... We typically isolate all database specific code in appropriate classes and stored procedures (after all, that's one of the things stored procedures are for... to help abstract the database specific code from the rest of your code) and it isn't bad at all to port to a new RDBMS, as long as it has the features we need (referential integrity, transactions, etc.)
In fact, in most cases, we can port to a new RDBMS without recompiling our source, just by providing the appropriate stored procedures on the new system.
So let me get that straight: You argue in favor of stored procedures in regard of ease of portability when in any discussion of stored procedures one of the main arguments against them is how they lock you in to a certain database (vendor)?
Note that I don't have a strong opinion about that myself, because I never needed to do such a SP port myself. Just wondering about your reasoning, when the common argument seems to go contrary.
It is offered under GPL *and* non-GPL licenses. Which was *exactly* the reason I used it as an example.
(Before I go on, bear in mind that IANAL). MySQL AB own the copyright to MySQL (AFAIK); thus they can release it under the GPL. All changes made to the GPL-licensed version are thus also GPL, and, unless all the authors of the new code get together with MySQL AB and come to an agreement, the branch of the GPL licensed version is GPL-only.
In fact, MySQL AB already comes to an agreement with all contributers: Before MySQL AB accepts any non-trivial patch, they ask you to transfer copyright[1], else they are going to implement the change themselves, if they consider it important enough. That's nothing unusual, the FSF does a similar thing.[2] So there isn't really a branch with a GPL'ed version of MySQL.
However, MySQL AB retain the right to the original version they wrote (and all branches that exclusively include their code, I'd guess); thus they can offer it under a non-GPL license.
[1] More precisly, they ask you to share the copyright (so that they may offer it under their commercial license). I don't know the exact wording anymore, but I have it lying around in some old mail from when they asked me. One can assume that they came to different terms with some huge contributers, such as the author of the InnoDB table type.
[2] Albeit for a different reason: The FSF says it makes legal proceedings and the enforcement of the GPL easier, if there is only one copyright holder.
The rest of section 7 only pertains to stuff I HAVE NOT YET DISTRIBUTED, but in this case I have already entered into the GPL by giving you the binary before the rest of that section even comes into play.
That's exactly the point. You have already distributed the software. Section 7 is about distribution, IMHO, as a whole: there is nothing to suggest that the "rest of section 7" is meant to be read separately from its first sentence. Not even a paragraph between the sentences.
If you already distributed the software, the only way you still have an obligation is when you did so under the terms of section 3.b[1] ("written offer to provide source code, valid for 3 years") of the GPL.
So, if there is now some court order, it's not up against the GPL, but against your written offer to provide the source.[2] And interesting side note is, that while only the copyright holder can sue you regarding the GPL, the receiver (more precisely: any follow-up receiver) of that written offer can sue you directly. That difference hopefully makes clear, that we are not directly at the "distribution" part of the GPL anymore.
IMHO, the GPL makes it painstakingly clear what it tries to regulate and what not. It's obvious (to me, at least;) that Section 7 is trying to prevent someone from saying "oh, I would love to provide the source code, but, you see, here, 'this' and 'that', it's forbidding me from fulfilling my obligations, so you'll have to do with the binaries only, for the meantime". And Section 7 even explicitly explains that if it is unenforcable (e.g. because it is thought to try to superceed a court ruling), that its balance (read: spirit) is meant to apply.
[1] With 1., 2. or 3.a, you already distributed everything there is to distribute. With 3.c, somebody else has the obligation.
[2] Only when you don't comply with your own offer, the copyright holder can argue that you didn't comply with the GPL to begin with. And I doubt any court would hold that against you, presumed that you distributed the software before you got aware of the prohibiting circumsstances (court order, patent, whatever).
Secondly, if you read ALL of that paragraph you get this to begin with:
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License
That covers distribution of code for binaries which you have ALREADY distributed, as you later comment on, but in my understanding the GPL tries to superceed the court ruling:).
Oh, how I love selective quoting. If you don't cut at the place you did, it becomes patently obvious, that the GPL doesn't try to superceed court rulings, but that it just tries an all or nothing approach. It even gives an example that explains, that it doesn't try to superceed other duties (like a court order), but that you simply cannot use the GPL as the license to distrubute if you cannot fulfill it. Here is the full excerpt:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License.If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
There. Nothing about ignoring a ruling. It even implies that you have to satisfy the court order.
Your niece didn't have a boss breathing down her neck, and bunch of people wanting help, a myriad of home issues, and god know what else to deal with when her system crashed.
You only prove my point that this has nothing to do with IT-skills.
If you have your error messages ID'd, ou could have it logg the error message ID.
First, I am not the one asking for these IDs, it was the grand-grand parent. I just argued that asking for such an ID (and therefore screenshot) isn't unreasonable depending on the circumstances.
And second, this was not about errors in self-written applications (the program he wrote himself was the one to do the snapshot and generate the ID), IIRC.
Yeah, for self-written applications your suggestion seems best.
Re:No, you don't have it straight.
on
Are You Annoying?
·
· Score: 1
I think it's the same thing. "my email is working" implies that the mail server is working. Checking the mail server can be as simple as hitting the "Get new mail button" on the IT tech's email client.
Huh? If some of my servers aren't working, I get automatic information (email, SMS,... depending on service and requirements) long before the first user call comes. So no, when I say, the server works, I don't need to actually test it. The lack of alarms tell me everything works. The first 20-30 reports I did actually test to be on the safe side, and then stopped, simply relying on my monitoring setup (but this includes that I regulary test that setup works).
But yes, users (or should I say "people"?) kind of expect your side to be broken, so for some problems you need to say "when I try it works for me, so we need to find what I do different from you". And if you actually do try or not depends on your confidence that it works and the time you have available.
E.g. when the problem is "my password isn't accepted", it was either a common problem I already knew about, or it was user error - when the server was up, there was not a single case in the last 2 years, when the login procedure or the server misbehaved.
So yes, I have learned, that it helps when I lie to users about this, because they will be more cooperative this way (note that in my case - due to time constraints - the alternative is not to do the test, but to tell them without trying that it most probably is on their side). And this though I hate lying.
Under your system, a semi-technical user would be unable to report a fault even if he or she has quite a good idea what the problem might be just because the user didn't manage to take a picture of the problem.
What is so difficult about pressing an icon looking like a camera so that a "semi-technical" user cannot do that? Please? Even my niece knew how to do that when she was 4 years old (in her case, for starting a game). And remembering to press that button has nothing to do with IT-skills at all.
Yeah, I agree, getting told that you won't get help just because you forgot/didn't knew that you would need that ID is annoying indeed. But if the problem happens often enough to be a bother, you'll have no problem to get an ID next time.
Just to make myself clear: Of course it's best to lead the user through the necessary reporting steps in a friendly manner... if you have the time for that. But in any support situation I was in, resources where limited, and every minute spent on guesswork due to incomplete reports is a minute lost for doing other scheduled stuff.
umount ; mount and you have access to that guy's drive. Security is a tricky business.
Yeah, but you will be noticed and the next thing is that you are thrown out of class for abuse.
Even with a 4 drive configuration, I can simply distract you (or wait for lunch break) and use a pin to get your CD-ROM out of your drive.
So the difference between the original scenario and mine isn't all that big. The main (and archievable) goal here seems to prevent accidental reading of other's stuff.
But I admit that my proposal might be too easy to break. If so you think so, use the "user" (without s) option, that doesn't allow others to unmount. Of course, then, you have to think about a solution against someone blocking the drive.
And what if one person writes an important document and another wants to press reset?
My reset button triggers a shutdown and reboot (Mandrakelinux), so all reasonable word processors will save the important document beforehand. So nothing is lost except time for working on the document.
The next argument then probably goes: but they can use the power switch. That problem is not exactly specific to that setup (e.g. here there are some computer rooms where the fuse box or main power switch is accessible). My answer to this is: Make use of the auto-save feature of your editor and do some beating to the one who thought switching the power is funny.
I suggest 4 CD-ROM drives and correct permissions set in fstab so everyone can use -their own- drive only;)
With 1 CD-ROM, simply make it so, that the files are owned by the user who mounts the drive, and that everyone can umount it (IIRC, that was "users" option in fstab). This way you moved it from a technical to "only" a social problem (they have to share access to one drive).
And as someone else said, use USB for "all can use it at the same time". You want USB anyhow, because you want to be able to save something.
In case anyone wonders why I replied to a troll: This is Slashdot, which resulted in the trolling post already getting modded as "Interesting", i.e. to some mods you have to explain that it's a troll and why.
Do you mean Microsoft Deutschland Gmbh losing out to IBM Deutschland?
Just a side node: There is no contract made yet. The decision was to go with the Linux migration plan. Next step will be a Ausschreibung (tender?), where companies will make offers to a published requirements list (which may include experience in the field).
Any company meeting the requirements can participate, even Microsoft, if it is willing to do a Windows->Linux migration (yeah, we are going see that:). After a deadline, they will choose from the offers one or more companies to actually do the migration.
[Well, that was how it roughly works... the details may be different (e.g. could be that there are several smaller tenders)]
Apparently in Germany, they are petrified of the Church of Scientology.
That's a misrepresentation. In day-to-day business nobody cares about Scientology here.
So much so that they demanded Microsoft provide them with instructions to remove "Disk Defragmenter", because it was developed by a company whose CEO was a scientologist.
The logic behind this decision is quite simple. Scientology applied to be recognized as religion in Germany and was put down, because it didn't met the requirements the law sets forth for acknowledging a religion. Scientology didn't like that and there was quite some fuss afterwards.
Overall, soon afterwards it's been officially considered a cult, IIRC. Not only by the law, but also by a lot of independend observers.
Now, with that presumption, that Scientology is a cult -- some of their (alleged) questionable goals known -- that has shown open hostility against the current legal system. If you take that as given, it's quite sound for a government to look for software other than one which (allegedly) has known influence of Scientology.
Ram will help you with caching, but how much of your system are you going to cache? My/usr directory is over 3 gigs.
Currently, free tells 650MB are used as cache (the system has been up 4 days with regular use). Even though my/usr has a similar size as yours, how much of that 3GB are you actively using a day? Usually these 650MB are all I need.
YMMV, but for me, after initial start-up I rarely have to wait for the disks (but I should note, that emacs, mozilla and so on are automatically started, so belong to my start-up).
Besides, more than half of that 50$ is a one-time-purchase (well, ok, you'll upgrade scsi cards every 5 years or so, but still...)
I am not sure I understand your argument. I upgrade to a different memory system about every 3 years. Are you really arguing about those two years? Besides, when I upgrade, my old system will be kept in use... so either it keeps the SCSI cards, or have have the hassle of switching in an IDE replacement and copying the installations around (which the Windows partition doesn't like, usually).
Finally, this still doesn't answer the "why IDE raid for performance" question. Why? It only gets you read throughput, which is usually irrelevant on a home system. For redundancy, that is understandable... but performance? Home use performance for everyday activities are most limited by seek time.
Hm. Your point implies that IDE RAID will not improve seek times. I know for sure that isn't true for SCSI RAID. I have no actual experience with IDE RAID seeks (I do have experience with IDE RAID, but that was purely for redundancy, so I never bothered to do timing), but I assume given a correct setup (i.e. for software RAID, putting the disks on different channels) -- although not as good as with SCSI -- it should be significant enough to be worth the effort.
But as I said, trying that is a part I still have to do.
This embarrassing FP exception hole has been around since 2.4. Yet I still expect to hear how much the "many eyes" of Open Source magically eradicate all bugs in all situations. -- People routinely mod me down for voicing an opposing opinion instead of just replying in disagreement.
Well, I would mod you "Troll", if I had mod points. That's not because you voice an opposing opinion, but because you make up stuff.
I don't know whom you refer to by "how much the many eyes of Open Source magically eradicate all bugs in all situations." [emphasize mine], but it's surely nobody seriously involved in the FS/OSS community.
I have never read anyone making such a statement (even from fanboys here on Slashdot) except when being implied by people like you.
That's 50$ for a root partition that will give you a 70% speed boost over a 7200 RPM ide drive.
Hm, I'd rather invest those $50 into RAM (you easily get additional 512MB for that). It won't speed up boot time (but in my case, I don't care about whether booting once a day needs 1 or 2 minutes), but after first use, everything is really fast (well, at least under Linux:)
I could even preload some stuff into a RAM disk and prevent seek times this way (via dd), but as I said, first startup isn't that important to me.
I am also not sure, why you are speaking of fast swap access several times. My swap partition didn't get much use for the last 5 years (even when I was still at 386MB)[1]. If you aren't into video editing or such, today's average 512MB or such should be plenty.
Another possibility for fast access times without spending too much, which I have done recently on a database server, is using average disks and putting software RAID on it (I needed much space and the fast disks with the needed size were about several times the prize of the lesser disks).
This worked so well with SCSI disks that I intend to try it with my home system on the next upgrade. Though I expect less performance due to IDE constraints.
[1] It gets used whenever Linux decides that it's a good idea to swap unused parts out in order to increase the mem availabe for the filesystem cache - which is why I still have a swap.
While you are correct on "a hypothesis", at least Webster says that it's "anhistoric". Where is your reference?
And, AFAIK, it's not "a hypothesis" because the H is pronounced or not, but because of what follows: the same as it's "an update" but "a user". But I may be wrong on the H part.
I don't know if that's more embarassing for the Guardian that they don't know how to search, or for us geeks that instantly jumped to google saying:
"Hell, I can get the results faster than that".
The former.
It would be the latter, if they'd taken some people from the street and asked them to do the searches. But since it's obvious from the descriptions for "phone" and "library" that those people knew how to research things and whom to contact, the least we can expect is that the "Google" part is done by someone who knows the tricks.
Overall, I think the winner is pretty inconclusive, but it still does shows that Google is a really good search engine - where you can actually find a reasonable result.
If you account for the bias, i.e. for the average Doe, not used to research all day, Google is the clear winner.
Well, even in ignorance of the bias, for me, the overall winner is Google, because in this test - Google comes up with results comparable in accuracy to conventional methods (if you use due diligence) and, additionally, - it's on par in speed to a professional researcher[1] using those other methods, - it has a small diviation in search times[2], so you can plan your research,
In other words - at least according to this test - Google matches other methods professionals use with regard to speed and accuracy. It gives Google credibility, and this is where I see Google as a winner here.
And of course, for best results, you would mix the methods. Also, confirming the accuracy by several sources is also a good idea (like Google for it and then check if the data still current).
[1] Well, Google would be the clear winner in speed, if you consider that everyone can do that "back care" question faster and that the "Library" research has a case which needed 8min++ and would have needed longer, if it didn't got help (for which it was disqualified). But since it can always happen that you get stuck/stumped with any method, I decided to treat it just like that.
Dear Mods, please note that the parent is a troll.
Although it sounds interesting when presented as speculation, it's not presented as such and shows the same signs that are so typical for hoaxes, aka "present enough half-truth to make the rest believable".
I want to make clear, that I don't deny that there might be some small possibility that it is as the parent poster says, but as the saying goes, extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof, and he provides (almost) none. The conclusions he draws are not the most plausible ones for the claims that are presented.
Aside from the lack of any references for his claims, he fails to cover, for example:
- What about all the smart people Google pays. Nobody saw this coming? [I have no particular problem telling years beforehand with an accuracy of 1 month when disk space, CPU, or other design contraints will limit further growth of the services I am responsible for. Google can't do better?]
- There are other reasons that can equally well explain why they are taking stance against duplicate content. A simple one is: complaints by users or content authors (like the amazon reviews case that's discussed all over the postings here)
- The fact that indexes are usually not limited by the amount of indexed entities (here: web pages), but the overall size of the entities. - The google index could be an exception to that, because they have a distributed file system (which is equivalent to a second index), so they don't need to point to the location of the data, but only the file containing it. - So if there is some limit, it sounds more probable to be in the number of nodes on the filesystem or such, but the parent presented it as fact: The index is maxed.
- Google is now in the process of dropping millions of link records from its index. Maybe I missed it, but except for the duplicates or other "offenders" I didn't hear of any such process. And unfortunately the parent doesn't provide any references.
- Google is wavering. Where does this come from?
- Gmail is a distraction, a venture into some other space to keep people from noticing that their search product is degrading. Hm, at least I missed what they tried to distract from by allthosenicenewfeaturesthey presented within the last years and are still going to add. In other words, he presented no evidence for the claim that this is more than just coincidence, but there seems to be a lot against it.
Just out of interest, in which language did you write to tell them all this?
It's a little-known (in the U.S.) fact that people in other countries speak languages other than English.
Well, it has already been said in a sibling post, that it's rare for a IT professional (and I hope there are professionals to operate a national internet service provider) to not understand that much English.
But even when not, what kind of IT professional don't know who to make use of some translation service? (I know it does only support a few select languages, but it's about English Spanish here, and that's well supported).
If a language barrier would be the problem, why didn't they do a curtesy reply with the the Spanish version of "Sorry, I don't understand English/your language." That's the standard procedure where I work, and more often than not there comes a reply back, probably translated by some friend or such. Remember, AHBL got ignored. That's different from not understanding words.
And handling abuse reports myself in all kind of languages, including Chinese, which I don't understand a bit and haven't found a reasonable translation service for, I know that's possible the process requests anyhow, if the report is well-written. You just take the timestamps, snippets, IPs and so on, and have a look through your logs and more often then not, you will find something strange (like thousands of mails within minutes) and understand from that what the report is about.
And long story short: TDE (the blocked provider) meanwhile partially answered AHBL, so there is proof that they can if they "are motivated".
I dont mean to flame or anything, but im not to impressed by Lamo. he did some crazy things, but any lucky script kiddie could do the same.
There is a difference between being able to something and actually doing it (like, ever heard of the Egg of Columbus?
Just because something is easy to do doesn't make it automatically unimpressive. Only one point where he differs of all the ones I could list: How much of all the script kiddies out there are helping to fix the holes they have found?
I don't mean to say that what feats he accomplished is impressive, but how he did, might.
Well, considering the other answers, I hope most of the people reading this thread understand that Company Y doesn't have to adhere to the GPL, because they simply do nothing what is covered by the GPL. They re-sell legally bought items one-by-one and that doesn't need a distribution license.
The part I want to address - which IMHO came short in this thread - is that this isn't really a grave loop-hole in the GPL.
First, Company Y has to be a separate company and cannot be simply a split-off of Company X. Or else, the copyright holder might argue they are one entity with regard to the GPL. I don't know how much chance this argument has in a court, but it would be a risk, I wouldn't want to take.[1]
Second, Company X has given the item to Company Y under the GPL and that means that Company Y, and especially anyone working at Company Y who received the source is free to publish the source code. Company X cannot forbid this in any way (that would be against the GPL). So Company X is completely in the hands of Company Y with regard to the publication of the source code. Talk about risks again.
The only way I can currently imagine that this could work would be a completely voluntary NDA by Company B that they wouldn't publish it. Even better, if it is simply a general "we would never publish anything we get from Company X" or so. But even that is legally questionable IMHO (the GPL requires that there is no NDA, and so giving someone something under GPL could contructed as an explicit exemption from the NDA - maybe).
[1] Not that I would do such immorale things to begin with:-P
Slashdot Mirror
... We typically isolate all database specific code in appropriate classes and stored procedures (after all, that's one of the things stored procedures are for... to help abstract the database specific code from the rest of your code) and it isn't bad at all to port to a new RDBMS, as long as it has the features we need (referential integrity, transactions, etc.)
In fact, in most cases, we can port to a new RDBMS without recompiling our source, just by providing the appropriate stored procedures on the new system.
So let me get that straight: You argue in favor of stored procedures in regard of ease of portability when in any discussion of stored procedures one of the main arguments against them is how they lock you in to a certain database (vendor)?
Note that I don't have a strong opinion about that myself, because I never needed to do such a SP port myself. Just wondering about your reasoning, when the common argument seems to go contrary.
It is offered under GPL *and* non-GPL licenses. Which was *exactly* the reason I used it as an example.
(Before I go on, bear in mind that IANAL). MySQL AB own the copyright to MySQL (AFAIK); thus they can release it under the GPL. All changes made to the GPL-licensed version are thus also GPL, and, unless all the authors of the new code get together with MySQL AB and come to an agreement, the branch of the GPL licensed version is GPL-only.
In fact, MySQL AB already comes to an agreement with all contributers: Before MySQL AB accepts any non-trivial patch, they ask you to transfer copyright[1], else they are going to implement the change themselves, if they consider it important enough. That's nothing unusual, the FSF does a similar thing.[2] So there isn't really a branch with a GPL'ed version of MySQL.
However, MySQL AB retain the right to the original version they wrote (and all branches that exclusively include their code, I'd guess); thus they can offer it under a non-GPL license.
[1] More precisly, they ask you to share the copyright (so that they may offer it under their commercial license). I don't know the exact wording anymore, but I have it lying around in some old mail from when they asked me.
One can assume that they came to different terms with some huge contributers, such as the author of the InnoDB table type.
[2] Albeit for a different reason: The FSF says it makes legal proceedings and the enforcement of the GPL easier, if there is only one copyright holder.
The rest of section 7 only pertains to stuff I HAVE NOT YET DISTRIBUTED, but in this case I have already entered into the GPL by giving you the binary before the rest of that section even comes into play.
;) that Section 7 is trying to prevent someone from saying "oh, I would love to provide the source code, but, you see, here, 'this' and 'that', it's forbidding me from fulfilling my obligations, so you'll have to do with the binaries only, for the meantime". And Section 7 even explicitly explains that if it is unenforcable (e.g. because it is thought to try to superceed a court ruling), that its balance (read: spirit) is meant to apply.
That's exactly the point. You have already distributed the software. Section 7 is about distribution, IMHO, as a whole: there is nothing to suggest that the "rest of section 7" is meant to be read separately from its first sentence. Not even a paragraph between the sentences.
If you already distributed the software, the only way you still have an obligation is when you did so under the terms of section 3.b[1] ("written offer to provide source code, valid for 3 years") of the GPL.
So, if there is now some court order, it's not up against the GPL, but against your written offer to provide the source.[2] And interesting side note is, that while only the copyright holder can sue you regarding the GPL, the receiver (more precisely: any follow-up receiver) of that written offer can sue you directly. That difference hopefully makes clear, that we are not directly at the "distribution" part of the GPL anymore.
IMHO, the GPL makes it painstakingly clear what it tries to regulate and what not. It's obvious (to me, at least
[1] With 1., 2. or 3.a, you already distributed everything there is to distribute. With 3.c, somebody else has the obligation.
[2] Only when you don't comply with your own offer, the copyright holder can argue that you didn't comply with the GPL to begin with. And I doubt any court would hold that against you, presumed that you distributed the software before you got aware of the prohibiting circumsstances (court order, patent, whatever).
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License
That covers distribution of code for binaries which you have ALREADY distributed, as you later comment on, but in my understanding the GPL tries to superceed the court ruling
Oh, how I love selective quoting. If you don't cut at the place you did, it becomes patently obvious, that the GPL doesn't try to superceed court rulings, but that it just tries an all or nothing approach. It even gives an example that explains, that it doesn't try to superceed other duties (like a court order), but that you simply cannot use the GPL as the license to distrubute if you cannot fulfill it. Here is the full excerpt:
There. Nothing about ignoring a ruling. It even implies that you have to satisfy the court order.
Your niece didn't have a boss breathing down her neck, and bunch of people wanting help, a myriad of home issues, and god know what else to deal with when her system crashed.
You only prove my point that this has nothing to do with IT-skills.
If you have your error messages ID'd, ou could have it logg the error message ID.
First, I am not the one asking for these IDs, it was the grand-grand parent. I just argued that asking for such an ID (and therefore screenshot) isn't unreasonable depending on the circumstances.
And second, this was not about errors in self-written applications (the program he wrote himself was the one to do the snapshot and generate the ID), IIRC.
Yeah, for self-written applications your suggestion seems best.
I think it's the same thing. "my email is working" implies that the mail server is working. Checking the mail server can be as simple as hitting the "Get new mail button" on the IT tech's email client.
... depending on service and requirements) long before the first user call comes. So no, when I say, the server works, I don't need to actually test it. The lack of alarms tell me everything works. The first 20-30 reports I did actually test to be on the safe side, and then stopped, simply relying on my monitoring setup (but this includes that I regulary test that setup works).
Huh? If some of my servers aren't working, I get automatic information (email, SMS,
But yes, users (or should I say "people"?) kind of expect your side to be broken, so for some problems you need to say "when I try it works for me, so we need to find what I do different from you". And if you actually do try or not depends on your confidence that it works and the time you have available.
E.g. when the problem is "my password isn't accepted", it was either a common problem I already knew about, or it was user error - when the server was up, there was not a single case in the last 2 years, when the login procedure or the server misbehaved.
So yes, I have learned, that it helps when I lie to users about this, because they will be more cooperative this way (note that in my case - due to time constraints - the alternative is not to do the test, but to tell them without trying that it most probably is on their side). And this though I hate lying.
Under your system, a semi-technical user would be unable to report a fault even if he or she has quite a good idea what the problem might be just because the user didn't manage to take a picture of the problem.
What is so difficult about pressing an icon looking like a camera so that a "semi-technical" user cannot do that? Please? Even my niece knew how to do that when she was 4 years old (in her case, for starting a game). And remembering to press that button has nothing to do with IT-skills at all.
Yeah, I agree, getting told that you won't get help just because you forgot/didn't knew that you would need that ID is annoying indeed. But if the problem happens often enough to be a bother, you'll have no problem to get an ID next time.
Just to make myself clear: Of course it's best to lead the user through the necessary reporting steps in a friendly manner... if you have the time for that. But in any support situation I was in, resources where limited, and every minute spent on guesswork due to incomplete reports is a minute lost for doing other scheduled stuff.
It boils down to "Help me to help you".
the parent was talking about a dirty bomb aka a IUD Improvised Uranianium Device
its amusing that you think its a troll through a single abbreviation, perhaps YOU are the troll looking for the argument ?
Yeah, sure. Read the original post again. Aside from several sexual allusions you missed, it would be the first time that uranium released progestin.
umount ; mount and you have access to that guy's drive. Security is a tricky business.
Yeah, but you will be noticed and the next thing is that you are thrown out of class for abuse.
Even with a 4 drive configuration, I can simply distract you (or wait for lunch break) and use a pin to get your CD-ROM out of your drive.
So the difference between the original scenario and mine isn't all that big. The main (and archievable) goal here seems to prevent accidental reading of other's stuff.
But I admit that my proposal might be too easy to break. If so you think so, use the "user" (without s) option, that doesn't allow others to unmount. Of course, then, you have to think about a solution against someone blocking the drive.
And what if one person writes an important document and another wants to press reset?
;)
My reset button triggers a shutdown and reboot (Mandrakelinux), so all reasonable word processors will save the important document beforehand. So nothing is lost except time for working on the document.
The next argument then probably goes: but they can use the power switch. That problem is not exactly specific to that setup (e.g. here there are some computer rooms where the fuse box or main power switch is accessible). My answer to this is: Make use of the auto-save feature of your editor and do some beating to the one who thought switching the power is funny.
I suggest 4 CD-ROM drives and correct permissions set in fstab so everyone can use -their own- drive only
With 1 CD-ROM, simply make it so, that the files are owned by the user who mounts the drive, and that everyone can umount it (IIRC, that was "users" option in fstab). This way you moved it from a technical to "only" a social problem (they have to share access to one drive).
And as someone else said, use USB for "all can use it at the same time". You want USB anyhow, because you want to be able to save something.
I would mod you "Troll"
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
I have been trolled? Nice attempt, try again.
In case anyone wonders why I replied to a troll: This is Slashdot, which resulted in the trolling post already getting modded as "Interesting", i.e. to some mods you have to explain that it's a troll and why.
[Sorry for the off-topic]
I don't care about whether booting once a day needs 1 or 2 minutes) ;D
;-)
:) I just usually shut the system down at night.
You're using Gnu/Linux and reboot once a day ? you must be doing something wrong
Nope, just trying new kernel patches.
(That's even not too far-fetched... I am a tester for Mandrake Cooker - the development version)
More seriously: I never said anything about re booting.
cheer when an American company loses a contract.
:). After a deadline, they will choose from the offers one or more companies to actually do the migration.
Do you mean Microsoft Deutschland Gmbh losing out to IBM Deutschland?
Just a side node: There is no contract made yet. The decision was to go with the Linux migration plan. Next step will be a Ausschreibung (tender?), where companies will make offers to a published requirements list (which may include experience in the field).
Any company meeting the requirements can participate, even Microsoft, if it is willing to do a Windows->Linux migration (yeah, we are going see that
[Well, that was how it roughly works... the details may be different (e.g. could be that there are several smaller tenders)]
Apparently in Germany, they are petrified of the Church of Scientology.
That's a misrepresentation. In day-to-day business nobody cares about Scientology here.
So much so that they demanded Microsoft provide them with instructions to remove "Disk Defragmenter", because it was developed by a company whose CEO was a scientologist.
The logic behind this decision is quite simple. Scientology applied to be recognized as religion in Germany and was put down, because it didn't met the requirements the law sets forth for acknowledging a religion. Scientology didn't like that and there was quite some fuss afterwards.
Overall, soon afterwards it's been officially considered a cult, IIRC. Not only by the law, but also by a lot of independend observers.
Now, with that presumption, that Scientology is a cult -- some of their (alleged) questionable goals known -- that has shown open hostility against the current legal system. If you take that as given, it's quite sound for a government to look for software other than one which (allegedly) has known influence of Scientology.
Ram will help you with caching, but how much of your system are you going to cache? My /usr directory is over 3 gigs.
/usr has a similar size as yours, how much of that 3GB are you actively using a day? Usually these 650MB are all I need.
Currently, free tells 650MB are used as cache (the system has been up 4 days with regular use). Even though my
YMMV, but for me, after initial start-up I rarely have to wait for the disks (but I should note, that emacs, mozilla and so on are automatically started, so belong to my start-up).
Besides, more than half of that 50$ is a one-time-purchase (well, ok, you'll upgrade scsi cards every 5 years or so, but still...)
I am not sure I understand your argument. I upgrade to a different memory system about every 3 years. Are you really arguing about those two years? Besides, when I upgrade, my old system will be kept in use... so either it keeps the SCSI cards, or have have the hassle of switching in an IDE replacement and copying the installations around (which the Windows partition doesn't like, usually).
Finally, this still doesn't answer the "why IDE raid for performance" question. Why? It only gets you read throughput, which is usually irrelevant on a home system. For redundancy, that is understandable... but performance? Home use performance for everyday activities are most limited by seek time.
Hm. Your point implies that IDE RAID will not improve seek times. I know for sure that isn't true for SCSI RAID. I have no actual experience with IDE RAID seeks (I do have experience with IDE RAID, but that was purely for redundancy, so I never bothered to do timing), but I assume given a correct setup (i.e. for software RAID, putting the disks on different channels) -- although not as good as with SCSI -- it should be significant enough to be worth the effort.
But as I said, trying that is a part I still have to do.
This embarrassing FP exception hole has been around since 2.4. Yet I still expect to hear how much the "many eyes" of Open Source magically eradicate all bugs in all situations.
--
People routinely mod me down for voicing an opposing opinion instead of just replying in disagreement.
Well, I would mod you "Troll", if I had mod points. That's not because you voice an opposing opinion, but because you make up stuff.
I don't know whom you refer to by "how much the many eyes of Open Source magically eradicate all bugs in all situations." [emphasize mine], but it's surely nobody seriously involved in the FS/OSS community.
I have never read anyone making such a statement (even from fanboys here on Slashdot) except when being implied by people like you.
That's 50$ for a root partition that will give you a 70% speed boost over a 7200 RPM ide drive.
:)
Hm, I'd rather invest those $50 into RAM (you easily get additional 512MB for that). It won't speed up boot time (but in my case, I don't care about whether booting once a day needs 1 or 2 minutes), but after first use, everything is really fast (well, at least under Linux
I could even preload some stuff into a RAM disk and prevent seek times this way (via dd), but as I said, first startup isn't that important to me.
I am also not sure, why you are speaking of fast swap access several times. My swap partition didn't get much use for the last 5 years (even when I was still at 386MB)[1]. If you aren't into video editing or such, today's average 512MB or such should be plenty.
Another possibility for fast access times without spending too much, which I have done recently on a database server, is using average disks and putting software RAID on it (I needed much space and the fast disks with the needed size were about several times the prize of the lesser disks).
This worked so well with SCSI disks that I intend to try it with my home system on the next upgrade. Though I expect less performance due to IDE constraints.
[1] It gets used whenever Linux decides that it's a good idea to swap unused parts out in order to increase the mem availabe for the filesystem cache - which is why I still have a swap.
So for example, if your URL is in clipboard you can open it in another tab by
Ctrl-T + Ctrl-L + Ctrl-V + Enter
Or shorter:
Ctrl-T + MiddleButton (in the content area)
("pasting" an URL into the content area will try to load said URL, at least with Mozilla)
While you are correct on "a hypothesis", at least Webster says that it's "an historic". Where is your reference?
And, AFAIK, it's not "a hypothesis" because the H is pronounced or not, but because of what follows: the same as it's "an update" but "a user". But I may be wrong on the H part.
I don't know if that's more embarassing for the Guardian that they don't know how to search, or for us geeks that instantly jumped to google saying:
"Hell, I can get the results faster than that".
The former.
It would be the latter, if they'd taken some people from the street and asked them to do the searches. But since it's obvious from the descriptions for "phone" and "library" that those people knew how to research things and whom to contact, the least we can expect is that the "Google" part is done by someone who knows the tricks.
Overall, I think the winner is pretty inconclusive, but it still does shows that Google is a really good search engine - where you can actually find a reasonable result.
If you account for the bias, i.e. for the average Doe, not used to research all day, Google is the clear winner.
Well, even in ignorance of the bias, for me, the overall winner is Google, because
in this test
- Google comes up with results comparable in accuracy to conventional methods (if you use due diligence) and, additionally,
- it's on par in speed to a professional researcher[1] using those other methods,
- it has a small diviation in search times[2], so you can plan your research,
In other words - at least according to this test - Google matches other methods professionals use with regard to speed and accuracy. It gives Google credibility, and this is where I see Google as a winner here.
And of course, for best results, you would mix the methods. Also, confirming the accuracy by several sources is also a good idea (like Google for it and then check if the data still current).
[1] Well, Google would be the clear winner in speed, if you consider that everyone can do that "back care" question faster and that the "Library" research has a case which needed 8min++ and would have needed longer, if it didn't got help (for which it was disqualified). But since it can always happen that you get stuck/stumped with any method, I decided to treat it just like that.
[2] Yes, the library method has that, too.
Dear Mods, please note that the parent is a troll.
Although it sounds interesting when presented as speculation, it's not presented as such and shows the same signs that are so typical for hoaxes, aka "present enough half-truth to make the rest believable".
I want to make clear, that I don't deny that there might be some small possibility that it is as the parent poster says, but as the saying goes, extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof, and he provides (almost) none. The conclusions he draws are not the most plausible ones for the claims that are presented.
Aside from the lack of any references for his claims, he fails to cover, for example:
- What about all the smart people Google pays. Nobody saw this coming? [I have no particular problem telling years beforehand with an accuracy of 1 month when disk space, CPU, or other design contraints will limit further growth of the services I am responsible for. Google can't do better?]
- There are other reasons that can equally well explain why they are taking stance against duplicate content. A simple one is: complaints by users or content authors (like the amazon reviews case that's discussed all over the postings here)
- The fact that indexes are usually not limited by the amount of indexed entities (here: web pages), but the overall size of the entities.
- The google index could be an exception to that, because they have a distributed file system (which is equivalent to a second index), so they don't need to point to the location of the data, but only the file containing it.
- So if there is some limit, it sounds more probable to be in the number of nodes on the filesystem or such, but the parent presented it as fact: The index is maxed.
- Google is now in the process of dropping millions of link records from its index. Maybe I missed it, but except for the duplicates or other "offenders" I didn't hear of any such process. And unfortunately the parent doesn't provide any references.
- Google is wavering. Where does this come from?
- Gmail is a distraction, a venture into some other space to keep people from noticing that their search product is degrading. Hm, at least I missed what they tried to distract from by all those nice new features they presented within the last years and are still going to add. In other words, he presented no evidence for the claim that this is more than just coincidence, but there seems to be a lot against it.
Well, I'll think I stop now.
Just out of interest, in which language did you write to tell them all this?
It's a little-known (in the U.S.) fact that people in other countries speak languages other than English.
Well, it has already been said in a sibling post, that it's rare for a IT professional (and I hope there are professionals to operate a national internet service provider) to not understand that much English.
But even when not, what kind of IT professional don't know who to make use of some translation service? (I know it does only support a few select languages, but it's about English Spanish here, and that's well supported).
If a language barrier would be the problem, why didn't they do a curtesy reply with the the Spanish version of "Sorry, I don't understand English/your language." That's the standard procedure where I work, and more often than not there comes a reply back, probably translated by some friend or such. Remember, AHBL got ignored. That's different from not understanding words.
And handling abuse reports myself in all kind of languages, including Chinese, which I don't understand a bit and haven't found a reasonable translation service for, I know that's possible the process requests anyhow, if the report is well-written. You just take the timestamps, snippets, IPs and so on, and have a look through your logs and more often then not, you will find something strange (like thousands of mails within minutes) and understand from that what the report is about.
And long story short: TDE (the blocked provider) meanwhile partially answered AHBL, so there is proof that they can if they "are motivated".
I dont mean to flame or anything, but im not to impressed by Lamo. he did some crazy things, but any lucky script kiddie could do the same.
There is a difference between being able to something and actually doing it (like, ever heard of the Egg of Columbus?
Just because something is easy to do doesn't make it automatically unimpressive. Only one point where he differs of all the ones I could list: How much of all the script kiddies out there are helping to fix the holes they have found?
I don't mean to say that what feats he accomplished is impressive, but how he did, might.
Well, considering the other answers, I hope most of the people reading this thread understand that Company Y doesn't have to adhere to the GPL, because they simply do nothing what is covered by the GPL. They re-sell legally bought items one-by-one and that doesn't need a distribution license.
:-P
The part I want to address - which IMHO came short in this thread - is that this isn't really a grave loop-hole in the GPL.
First, Company Y has to be a separate company and cannot be simply a split-off of Company X. Or else, the copyright holder might argue they are one entity with regard to the GPL. I don't know how much chance this argument has in a court, but it would be a risk, I wouldn't want to take.[1]
Second, Company X has given the item to Company Y under the GPL and that means that Company Y, and especially anyone working at Company Y who received the source is free to publish the source code. Company X cannot forbid this in any way (that would be against the GPL). So Company X is completely in the hands of Company Y with regard to the publication of the source code. Talk about risks again.
The only way I can currently imagine that this could work would be a completely voluntary NDA by Company B that they wouldn't publish it. Even better, if it is simply a general "we would never publish anything we get from Company X" or so. But even that is legally questionable IMHO (the GPL requires that there is no NDA, and so giving someone something under GPL could contructed as an explicit exemption from the NDA - maybe).
[1] Not that I would do such immorale things to begin with