In 1999? Sure. Plus, DVD was substantially better by almost any metric and had no real competition. Blu-Ray is potentially a little better than DVD if you have all the equipment to take advantage of it, but faces competition from downloads.
rsync is incremental protocol. _EXACTLY_ like IXFR used in BIND. So there won't be much difference.
That's not quite right. IXFR is implemented in BIND as a journal playback (O(1)), but rsync has to examine the entire database for changes to propagate (O(n), where n = number of records in the zone).
And the worst of it - you can't customize BIND without patching source code.
How do you customize djbdns without patching source code?
Personally, I switched to djbdns when I found out that I can't have a hidden DNS slave which can correctly work with views (i.e. I wanted a recursive resolver for my LAN with replicated zone).
What do you mean exactly? You've already made your choice and that's cool, but I'd be willing to bet that BIND does actually support that feature.
Yes, it is possible to live without watching new movies once DVD goes the way of VHS, but I would imagine that most Slashdot users would not want to go that far.
Are there any signs whatsoever of DVD being deprecated in favor of Blu-Ray?
Wish that the idiots that post these things had the cojones to use their own names and not hide behind "AC" like a sniveling little girl hiding behind her mothers skirts.
OK, then: I disagree with everything you said.
Signed, Kirk Strauser
straw men are used by the irrelevant to stop people from demanding what they are due
You mean undercover cops lying in response to the "Are you a cop?" question that criminals inevitably ask doesn't protect them from prosecution???
I used to have mutual friends with a guy that was pretty cool when he wasn't being paranoid. This was with a coffee shop crowd, and I was typically the only one there in khakis and a polo and a short haircut. One night he asked me if I was a cop, and I laughed it off. He asked again, a little more seriously and I said the idea was ridiculous. The next time he asked, I told him to quit asking. For the rest of the time I knew him, he'd randomly hit me up with it, and I'd laugh and change the subject without ever directly saying "no". Poor guy. I would've answered if he hadn't been so nervous about it.
Out of curiosity, would that still hold true for database backends? If you multiple zones point at the same file, does it have to parse that file for each zone or can it parse it once and cache it? Would converting them to dynamic zones so that BIND stores the data in its journal format make a difference one way or another?
Re:Twitter's not completely useless
on
One-Tweet Wonders
·
· Score: 1
Actually, with listserv it's indeterminate, because you can't assume that each one of those 10 people will want to follow all of the others. User1 subscribes to the "User2,User7,User9" list. User2 subscribes to "User3" list. Continue ad infinitum for larger values of 10. CNN has a popular Twitter account. Millions of people follow CNN, but I promise you that CNN doesn't want to follow each of them. Furthermore, I don't necessarily want to be on a list with someone solely because they're interested in the same random celebrity / company / organization / whatever.
For example, I don't need TSIGs because djbdns uses plain rsync over SSH (which utilizes my PKI) for zone transfers. Dynamic updates are performed using simple shell scripts.
That's the kind of simplicity that makes life much more complex. Our master BIND at work accepts updates for the LAN from Windows desktops. Whenever they get their DHCP lease, they say, "hey, user23.lan.example.com is now at 10.0.0.8". BIND dutifully updates its records and relays that message to the slave BINDs. Contrast with your setup: does djbdns even accept dynamic updates like that? If so, what happens when updates start to come in faster than rsync can copy them to the slaves (I can imagine some pretty large zones with tens of thousands of machines) - do you just accept that they're only synced every x minutes and call it good? What if you want to push those updates to your registrar's hosted DNS?
The problem with refusing to implement one standard is that each of your users has to invent their own incompatible workaround. Yes, TSIG and dynamic DNS and IXFR are difficult to code. They're also RFC standards that let my servers talk to their compliant peers without having to roll out an extra parallel PKI like you've had to do.
For a program who's core functionality is name -> number why is the configuration guide heavier than my tombstone?
Mainly because it's required to do so very much. Yes, my named.conf is very complicated. I don't know how much simpler you could make split-zone DNS for about 30 zones, including masters, slaves, and some dynamic updates. Oh, and TSIG to authenticate request between each pair of servers. And reverse zones. And IPv6. And recursion (but only for one of the views). I mean, it's sort of like Apache's httpd.conf. Sure, it gets twisty, but what could you leave out and still be able to configure the same functionality?
I have faith in conservatism, but no faith in Republicans to bring about conservatism.
Same here. I've temporarily adopted the Libertarian party, not because it's a perfect fit, but because they do more than give lip service to supporting actual conservative principles.
The ZFS code in 7.2R does not mitigate tuning in general, only in limited use siutations and with 4GB or more of memory.
Yes it does - in general. There are edge cases where you'd need to tune any filesystem because you, the sysadmin, know more about what it needs than the OS can guess. As of the current release, no tuning at all is needed for routine use.
7.2R was released last month. Anybody that puts into production, software that has been released less than thirty days, should be flipping burgers.
I think I see the disconnect: you hadn't previously mentioned that you were insane. Well, best of luck with that!
BTW, I've been running -STABLE in production for over a decade. With the exception of FreeBSD 5 before 5.2.1-R, I've never seen a release that wasn't an improvement over the previous release. I've also never found -RELEASE to be "better" than -STABLE, given that -STABLE gets more bugfixes and it gets them sooner. Basically, I can see why you'd want to run -RELEASE (even if I personally don't), but I definitely can't see why you'd want to run old versions of -RELEASE on general principles alone.
It's a fact that the hardware is less capable than the others.
But it's not less capable than a PS2 which had open-ended games like GTA and Jak & Daxter. For that matter, they managed to cram GTA: Chinatown Wars onto the DS, and I'm under the impression that the Wii is more capable than the DS.
No, I agree with moderatorrater: you can't objectively say that the Wii is incapable of these things. It's more accurate to say that they might be easier on other platforms in this generation, but that's not what Mattes said.
I'd be interested to know what the difference between 'scripting' and 'programming' is...
Well, when you "script" a solution, it takes an hour to write and 5 seconds to run. When you "program" a solution, it takes 4 days to write and 4.5 seconds to run, plus another 3 days to make fun of the scripting guy for writing something so slow.
But one aim should be to make tools that will serve skilled professionals--not to lower the level of expressiveness to serve people who can hardly understand the problems, let alone express solutions.
It's ironic to me that this came from the inventor of C++, IMHO one of the least expressive languages around. I spend most of my time in C{,++} explaining the means to an end, but most of my time in Python telling it what that end is.
For example, I have a list of values (int, float, string, or whatever else) and I want to double each of them. A typical Python expression would be list2 = [item * 2 for item in list1]. The C++ equivalent would involve explicitly stating what list2 will be, how to iterate across list1, and that the items might be of different types. I have better things to do with my programming time than to hold the compiler's hand and spell out every single detail.
That doesn't bother me, actually. AAC is a published standard I can play the iTMS songs I've bought through Amarok, and that's good enough for me. I just don't want to get locked into a format that only exists in the locked-up source code someone else owns.
"For the most part" being in that 7.2-RELEASE, on amd64, no tuning at all is necessary unless you have specific workloads (like database access). That's also true of UFS, where you'd want to tweak block size and inode density and such.
But on the other hand, I wish this was a case where the defendant wasn't so obviously guilty of what the RIAA claimed in the first trial.
I don't think that copyright violation is a good thing, but the insane damages clearly put it into the "unjust law" category. Being guilty of breaking an unjust law doesn't make you a bad person.
Slashdot Mirror
In 1999? Sure. Plus, DVD was substantially better by almost any metric and had no real competition. Blu-Ray is potentially a little better than DVD if you have all the equipment to take advantage of it, but faces competition from downloads.
rsync is incremental protocol. _EXACTLY_ like IXFR used in BIND. So there won't be much difference.
That's not quite right. IXFR is implemented in BIND as a journal playback (O(1)), but rsync has to examine the entire database for changes to propagate (O(n), where n = number of records in the zone).
And the worst of it - you can't customize BIND without patching source code.
How do you customize djbdns without patching source code?
Personally, I switched to djbdns when I found out that I can't have a hidden DNS slave which can correctly work with views (i.e. I wanted a recursive resolver for my LAN with replicated zone).
What do you mean exactly? You've already made your choice and that's cool, but I'd be willing to bet that BIND does actually support that feature.
But doesn't peering imply that they're not paying for bandwidth, especially since their traffic is likely to be almost entirely outbound?
Yes, it is possible to live without watching new movies once DVD goes the way of VHS, but I would imagine that most Slashdot users would not want to go that far.
Are there any signs whatsoever of DVD being deprecated in favor of Blu-Ray?
Can anyone reconcile:
Erm, the BBC don't have an ISP. They produce enough traffic in the UK that they peer directly with most UK ISPs at LINX.
with:
Both of these already take place more or less; the BBC does pay an ungodly amount for bandwidth already.
Both are "interesting" and "informative" contradictory answers to the same question.
No, no, no, the first way to tell if a star has already gone supernova is by the change in graviton waves.
Joking aside, would that be true? Wouldn't pre- and post-nova mass be roughly the same (minus what gets converted to energy) with the same center?
Would it matter?
Wish that the idiots that post these things had the cojones to use their own names and not hide behind "AC" like a sniveling little girl hiding behind her mothers skirts.
OK, then: I disagree with everything you said.
Signed, Kirk Strauser
straw men are used by the irrelevant to stop people from demanding what they are due
<Homer>That's ironical!</Homer>
You mean undercover cops lying in response to the "Are you a cop?" question that criminals inevitably ask doesn't protect them from prosecution???
I used to have mutual friends with a guy that was pretty cool when he wasn't being paranoid. This was with a coffee shop crowd, and I was typically the only one there in khakis and a polo and a short haircut. One night he asked me if I was a cop, and I laughed it off. He asked again, a little more seriously and I said the idea was ridiculous. The next time he asked, I told him to quit asking. For the rest of the time I knew him, he'd randomly hit me up with it, and I'd laugh and change the subject without ever directly saying "no". Poor guy. I would've answered if he hadn't been so nervous about it.
Out of curiosity, would that still hold true for database backends? If you multiple zones point at the same file, does it have to parse that file for each zone or can it parse it once and cache it? Would converting them to dynamic zones so that BIND stores the data in its journal format make a difference one way or another?
Actually, with listserv it's indeterminate, because you can't assume that each one of those 10 people will want to follow all of the others. User1 subscribes to the "User2,User7,User9" list. User2 subscribes to "User3" list. Continue ad infinitum for larger values of 10. CNN has a popular Twitter account. Millions of people follow CNN, but I promise you that CNN doesn't want to follow each of them. Furthermore, I don't necessarily want to be on a list with someone solely because they're interested in the same random celebrity / company / organization / whatever.
For example, I don't need TSIGs because djbdns uses plain rsync over SSH (which utilizes my PKI) for zone transfers. Dynamic updates are performed using simple shell scripts.
That's the kind of simplicity that makes life much more complex. Our master BIND at work accepts updates for the LAN from Windows desktops. Whenever they get their DHCP lease, they say, "hey, user23.lan.example.com is now at 10.0.0.8". BIND dutifully updates its records and relays that message to the slave BINDs. Contrast with your setup: does djbdns even accept dynamic updates like that? If so, what happens when updates start to come in faster than rsync can copy them to the slaves (I can imagine some pretty large zones with tens of thousands of machines) - do you just accept that they're only synced every x minutes and call it good? What if you want to push those updates to your registrar's hosted DNS?
The problem with refusing to implement one standard is that each of your users has to invent their own incompatible workaround. Yes, TSIG and dynamic DNS and IXFR are difficult to code. They're also RFC standards that let my servers talk to their compliant peers without having to roll out an extra parallel PKI like you've had to do.
For a program who's core functionality is name -> number why is the configuration guide heavier than my tombstone?
Mainly because it's required to do so very much. Yes, my named.conf is very complicated. I don't know how much simpler you could make split-zone DNS for about 30 zones, including masters, slaves, and some dynamic updates. Oh, and TSIG to authenticate request between each pair of servers. And reverse zones. And IPv6. And recursion (but only for one of the views). I mean, it's sort of like Apache's httpd.conf. Sure, it gets twisty, but what could you leave out and still be able to configure the same functionality?
I have faith in conservatism, but no faith in Republicans to bring about conservatism.
Same here. I've temporarily adopted the Libertarian party, not because it's a perfect fit, but because they do more than give lip service to supporting actual conservative principles.
Clearly, you have never worked for an organization that stresses quality.
You have clearly demolished me with your sagelike wisdom and rapier wit. Good day, Sir.
The ZFS code in 7.2R does not mitigate tuning in general, only in limited use siutations and with 4GB or more of memory.
Yes it does - in general. There are edge cases where you'd need to tune any filesystem because you, the sysadmin, know more about what it needs than the OS can guess. As of the current release, no tuning at all is needed for routine use.
7.2R was released last month. Anybody that puts into production, software that has been released less than thirty days, should be flipping burgers.
I think I see the disconnect: you hadn't previously mentioned that you were insane. Well, best of luck with that!
BTW, I've been running -STABLE in production for over a decade. With the exception of FreeBSD 5 before 5.2.1-R, I've never seen a release that wasn't an improvement over the previous release. I've also never found -RELEASE to be "better" than -STABLE, given that -STABLE gets more bugfixes and it gets them sooner. Basically, I can see why you'd want to run -RELEASE (even if I personally don't), but I definitely can't see why you'd want to run old versions of -RELEASE on general principles alone.
It's a fact that the hardware is less capable than the others.
But it's not less capable than a PS2 which had open-ended games like GTA and Jak & Daxter. For that matter, they managed to cram GTA: Chinatown Wars onto the DS, and I'm under the impression that the Wii is more capable than the DS.
No, I agree with moderatorrater: you can't objectively say that the Wii is incapable of these things. It's more accurate to say that they might be easier on other platforms in this generation, but that's not what Mattes said.
I'd be interested to know what the difference between 'scripting' and 'programming' is...
Well, when you "script" a solution, it takes an hour to write and 5 seconds to run. When you "program" a solution, it takes 4 days to write and 4.5 seconds to run, plus another 3 days to make fun of the scripting guy for writing something so slow.
Good. Now how fast does your Haskell program run?
Pretty well, I'd say.
But one aim should be to make tools that will serve skilled professionals--not to lower the level of expressiveness to serve people who can hardly understand the problems, let alone express solutions.
It's ironic to me that this came from the inventor of C++, IMHO one of the least expressive languages around. I spend most of my time in C{,++} explaining the means to an end, but most of my time in Python telling it what that end is.
For example, I have a list of values (int, float, string, or whatever else) and I want to double each of them. A typical Python expression would be list2 = [item * 2 for item in list1]. The C++ equivalent would involve explicitly stating what list2 will be, how to iterate across list1, and that the items might be of different types. I have better things to do with my programming time than to hold the compiler's hand and spell out every single detail.
That doesn't bother me, actually. AAC is a published standard I can play the iTMS songs I've bought through Amarok, and that's good enough for me. I just don't want to get locked into a format that only exists in the locked-up source code someone else owns.
"For the most part" being in that 7.2-RELEASE, on amd64, no tuning at all is necessary unless you have specific workloads (like database access). That's also true of UFS, where you'd want to tweak block size and inode density and such.
Like Yahoo!?
Sun's ZFS (BSD licensed).
Correction: CDDL licensed. If it were BSD licensed, it'd be in the Linux kernel by now.
But on the other hand, I wish this was a case where the defendant wasn't so obviously guilty of what the RIAA claimed in the first trial.
I don't think that copyright violation is a good thing, but the insane damages clearly put it into the "unjust law" category. Being guilty of breaking an unjust law doesn't make you a bad person.