to thread and distribute workloads seamlessly Sounds like sucker-bait to me. With PCs getting faster and more reliable, consider *why* IBM is selling more mainframes than ever.
Conway's law states something to the effect that the structure of a program is isomorphic to the structure of the group that produces it. Everything clammoring for attention. Popups that try to show how important they are. Things scattered across menus so that everybody gets to have "input". Sheesh, I prefer the relative sanity of BSD vs Linux, KDE vs Gnome.
The corporate workstation market and the user market are very different markets. The software can even be identical, but there is enough difference in emphasis and focus that it's probably better not to get everybody confused.
Did it ever occur to anyone that if Sun had their way they would be doing exactly what MS is doing now? They are just a wanna-be monopolist. Yes it occurred to me. It also occurred to me that Sun *ISN'T* and Microsoft *IS*. If it's wrong to be a wanna-be monopolist, it's very wrong to actually *BE* a monopolist.
you can't utilize an Internet component if you do not have an Internet connection Take a few computers, a hub and some Cat5 cables. No Internet, but any Internet components in the software can certainly be used.
Finally, it is important to note that a EULA does not overide relevant legislative and case law. That is fact. Are Microsoft's lawyers aware of this?
"Auto-update" as a feature only grants MS rights if you turn it on. Does Microsoft have any rights if I don't turn it on?
Multiple "hurl"s, (whatever that is) Where security by obscurity actually works. Each piece individually is not that good, but there is no one thing you can crack and be "in". Damage is limited, and these things tend to be noisy about stuff that doen't belong.
In the event that Microsoft offers a replacement or modified version of or any upgrade to the SOFTWARE, (a) your continued use of the SOFTWARE is conditioned on your acceptance of such replacement or modified version of or upgrade to the SOFTWARE and any accompanying superceding EULA
Looking more and more like a protection racket. Microsoft claims the right to abrogate any previous deal and substitute anything it likes, whenever it likes.
I change my mind and want to relicense future versions of that software. I can do that. Its my code. The future versions of that software are not issued under GPL. I fail to see how software not issued under a license changes the license that it is not issued under. Oh, and there's nothing "give away" about the GPL.
Crazy like a fox. Open Source is best at solving problems, provided that the problems are "interesting". Senior management is unwilling to bet that they will only have "interesting" problems. So, somehow, just having the option of turning around to IBM and give them a royal bollocking is worth the exorbitant price. Yep. And it's to IBM's advantage that the Open Sourced Apache is as good as possible. There *is* a product, but it's much more complicated than just the software itself. Those shrinkwrapped copies of JRun 3.0 gathering dust in the filing cabinet are doing their duty. You're still running 2.3.2, but your support is tied to the copies you are *not* running. It's a strange world when you mix big business and Open Source. Read The Fine Manual is free. Making someone else Read The Fine Manual for you is not free. Having the hacker culture run into and solve your problems before you run into them -- priceless;)
Risk. Assuming the *value* is substantially greater than the bids, you have the question of how much can go how wrong before it starts eating up the vendor's profit margin and the contract has to be renegotiated.
Methinks you've got the right handle on the situation. The internet is a public network. It's not a bunch of private, gated, security-guarded enclaves. Public street and sidewalk. Fence with a gate (keeps children and small pets from wandering too far too fast). Screened-in front porch with screen door. Screen door to house. Main door to house. Stranger knocks on main door. Or maybe I'm wrong and modern society has already victimized itself.
From 80386 Programmer's Reference Manual. General Protection Exception All protection violations that do not cause another exception cause a general protection exception. This includes (but is not limited to): 1. Exceeding segment limit when using CS, DS, ES, FS, or GS 2. Exceeding segment limit when referencing a descriptior table 3. Transferring control to a segment that is not executable 4. Writing into a read-only data segment or into a code segment 5. Reading from an execute-only segment 6. Loading the SS register with a read-only descriptor 7. Loading SS, DS, ES, FS, or GS with the descriptor of a system segment 8. Loading DS, ES, FS, or GS with the descriptor of an executable segment that is not also readable 9. Loading SS with the descriptor of an executable segment 10. Accessing memory via DS, ES, FS, or GS when the segment register contains a null selector 11. Switching to a busy task 12. Violating privilege rules 13. Loading CR0 with PG=1 and PE=0 14. Interrupt or exception via trap or interrupt gate from V86 mode to privilege level other than zero. 15. Exceeding the instruction length limit of 15 bytes (this can occur only if redundant prefex are placed before an instruction)
Basically, the machine code is trying to do something highly illegal. How it got there and why are a different matter. Flaky memory is always a suspect. Computed jumps based on leftover garbage (uninitialized variable) are another fun way to encounter the problem. Random code/data usually crashes eventually. It is possible that it's just catching an attempted write to protected storage.
The Intel 386+ actually does have a very good hardware protection mechanism, which unless sombody managed a port of Multics, is effectively unused and subverted from protected segments to a nice flat space where anybody can do anything to everything.
someone who does a different job but still needs to knock out the occasional half-decent document.
That's what Microsoft word is good for. Throw something at it and it will come out looking fairly respectable. But do not care about what the stuff you produce looks like. If you fight it, Word will win.
There doesn't seem to be any indication now that Red Hat is doing anything they shouldn't be doing. HOWEVER, it is to everybody's advantage (except maybe Microsoft's) that Red Hat be worthy of trust.
No, you are a really good perl coder when you can write a program that expeditiously solves the problem and a non-programmer can read and comprehend what the program does. (How it does it is a different matter altogether;)
Check technet.microsoft.com it's the first place to look regarding windows I didn't think Microsoft's technet was that out of date. The XT, for you youngsters out there, was when they added a whopping big 20 meg hard drive to the pc. It's before Intel made the 80286. With the AT (80286) they added a second interrupt controller, accessable by 16-bit cards and moved the hard disk interrupt to IRQ14 (primary) and IRQ15 (secondary) IDE controllers. IRQ5 now standard for lpt2 but somewhat avoided because of conflict with hardware interrupt 0Dh on 80286+, the famous General Protection Violation. Check google.com when you actually need useful information.
Linux recovery? What would I ever need that for? Well if my experience is anything to go by, broken Microsoft Windows systems Otherwise it's like you don't do away with the fire department just because you have flameproof shingles on the roof.
The metaphor starts the conceptualization. The term becomes jargon after it has obtained a more precise meaning. I would guess that a zombie process is one that is dead, or should be dead, but for some reason has not made itself disappear. One reason for a zombie to stick around is that somebody should maybe do an autopsy.
Ah, he catches on. My NT servers and workstations essentially stay up except for extended power outages. Stable? Yeah, just like a boat in a harbor on a calm day.
Slashdot Mirror
to thread and distribute workloads seamlessly
Sounds like sucker-bait to me.
With PCs getting faster and more reliable, consider *why* IBM is selling more mainframes than ever.
"Every operating system out there is about equal in the number of vulnerabilities reported"
There are a lot more diseases reported now than there were in the middle ages. We must be a lot sicker now than then according to that logic.
Conway's law states something to the effect that the structure of a program is isomorphic to the structure of the group that produces it. Everything clammoring for attention. Popups that try to show how important they are. Things scattered across menus so that everybody gets to have "input". Sheesh, I prefer the relative sanity of BSD vs Linux, KDE vs Gnome.
The corporate workstation market and the user market are very different markets. The software can even be identical, but there is enough difference in emphasis and focus that it's probably better not to get everybody confused.
Did it ever occur to anyone that if Sun had their way they would be doing exactly what MS is doing now? They are just a wanna-be monopolist.
Yes it occurred to me. It also occurred to me that Sun *ISN'T* and Microsoft *IS*. If it's wrong to be a wanna-be monopolist, it's very wrong to actually *BE* a monopolist.
I'd like to get all that on a sworn affadavit from someone responsible at Microsoft.
Maybe someone in Venezuela figured out that they win either way?
Yep. But you better watch your tail feathers.
you can't utilize an Internet component if you do not have an Internet connection
Take a few computers, a hub and some Cat5 cables. No Internet, but any Internet components in the software can certainly be used.
Finally, it is important to note that a EULA does not overide relevant legislative and case law. That is fact.
Are Microsoft's lawyers aware of this?
"Auto-update" as a feature only grants MS rights if you turn it on.
Does Microsoft have any rights if I don't turn it on?
Multiple "hurl"s, (whatever that is)
Where security by obscurity actually works. Each piece individually is not that good, but there is no one thing you can crack and be "in". Damage is limited, and these things tend to be noisy about stuff that doen't belong.
In the event that Microsoft offers a replacement or modified version of or any upgrade to the SOFTWARE, (a) your continued use of the SOFTWARE is conditioned on your acceptance of such replacement or modified version of or upgrade to the SOFTWARE and any accompanying superceding EULA
Looking more and more like a protection racket. Microsoft claims the right to abrogate any previous deal and substitute anything it likes, whenever it likes.
I change my mind and want to relicense future versions of that software. I can do that. Its my code.
The future versions of that software are not issued under GPL. I fail to see how software not issued under a license changes the license that it is not issued under.
Oh, and there's nothing "give away" about the GPL.
Buy the "Professional Server". The box looks more impressive:)
Crazy like a fox.
Open Source is best at solving problems, provided that the problems are "interesting".
Senior management is unwilling to bet that they will only have "interesting" problems. So, somehow, just having the option of turning around to IBM and give them a royal bollocking is worth the exorbitant price. Yep. And it's to IBM's advantage that the Open Sourced Apache is as good as possible.
There *is* a product, but it's much more complicated than just the software itself. Those shrinkwrapped copies of JRun 3.0 gathering dust in the filing cabinet are doing their duty. You're still running 2.3.2, but your support is tied to the copies you are *not* running.
It's a strange world when you mix big business and Open Source. Read The Fine Manual is free. Making someone else Read The Fine Manual for you is not free. Having the hacker culture run into and solve your problems before you run into them -- priceless;)
Risk.
Assuming the *value* is substantially greater than the bids, you have the question of how much can go how wrong before it starts eating up the vendor's profit margin and the contract has to be renegotiated.
Methinks you've got the right handle on the situation.
The internet is a public network. It's not a bunch of private, gated, security-guarded enclaves.
Public street and sidewalk. Fence with a gate (keeps children and small pets from wandering too far too fast). Screened-in front porch with screen door. Screen door to house. Main door to house. Stranger knocks on main door.
Or maybe I'm wrong and modern society has already victimized itself.
From 80386 Programmer's Reference Manual.
General Protection Exception
All protection violations that do not cause another exception cause a general protection exception. This includes (but is not limited to):
1. Exceeding segment limit when using CS, DS, ES, FS, or GS
2. Exceeding segment limit when referencing a descriptior table
3. Transferring control to a segment that is not executable
4. Writing into a read-only data segment or into a code segment
5. Reading from an execute-only segment
6. Loading the SS register with a read-only descriptor
7. Loading SS, DS, ES, FS, or GS with the descriptor of a system segment
8. Loading DS, ES, FS, or GS with the descriptor of an executable segment that is not also readable
9. Loading SS with the descriptor of an executable segment
10. Accessing memory via DS, ES, FS, or GS when the segment register contains a null selector
11. Switching to a busy task
12. Violating privilege rules
13. Loading CR0 with PG=1 and PE=0
14. Interrupt or exception via trap or interrupt gate from V86 mode to privilege level other than zero.
15. Exceeding the instruction length limit of 15 bytes (this can occur only if redundant prefex are placed before an instruction)
Basically, the machine code is trying to do something highly illegal. How it got there and why are a different matter.
Flaky memory is always a suspect.
Computed jumps based on leftover garbage (uninitialized variable) are another fun way to encounter the problem. Random code/data usually crashes eventually.
It is possible that it's just catching an attempted write to protected storage.
The Intel 386+ actually does have a very good hardware protection mechanism, which unless sombody managed a port of Multics, is effectively unused and subverted from protected segments to a nice flat space where anybody can do anything to everything.
someone who does a different job but still needs to knock out the occasional half-decent document.
That's what Microsoft word is good for. Throw something at it and it will come out looking fairly respectable. But do not care about what the stuff you produce looks like. If you fight it, Word will win.
There doesn't seem to be any indication now that Red Hat is doing anything they shouldn't be doing. HOWEVER, it is to everybody's advantage (except maybe Microsoft's) that Red Hat be worthy of trust.
No, you are a really good perl coder when you can write a program that expeditiously solves the problem and a non-programmer can read and comprehend what the program does. (How it does it is a different matter altogether;)
I can go through the phonebook, find out where the person lives and go take a picture of them AND IT'S PERFECTLY LEGAL.
Not without a model release from each of them you don't.
Check technet.microsoft.com it's the first place to look regarding windows
I didn't think Microsoft's technet was that out of date.
The XT, for you youngsters out there, was when they added a whopping big 20 meg hard drive to the pc. It's before Intel made the 80286.
With the AT (80286) they added a second interrupt controller, accessable by 16-bit cards and moved the hard disk interrupt to IRQ14 (primary) and IRQ15 (secondary) IDE controllers. IRQ5 now standard for lpt2 but somewhat avoided because of conflict with hardware interrupt 0Dh on 80286+, the famous General Protection Violation.
Check google.com when you actually need useful information.
Linux recovery? What would I ever need that for?
Well if my experience is anything to go by, broken Microsoft Windows systems
Otherwise it's like you don't do away with the fire department just because you have flameproof shingles on the roof.
Where the developers strive to reinvent the wheel, hundereds of times over.
Yeah, and you're thinking the first wheel was perfectly round and smooth?
The metaphor starts the conceptualization. The term becomes jargon after it has obtained a more precise meaning. I would guess that a zombie process is one that is dead, or should be dead, but for some reason has not made itself disappear. One reason for a zombie to stick around is that somebody should maybe do an autopsy.
Ah, he catches on. My NT servers and workstations essentially stay up except for extended power outages. Stable? Yeah, just like a boat in a harbor on a calm day.