It's Sacramento, not Socromento, samzenpus, you oaf. Yes, it's a spelling flame, but it's the thirdone in three days. I guess the "editors" don't do much "editing".
Sorry if I was unclear...I wasn't criticizing Mason at all, just pointing out the parent's irony of pointing to Mason as a great example of what can be done with perl CGI...when in fact, Mason hasn't supported Apache 2 so far. I agree that they've had a good reason not to support it, given the lack of a mod_perl for Apache2.
Funny you mention Mason...Mason has not officially supported Apache 2 since mod_perl was not 2.0. Mason's position was that since there was no official mod_perl for Apache 2, they couldn't release an official Mason for Apache 2.
Yes, you could make it work but the documentation was spread over different people's home pages and it was certainly presented as more of a hacker's hobby than a professional development environment (unlike Mason for Apache 1.3.x).
I have worked on a number of projects that management dictated large numbers of people. A couple turned out to be super stars, a few were very good, some were capable to do grunt work and 40% drained a lot of time from the other 60%.
That's a very concise summary of the effect described in the -The Mythical Man-Month-, a short read that is quite educational.
...borders on a production control system, a la autosys or control-m. I don't know what's available for free, but perhaps googling for a PCS rather than "cron replacement" would lead you in the right direction.
...about cell phones, though not necessarily about "Windows Mobile". Most handheld electronic devices (PDAs, cell phones, music players, game players) will eventually consolidate, probably in some kind of modular architecture. Base unit + a card/chip for games, card/chip one for PDA, etc. A consumer tricorder.
And he's right that Apple is not positioned for the long haul (ooooh, here come the Apple fanboys). Steve Jobs will be off to make some other neat, shiny thing.
Will anyone ever reimplement the Unix kernel? So far it's just a message on USENET. Implementing the Unix kernel itself is no trivial task and it would take years years to reach the performance and stability of Sun's kernel even with huge resources. They have chosen their own unique architecture so I don't think code reuse is in their plan.
Then there is/usr/lib, which has sprawled to a massive scale...
What kind of idiotic Ask Slashdot is this? All of the important data is missing:
What's "a lot"? 1MB is a lot of data if you think about it. When people start talking about "a lot" of data these days, I assume they're meaning hundreds of terabytes. Is that what you mean?
What's the budget? What performance do you need? Do you need to back it up? Do you need to replicate it? Your post is sort of like "hi, I have a problem. What is the answer? Thanks!"
Also, it's "too expensive to scale," my friend. You'd think an "Editor" like Cliffy would fix posts, but he's too lazy.
If you can afford NetApp, why not keep with NetApp? A bunch of Linux boxes is not a storage solution. Indeed, what does Linux have to do with anything? We're talking storage here. What are you planning to do - put in 200 of them with internal SATA drives? Yeah, that'll be a lot cheaper to maintain...
I'm not shilling for NetApp, but if you really have "a lot" of data to put "on the web" "24/7" then you need some kind of real storage solution like a NetApp or one of their competitors.
Probably because wikipedia is often extremely slow if not down. It's a lot better over the last month, but I (not the original poster) still go to answers.com first by habit because it's a lot snappier.
Sure it is. Who cares if you can't, heaven forbid, get a cellular connection while driving from point A to point B? We survived for several thousand years without this. No need to ugly-up every hilltop over it.
...the monthly guide, right? Am I missing something, or is the utility of a DVR without some kind of automatically-updated programming guide kind of missing the point?
I am not much of a TV watcher, but if I could set a DVR to search for and grab old movies I want when they're on and tuck them away for a rainy day, then I'd be interested. But "pausing live TV" and such have little interest for me...
So without a guide, your remaining option is to search the TV Guide or whatever yourself...right?
It's amazing to think that 8 years ago some of the greatest minds in the world were saying "How will we organize and access the far reaches of the web". Two college students took it upon themselves to figure it out and deploy that solution to the world...Organizing and delivering a whole world's information/thoughts/opinions is a HUGE responsibility...
Google does not organize. They simply provide a good search engine.
From an information architecture point of view, the Internet is a disaster - nothing is structured, everything is equal weight, nothing is verified, etc. It's like the deconstructionists won the war.
Google has not solved the problem of information organization, or even attempted to. Google is not the Star Trek library computer. The day has not yet come where I can "look up" what I want on the Web instead of trying to "search" or "find" it.
I'm not criticizing the Internet or Google here. I'm just pointing out that fanboys like thirteenVA are way off the mark...Google did not "figure out" how to "oraganize and access the far reaches of the Web". They just built a search engine. That's it.
In my experience, 99% of people who say "American beer sucks" or only drink micro- or foreign brews would happily drink Budweiser if it was named something else. Give them a glass of Bud and tell them it's Pete's Wicked Spring Blonde Ale or something and they'll coo about the taste.
Most people are idiots. Pretentious beer drinks are worse.
(I don't drink beer. I'm pretentious about high-end vodkas).
I really wonder if 90% of Slashdot are people still in college who don't work nor have families nor real responsibility beyond next week's exam. I also wonder if 90% of Slashdot have egos so fragile that a single dirty look by a stranger would send them into a month-long depression.
If you still wonder about such things, you must be new here.
Slashdot Mirror
It's Sacramento, not Socromento, samzenpus, you oaf. Yes, it's a spelling flame, but it's the third one in three days. I guess the "editors" don't do much "editing".
Is that...posting while eating humus? Or did you mean humorously?
Xapparent? Sounds like a cool new word.
Nice "editing," Timothy.
Interesting. I thought they worked with vendors to achieve simultaneous releases.
Nice "editing," Taco.
Sorry if I was unclear...I wasn't criticizing Mason at all, just pointing out the parent's irony of pointing to Mason as a great example of what can be done with perl CGI...when in fact, Mason hasn't supported Apache 2 so far. I agree that they've had a good reason not to support it, given the lack of a mod_perl for Apache2.
Yes, you could make it work but the documentation was spread over different people's home pages and it was certainly presented as more of a hacker's hobby than a professional development environment (unlike Mason for Apache 1.3.x).
One project in this area I've been playing with is Nutch.
No, data are facts.
That's a very concise summary of the effect described in the -The Mythical Man-Month-, a short read that is quite educational.
...borders on a production control system, a la autosys or control-m. I don't know what's available for free, but perhaps googling for a PCS rather than "cron replacement" would lead you in the right direction.
And he's right that Apple is not positioned for the long haul (ooooh, here come the Apple fanboys). Steve Jobs will be off to make some other neat, shiny thing.
Will anyone ever reimplement the Unix kernel? So far it's just a message on USENET. Implementing the Unix kernel itself is no trivial task and it would take years years to reach the performance and stability of Sun's kernel even with huge resources. They have chosen their own unique architecture so I don't think code reuse is in their plan.
Then there is /usr/lib, which has sprawled to a massive scale...
- What's "a lot"? 1MB is a lot of data if you think about it. When people start talking about "a lot" of data these days, I assume they're meaning hundreds of terabytes. Is that what you mean?
- What's the budget? What performance do you need? Do you need to back it up? Do you need to replicate it? Your post is sort of like "hi, I have a problem. What is the answer? Thanks!"
Also, it's "too expensive to scale," my friend. You'd think an "Editor" like Cliffy would fix posts, but he's too lazy.If you can afford NetApp, why not keep with NetApp? A bunch of Linux boxes is not a storage solution. Indeed, what does Linux have to do with anything? We're talking storage here. What are you planning to do - put in 200 of them with internal SATA drives? Yeah, that'll be a lot cheaper to maintain...
I'm not shilling for NetApp, but if you really have "a lot" of data to put "on the web" "24/7" then you need some kind of real storage solution like a NetApp or one of their competitors.
Now go away and please take Cliff with you.
Probably because wikipedia is often extremely slow if not down. It's a lot better over the last month, but I (not the original poster) still go to answers.com first by habit because it's a lot snappier.
(cough) Jayson Blair (cough)
2 servers acting as a single database server has been available for many years...e.g., Oracle 9i RAC, Oracle 10g, DB/2's something or other, etc.
Sure it is. Who cares if you can't, heaven forbid, get a cellular connection while driving from point A to point B? We survived for several thousand years without this. No need to ugly-up every hilltop over it.
I am not much of a TV watcher, but if I could set a DVR to search for and grab old movies I want when they're on and tuck them away for a rainy day, then I'd be interested. But "pausing live TV" and such have little interest for me...
So without a guide, your remaining option is to search the TV Guide or whatever yourself...right?
Please modify parent -1 "Should have googled obvious question". The Fortran FAQ answers: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/fortran-faq/
Sure, if you're Edward Tufte and you're trying to sell tickets to your seminars...
And where would one find this vx-explode mailing list? Not via a google of vx-explode, apparently...
Google does not organize. They simply provide a good search engine.
From an information architecture point of view, the Internet is a disaster - nothing is structured, everything is equal weight, nothing is verified, etc. It's like the deconstructionists won the war.
Google has not solved the problem of information organization, or even attempted to. Google is not the Star Trek library computer. The day has not yet come where I can "look up" what I want on the Web instead of trying to "search" or "find" it.
I'm not criticizing the Internet or Google here. I'm just pointing out that fanboys like thirteenVA are way off the mark...Google did not "figure out" how to "oraganize and access the far reaches of the Web". They just built a search engine. That's it.
Most people are idiots. Pretentious beer drinks are worse.
(I don't drink beer. I'm pretentious about high-end vodkas).
Wikipedia on Budweiser
If you still wonder about such things, you must be new here.