With a "release" people can expect that:
Even if you don't stick to that, some people will still try it, just due to the aforementioned illusion, for the same reason people buy brand name when a generic has no discernable difference.
If you really want to strip down to the barest of bones, try tinywm. Maybe not generally useful, but great for kiosks, under-powered systems, etc. In only 44 LoCs!
I guess this really isn't a turnkey solution... Sorry. You might try Snap appliances, but I suspect turnket solutions are going to cost way more than you could really justify for personal/home storage.
I use software RAID for most installations. Hardware RAID comes with a high price tag and is a pain to manage (not to mention that the on-disk formats vary not only between vendors but also models, so replacing a dead RAID card can be troublesome at best). Avoid those cheap hardware IDE RAID things; they're cheap because they're slow and not very reliable--software RAID in Linux is quite reliable and fast. Depending on your budget and storage requirements, you could go with IDE or SATA drives (you'll probably need to buy external controllers). I'm not generally keen on RAID5, but if you can afford a hot spare, it's probably your best option.
I usually just make one large MD device and then use LVM to split it up as necessary and grow the logical volumes as necessary. If you just want media storage, you'd probably be fine skipping the LVM and using one large filesystem.
Where was this little black box located? It's not separate from the computer, it's *part* of the computer! And, apparently, just an I/O device at that...
But you are rejecting discussion based on umprovability. We experience a universe that either is or isn't designed. Proving that it wasn't designed or proving that it was designed is ultimately impossible but based on the complexity and consistency with which it operates one person may have the hunch that it is designed, while other may have the hunch that it is an amazing grouping of coincidences and nothing more.
Close, but not quite. The assertion that the universe is designed simply does not make sense--it is not a semantically meaningful statement. In order for something to be designed, we have to know what it means for something not to be designed--the notions of "intelligent" and "designed" are comparative notions and therefore require a basis for comparison. We have no basis for comparison.
It seems to be a meaningful assertion because of false analogy. We can compare, for example, two stacks of Legos--one a box just opened and poured out and the other bricked up like the Millenium Falcon--and we can say that one is designed and one is not. By analogy, we might look at the laws the universe appears to follow and see some appearance of design. But it isn't meaningful because we cannot imagine--much less have experience of--an undesigned universe. The Lego stacks we can compare because each is separate--we can be independent of each to make observations. But we cannot be independent of our universe to make observations. I will gladly revise my opinion in the future should we become able.
Furthermore, the term "law" is itself misleading, since the laws we know most intimately are proscriptive laws--they tell us to do something or to not do something. But the "laws" of science are descriptive laws--they describe patterns we have observed.
I do not say that the universe it not designed--all I can say is that I have not seen a good reason to think that it is designed, therefore I cannot reasonably hold that belief.
That is the point of the whole story: Belief on what can not be proven. Your question is sort of pointless because you can't prove it either way. You didn't RTFA or even the title of the story, did you?
It sounds like the title is about all you've read. The site and its articles aren't about things believed willy-nilly; the articles are experts describing their hunches based on their years of experience and synthesizing information outside their fields. It is not about experts having beliefs without cause--it's about experts having beliefs with cause but not rigorously proven (yet anyway). That is a critical distinction to make. To quote:
These questions are not about making vague statments and leaving them at belief; they are about stimulating thought and discussion--not about simply accepting a belief and rejecting discussion based on unprovability.
Aparently that has already been answered by the partent with a resounding Yes!.
That was a mistake on my part. The quesion was meant to be: Have you ever experienced a universe that was not designed?
No, not really. Design is one of those things that indicates intelligent origin, that's all. You can call a DVD player "designed", but yet you can't point to a naturally-occurring DVD player growing wild on some jungle or being mined from the earth.
You've just restated what I said: Design implies an abstraction (a function of intelligence) of a purpose from nature and then creation (by man) of something for that purpose.
How would you know what a universe that wasn't designed looked like? Have you ever experienced a universe that was designed? "Design" is one of those things that we as humans recognize in relation to things not designed; we compare, say, a chair with a fallen tree. Both can be appropriated for the task of sitting, but one is designed and other other not (presuming, of course, we're talking about a knocked over). How would you recognize if the universe werre not designed?
BTW, if you're really interested in the question and not merely espousing it as a foundation for other less tenable beliefs, I recommend that you read Bertrand Russell's "Why I Am Not a Christian (And Other Essays)" and George Smith's ""Atheism: The Case Against God."
You don't pay for the lack of extra pages, you pay for the ass to carry it around.
If you think it's bad on a PC with a couple of SCSI drives, you should try waiting for even the initial console messages on an RS/6000 with half a dozen or so drives. There's something to be said for a very thorough POST, but you can only say it so many times before you get bored in the 20-30 minutes it may take.
Some points:
* Nader only got twice as many Dems as Repubs; and those combined were only half the number of Independents.
* Compare Nader's 2% of Dems with the Repubs %8 of Dems--4x as many Democrats voted Republican as voted for Nader.
What is it Christians don't like to hear? Oh right:
Absolutely! I've been thinking this for a last few years!
Do you actually know how they determine those numbers?
The IBM RS/6000 860 portable also had a SCSI drive in a 2.5" form factor.
Cobb is a Green, not Libertarian. And Greens are running for a lot of local and state offices.
Wow, we've got a Satinist Party? I prefer silk, but hell, satin is good enough for me!
There's another likely disadvantage: The damn things are expensive and that probably makes them prime targets for theft.
There are also a lot of idiot cyclists who don't let pedestrians know they're there. All it takes is a $5 bell and the gumption to use it and we'd all get along a little better. I can be heard dinging all around town...
Or maybe i'm just Apathetic.
If you were apathetic, you won't bother reading the flammage in the politics section, and you certainly wouldn't bother posting (unless you're drunk and just having fun). I think you're like many of us--aware of the limitations of your knowledge and frightened by the likelihood of being wrong.
At some point, though, you either decide to commit yourself to something and charge headlong into the foray or you stick with the safe option and sit on your ass.
And we've got these people in charge of national security?