A LOT of our customers are moving to centralized processing and storage systems. This has been a general movement for YEARS! All of those small servers turn out to be a PITA to manage and costly in terms of TCO vs. capability and reliabilty. Good.
Why is it that all of these posters on/. are against... Lack of experience. The assumption that what they cannot see doesn't matter. The very shortsighted idea that the problems solved on yesterdays mainframes will be solved on tomorrows PCs. That might work if the requirements stayed the same, but the requirements of tomorrows mainframe systems are much higher than yesterdays.
Derided? No. In fact the opposite. It's an alternate view that parallels the parent. Derision would use a different form. They are both fluent and competent in English.
Me, I found the error insightful. If I trusted Microsoft I might be willing to be an early adopter, but I'm old enough and set in my ways that like hell I'm going to be an early adapter. Plus the image of the software giving good support for early adapter cards is hilarious.
their incessant need to lock everyone in (and all competition out) is basically scaring us away as well.
Right. The future will go more and more toward interoperability being crucial to operation. While neither IBM nor Sun can be expected to go much out of their way to "support" the other, both are astute and honorable enough to not sabatoge the "competition". I'm sure we'll all continue to use MS products, but it will be on a monotonically decreasing base.
The shared computer's operating system has the job of making sure only those who are authorized can access these documents. Top Secret: Can Read any. Can write only Top Secret. Secret: Can Read Secret or lower. Can write only Secret. Restricted: Can Read Restricted or lower. Can write only Restricted. Unrestricted: Can read/write only Unrestricted.
Now, what is the access level of system administrator, backup operator, software vendor? You're going to do anything like this on a pc??? You want any of that mess on a home computer??? Don't think so.
Premature optimization Methinks the subroutine call uses more cycles than either form of loop. If the total time is small enough, it doesn't matter which form is used. If the total time is too much, the difference is not enough gain. You might gain enough from (foo(loop(foo-stuff)) as opposed to (loop(foo(foo-stuff)).
Worse that useless, because it looks like it's doing something usefull. If x and y refer to the same memory, either free(x) or free(y) will free the memory. both will double-free the memory. Even worse if the memory is reallocated between free(x) and free(y). The free(y) is legitimate, but it is the wrong block of memory.
During the Middle Ages the Arabs were among the most educated people in the world and were widely credited with preserving the knowledge of the Greek and Roman eras. I wonder how many/.ers can solve cubics and quartics.
"By the 11th century the Arabs had founded, developed and perfected geometrical algebra and could solve equations of the third and fourth degree." Arabic News.com
If it still exists and you can lay your hands on it, there used to be a manual, something like Job File Control Block, which contains the structures that JCL is (MACRO ASSEMBLER)ed into. It helps to make sense out of peculiarities such as SYSOUT being a DISPOSITION. In ASM (not in the "higher-level" languages) there is RDJFCB or some such that will read the JCL. I have used JCL to control programs, but almost everything you will ever find uses JCL to supply whatever information is missing from the program's DCBs (as well as supply a JOBNAME and a bit of accounting info).
if this is motivated by Microsoft This reads like a Microsoft press release. "Office Depot Supply Memo Dear Office Depot Supplier, In October 2001, Microsoft released Windows XP, which has become the fastest growing operating system in history. This operating system is built on the dependable Windows 2000 code base, features a fresh new look, enables new personal computing experiences including easy digital photo and video tools, and fosters rich communications and enhanced mobility. As you know, applications and devices that meet or exceed Microsoft's technical requirements will be awarded the Designed for Windows XP logo and be promoted in the Windows Catalog."
Looks like Office Depot is "losing it".
Further, parsing "As you know, applications and devices that meet or exceed Microsoft's technical requirements will be awarded the Designed for Windows XP logo and be promoted in the Windows Catalog." As you know -- nice prelude to something you don't know. applications and devices that meet or exceed Microsoft's technical requirements will be awarded... -- no "as determined by" or weasel words. If the application does meet... and it is not sent to Microsoft for validation, how could Microsoft know?
Interesting juxtaposition: In other news, 79.5% of statistics are made up. And Slashdot is comprised of 72% Windows users.... so why should anyone believe the results put together by one of the main rabidly anti-Windows voices which casts Windows in a negative light?
Ok, for a mixed=base order of magnitude, try seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, moons, years, decades, centuries, milleniums. Try bushel, peck, gallon, quart, pint, cup, tablespoon, teaspoon, ounce. There are also such as order of n-squared or n log n. Seems like whenever the term "order of magnitude" is used, there is an implication of inexactitude in or irrelevance of the exact number itself but a lot of attention is paid to how big the number is in the sense of "where is the decimal point?".
Order of magnitude is not a form of equivalence. A is the same order as B. B is the same order as C. Cannot claim A is same order as C. A is the same order as B. A is the same order as C. Cannot claim B is same order as C.
Rounding has no desirable properties. In general, the round of the sum is different from the sum of the rounds. I liked your example. 256 and 365 are obviously close enough to be the same order of magnitude, but the act of rounding (discretization) puts them into very different buckets.
Actually, its 8/10ths of an order of magnitude Actually, it's not. Granted there are 8 bits in a byte, but the bitrate includes space between frames and the framing information itself. The correct factor to convert bits of bandwidth to bytes transferred is much closer to 10.
A good question can come from a "clueless" user. Are the answers cluefull?
why would anybody crowd two people onto one machine in this day and age when most of us have whole networks of multiple machines at our disposal, i.e. single user, multiple machines? Single user, no interaction with other users. Might as well use Big Chief tablets or clay tablets.
In this day, what we want is multiple user, multiple machine, which is a hard (ie many-to-many) problem, hence an interesting problem.
Where will SCO be a year from now, or two or three years from now? And who can guarantee that for us? Or any proprietary company that gets "bought up"?
MySQL is good for reading and writing. Just not the same thing at the same time. MySQL is not good for reading and writing the same table at the same time. MySQL is lousy at handling writing and slow readers, enough so that I'd put slow readers on a separate slaved system. If everything serializes nicely in the allotted time, MySQL will perform beautifully. When it doesn't, you get a cliff-edge like thrashing in the old time-sharing systems. When it doesn't, you'll find you need a much bigger and faster system. About transactions. They are logically required when you have two or more things to update that must both succeed or both fail. The downside of transactions is that your transaction can fail for reasons outside of what you're doing. If you transfer funds from checking to savings at the same time that interest is updated on your savings account, One of the transactions had better fail. Now life gets interesting if the bank cannot update interest payments because customers are messing with their accounts.
Slashdot Mirror
A LOT of our customers are moving to centralized processing and storage systems. This has been a general movement for YEARS! All of those small servers turn out to be a PITA to manage and costly in terms of TCO vs. capability and reliabilty.
/. are against...
Good.
Why is it that all of these posters on
Lack of experience. The assumption that what they cannot see doesn't matter. The very shortsighted idea that the problems solved on yesterdays mainframes will be solved on tomorrows PCs. That might work if the requirements stayed the same, but the requirements of tomorrows mainframe systems are much higher than yesterdays.
Derided? No. In fact the opposite.
It's an alternate view that parallels the parent. Derision would use a different form.
They are both fluent and competent in English.
Me, I found the error insightful.
If I trusted Microsoft I might be willing to be an early adopter, but I'm old enough and set in my ways that like hell I'm going to be an early adapter.
Plus the image of the software giving good support for early adapter cards is hilarious.
their incessant need to lock everyone in (and all competition out) is basically scaring us away as well.
Right. The future will go more and more toward interoperability being crucial to operation. While neither IBM nor Sun can be expected to go much out of their way to "support" the other, both are astute and honorable enough to not sabatoge the "competition". I'm sure we'll all continue to use MS products, but it will be on a monotonically decreasing base.
The shared computer's operating system has the job of making sure only those who are authorized can access these documents.
Top Secret: Can Read any. Can write only Top Secret.
Secret: Can Read Secret or lower. Can write only Secret.
Restricted: Can Read Restricted or lower. Can write only Restricted.
Unrestricted: Can read/write only Unrestricted.
Now, what is the access level of system administrator, backup operator, software vendor? You're going to do anything like this on a pc??? You want any of that mess on a home computer??? Don't think so.
Can't be driven out of unapproved driveways.
You're stuck.
Amen brother. The one useful innovation in Windows95 was the ability to kill useless help windows with a single click.
Right. And now that Microsoft has determined that New Technology is unsupportable, any bets that .NET, Palladium, etc will be any more supportable.
Premature optimization
Methinks the subroutine call uses more cycles than either form of loop.
If the total time is small enough, it doesn't matter which form is used.
If the total time is too much, the difference is not enough gain. You might gain enough from (foo(loop(foo-stuff)) as opposed to (loop(foo(foo-stuff)).
Worse that useless, because it looks like it's doing something usefull.
If x and y refer to the same memory,
either free(x) or free(y) will free the memory.
both will double-free the memory.
Even worse if the memory is reallocated between free(x) and free(y). The free(y) is legitimate, but it is the wrong block of memory.
Is CNN biased in its choice of stories? Definitely Yes.
Comparatively, that would make Slashdot unbiased toward Microsoft.
During the Middle Ages the Arabs were among the most educated people in the world and were widely credited with preserving the knowledge of the Greek and Roman eras. /.ers can solve cubics and quartics.
I wonder how many
"By the 11th century the Arabs had founded, developed and perfected geometrical algebra and could solve equations of the third and fourth degree."
Arabic News.com
If it still exists and you can lay your hands on it, there used to be a manual, something like Job File Control Block, which contains the structures that JCL is (MACRO ASSEMBLER)ed into. It helps to make sense out of peculiarities such as SYSOUT being a DISPOSITION. In ASM (not in the "higher-level" languages) there is RDJFCB or some such that will read the JCL. I have used JCL to control programs, but almost everything you will ever find uses JCL to supply whatever information is missing from the program's DCBs (as well as supply a JOBNAME and a bit of accounting info).
if this is motivated by Microsoft
... -- no "as determined by" or weasel words. If the application does meet ... and it is not sent to Microsoft for validation, how could Microsoft know?
This reads like a Microsoft press release.
"Office Depot Supply Memo
Dear Office Depot Supplier,
In October 2001, Microsoft released Windows XP, which has become the fastest growing operating system in history. This operating system is built on the dependable Windows 2000 code base, features a fresh new look, enables new personal computing experiences including easy digital photo and video tools, and fosters rich communications and enhanced mobility. As you know, applications and devices that meet or exceed Microsoft's technical requirements will be awarded the Designed for Windows XP logo and be promoted in the Windows Catalog."
Looks like Office Depot is "losing it".
Further, parsing "As you know, applications and devices that meet or exceed Microsoft's technical requirements will be awarded the Designed for Windows XP logo and be promoted in the Windows Catalog."
As you know -- nice prelude to something you don't know.
applications and devices that meet or exceed Microsoft's technical requirements will be awarded
When truth is outlawed; only outlaws will tell the truth.
.... is .... sickening.
That
God, I hope you're wrong, but we seem to be heading thataway.
Interesting juxtaposition: ... so why should anyone believe the results put together by one of the main rabidly anti-Windows voices which casts Windows in a negative light?
In other news, 79.5% of statistics are made up. And Slashdot is comprised of 72% Windows users.
Because 72% of us use Windows?
Sun quality that is affordable. Hmmm. Could fly.
And I don't mean low-end "consumer" junk by Compaq, etc.
Ok, for a mixed=base order of magnitude, try seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, moons, years, decades, centuries, milleniums. Try bushel, peck, gallon, quart, pint, cup, tablespoon, teaspoon, ounce. There are also such as order of n-squared or n log n.
Seems like whenever the term "order of magnitude" is used, there is an implication of inexactitude in or irrelevance of the exact number itself but a lot of attention is paid to how big the number is in the sense of "where is the decimal point?".
Order of magnitude is not a form of equivalence.
A is the same order as B. B is the same order as C. Cannot claim A is same order as C.
A is the same order as B. A is the same order as C. Cannot claim B is same order as C.
Rounding has no desirable properties. In general, the round of the sum is different from the sum of the rounds. I liked your example. 256 and 365 are obviously close enough to be the same order of magnitude, but the act of rounding (discretization) puts them into very different buckets.
Actually, its 8/10ths of an order of magnitude
Actually, it's not. Granted there are 8 bits in a byte, but the bitrate includes space between frames and the framing information itself. The correct factor to convert bits of bandwidth to bytes transferred is much closer to 10.
-50%
+100%
-------
No Change
(The basis for +100% is half the basis for -50%)
A good question can come from a "clueless" user.
Are the answers cluefull?
why would anybody crowd two people onto one machine in this day and age when most of us have whole networks of multiple machines at our disposal, i.e. single user, multiple machines?
Single user, no interaction with other users. Might as well use Big Chief tablets or clay tablets.
In this day, what we want is multiple user, multiple machine, which is a hard (ie many-to-many) problem, hence an interesting problem.
if this is where you come to get a heads up with what's happening in the security arena, you need to try harder
Why?
Slashdot has been quite timely and effective for:
Melissa
Love Bug
Code Red
Nimda
Slapper
Where will SCO be a year from now, or two or three years from now? And who can guarantee that for us?
Or any proprietary company that gets "bought up"?
50% efficient? If so, I'm impressed. Max theoretical from a carnot cycle engine is somewhere around 35% IIRC.
MySQL is good for reading and writing. Just not the same thing at the same time.
MySQL is not good for reading and writing the same table at the same time.
MySQL is lousy at handling writing and slow readers, enough so that I'd put slow readers on a separate slaved system.
If everything serializes nicely in the allotted time, MySQL will perform beautifully. When it doesn't, you get a cliff-edge like thrashing in the old time-sharing systems. When it doesn't, you'll find you need a much bigger and faster system.
About transactions. They are logically required when you have two or more things to update that must both succeed or both fail. The downside of transactions is that your transaction can fail for reasons outside of what you're doing. If you transfer funds from checking to savings at the same time that interest is updated on your savings account, One of the transactions had better fail. Now life gets interesting if the bank cannot update interest payments because customers are messing with their accounts.