2. Unless I am mistaken, you can tell what language to use during runtime. Not 100% sure though.
3. Windows has concidered 1 architecture for a long time, it is called the HAL. Windows CE when release supported 32 architectures. Many were thrown away because nobody used them, but it shows that Microsoft/Windows Can be flexible.
4. Nod
I am more apt for the Ximian Red-carpet type idea. I want xyz program from a list. It does the dependencies and says I have to download x, y and z to run xyz, then it runs off and does it. Simple, and with minimal overhead. CD Installers should act the same way. Small installer, then install the components. Lets face it how many people don't install programs from CD's or a network anymore? This solution should suffice, and in the end it will win over simply because of the laziness factor.
"Take any file on a modern Windows system, and you won't be able to do anything with it."
Being a *nix admin, YOU may not be able to do anything with windows, but people who know what they are doign on windows do. Just cause you can spout off every frigging lib on your linux install, that doesn't mean anyone else can. In conclusion, Windows sucks because you don't understand it, so it must be bad.
I hate windows, but mostly for unimportant political reasons:-)
As for small installs, Windows never bothered with fitting production windows on small footprints which is why they created Windows CE, or windows XP embedded.
Microsoft dropped the illusion that they could get good performance out of OO languages when the developed windows. Now you may say those days have passed, but Microsoft and every `real world` OS uses procedural core GUI's.
As a systems level programmer, the GTK is better for me because it is also a little self-documenting. I don't have to know the argument to "gtk_button_new_with_label" because it already tells me it in the function name:-)
Plus, if you don't want to use this type of system, what is stopping the person from using GTK+ or whatever it is to get the task done? Is KDE superior to GTK+ on those levels? Is GTK+ the royal hack from hell that makes a mockery out of OO?
It is kind of like the Win32 API. You can write it on bare metal, which is fast and you have enough control to fck up everything. Then there are the MFC wrappers, which make screwing things up a whole lot harder. You have the choice to choose your poison. Gnome is the same way. I thought we all decided that choice was a good thing?
And having debian prefixing kde- or kde_ to the start of the package name is beyond reason?
Now that I think about it, that is silly, and so is your comment. If you are worring that it is a KDE package, you are obviously not task driven, but environment driven which doesn't make much sense IMHO.
This is of course different when we talk about configuring the environment, but every application under the sun doesn't need to have k or g prefixed to it. All it does is give the impression that the program is more important because of its environment and not its function.
My proposal was based on the assumption of a burstable connection. From the customer's perspective, if you are paying for bandwidth on a burtable system, you know what your caps are. For me it is 1.5MB to 10MB bursts.
As for the ISP, if they aren't dropping these DOS's at the border networks, they aren't doing their jobs well as they could, IMHO. As for worms like the MSSQL attacks, this is a different beast. It is a DDOS, which makes it harder to catch. This is the case where an ISP could quite easily turn off functionality to a customer's site, on port ms-sql and not feel worried about getting sued for service disruptions (If the opted into the filter manged solution).
You know you are dealing with nerds...
on
An IMDb for Books
·
· Score: 1
when the best book isn't the bible:-)
Cudos though. I really think it can be successful as long as the insensative clods in here start telling real people about it.
If you are hosting business internet lines give the customers 2 options.
1. Wide open internet. Nothing is filtered on the ISP end, as it stands today, and the customer is 100% liable for ANY traffic circulating between the internet and the customer, solicited or not.
2. Abuse Managed Internet. Charge a fee to the customer per month, which get the customer:
- Any abuse, aka DOS attempts removed from the monthly bandwidth
- The ISP will filter abuse attempts before they occur, so if there is a code red floating around, allow a transparent proxy / firewall throw the packets away before it causes your customers harm. The trade off for the customer is more assured price, and quality of service for the price of flexability and a nominal charge.
I have been soaked on OO theory and I DO know how silly this solution is. You are basically requiring a fast synchronized failover parallel processing environement for this to be viable. The cluster would be faster because all the transactions could be native OO without the DB conversion, but to force such high standards on the environment could be disasterous.
Nobody outside of a garage can loose 1 transaction, don't even imagine loosing minutes of them with a failure.
"Carlos Eduardo Villela is a 19-year old Brazilian graduate in Information Systems."...
Go nuts and ask them:-) Since it is tied into Gnome, I don't see much hope in your assumptions. Why isn't Gnome Terminal or kterm in X as well? Because X is the bare minimum in functionality, no the biggest and best
http://rhlinux.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/red ha t-config-xfree/
Tell me who XML is NOT the easiest way to abstract hierarical data. You are diluding yourself if you think that kv pairs are easier to parse / read than XML data.
The larger the hierarchy the more painful that shell scripts become. The larger the hierarchy XML becomes, the readability stays the same. Here is a 3rd level hierarchy.. tell me which is easier to read.
You are right, and the poster was wincorrect. The article says that the attack can hack ecommerce. As well. The IMAP example was use to show a real-world situation where this situation applies.
When hitting an ecomerce site, you would generally surf more than one page, no?
Neon Lights? Check. Facist Boss? Check. Lack of Ambition? Check.
If you ask me, by making coding look unappealing, they reflected the most natural scene for programming as a profession.
I would say that even if you like your job, most people would like to do something else, be elsewhere, etc... I think since we have it so easily that we are more irritable than the rest of the population.
Programming cannot carry though easily in movies because it has a very high learning curve, and it is a very abstract mental concept.
Since most of the population have never even understood what it is to "program", you only have a few choices when making films. 1. Make a movie that is tech realistic and loose most of your audiance because they don't have a clue on what is going on.
2. Make a movie that is 2 years long to introduce the concept of computers, etc.. then tell the story
3. Make a "fluff" piece that most people will understand, but is not accurate the the true nature of IT.
Since the third option is the only economic option, I don't see an accurate representation in films soon.
Although, I do see hope. If we slowly ramp up computer programming enough in movies, we can slowly creep the concept to the viewers over a series of movies, so that after maybe 15 movies, a viewer is able to actually abstract the concept of programming and the culture entrenched in it, in which case, an accurate representation can be protrayed.
P4 XEON's Can address 64GB of memory, so that isn't much of an issue today...
Re:it is VERY trollish
on
The Faded Sun
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"The database layer is another story entirely. They require a large amount of horsepower, and the whole operation dies if they go down. This means it *must* sit on big, reliable hardware with a support contract"
Solution: Clustered Oracle RAC Enterprise with Redhat AS 2.1 and full support contracts from Redhat and Oracle.
We are planning on this deployment simply because we can save hand over fist amounts of money. You can read all the fud about it from Oracle, but IMHO, it 'could' put a big hit on big iron.
"Polanski's probation report said he was profoundly affected by the brutal murder of his wife, actress Sharon Tate, in 1969. Court sources said the film director, imprisoned in Auschwitz by the Nazis during the World War II, was repelled by the thought of possibly serving more time behind bars."
Its not like he could have a first hand count on what actually happened. The question you should pose on morality, allow him to be celebrated because of the acurate portrail of Jewish genocide during WW2, or ostracize him for what he did 26 years ago (not to say it is acceptible).
Well, the FX used to enhance the scenes realism can't really be concidered 'Acting'. At best the FX can be borken into a new category like a 'Recreation of Life' award or something. But, I don't think that many voice only roles will be winning many supporting -blah- roles when there are so many talented human actors doing a better job.
I just watched this movie a few weeks ago, and if you haven't seen it, you are missing a lot. Think of it like Schindler's List, but from the eys of Polish Jews (genocide) instead of a jewish sympathizer.
The movie's subject matter is obviously very dark, but excellent all in all. I think that it may just get best picture. No offense to LOTR, but I doubt any of the 3 will get best picture when there are movies like the pianist in this world.
Reasons why I think Hollywood wants to stop this business from happening:
1. Their cut. I am sure these services that offer the filtering are not doing it for free (correct me if i am wrong), but if hollywood is loosing a potential revenue stream form this, I can see them being angry.
2. Directors. If I was a director, I would be pretty upset with 3rd party disruption of my vision of a movie even if it doesn't fit one's approriate maturity level. The "If you can't handle it don't watch it" rule applies here, which I can totally empithize with. Refer to the Simpsons episode on censoring museums.
3. Loss of control. With DVD's, the idea was to make a medium that could not have been tampered with. That obviously failed. With the reintegrated fight between content owners and content creators, we can see similar war in the horizon. This may just be a reinforcing leagl position to assist future problems.
EG. If I set my DVD player to 'NO_ADS' mode, effectively removeing the crap at the beginning of DVD's which I don't want to see, do I have the right to time shift through it if I deam that I don't want to look at it?
Personally, I think if i bought the DVD, and it does not effect anything outside the scope of what I purchased, I should be able to time shift and 'manipulate' the output of the movie any way like as long as it is legal to do so (no redistribution, etc...).
If I watch the movie from a projector steatching out the picture to look funky, and changing the sound channels, back to front and front to back, I should have the right to as long I am not infringing on the rights of the creators, which I wouldn't be, even though I am viewing a movie in a way not intended by the authors.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, keep it down. We have AS Linux, and I am a *NIX admin. You are making me look replacable!
1. They do now!!
2. Unless I am mistaken, you can tell what language to use during runtime. Not 100% sure though.
3. Windows has concidered 1 architecture for a long time, it is called the HAL. Windows CE when release supported 32 architectures. Many were thrown away because nobody used them, but it shows that Microsoft/Windows Can be flexible.
4. Nod
I am more apt for the Ximian Red-carpet type idea. I want xyz program from a list. It does the dependencies and says I have to download x, y and z to run xyz, then it runs off and does it. Simple, and with minimal overhead. CD Installers should act the same way. Small installer, then install the components. Lets face it how many people don't install programs from CD's or a network anymore? This solution should suffice, and in the end it will win over simply because of the laziness factor.
Anything written on newer windows installers does have dependency matching, and other such fun jazz... down to the file level!
"Take any file on a modern Windows system, and you won't be able to do anything with it."
:-)
Being a *nix admin, YOU may not be able to do anything with windows, but people who know what they are doign on windows do. Just cause you can spout off every frigging lib on your linux install, that doesn't mean anyone else can. In conclusion, Windows sucks because you don't understand it, so it must be bad.
I hate windows, but mostly for unimportant political reasons
As for small installs, Windows never bothered with fitting production windows on small footprints which is why they created Windows CE, or windows XP embedded.
Install shield does not delete old dll's anymore, unless I am mistaken. They make backups to the old ones.
BTW, I use windows at work, and when was the last time a program wrote over a dll that broke anything (legal)?
It is more a question people writing sane installers, and knowing what they should and shouldn't be messing with.
Microsoft dropped the illusion that they could get good performance out of OO languages when the developed windows. Now you may say those days have passed, but Microsoft and every `real world` OS uses procedural core GUI's.
As a systems level programmer, the GTK is better for me because it is also a little self-documenting. I don't have to know the argument to "gtk_button_new_with_label" because it already tells me it in the function name :-)
Plus, if you don't want to use this type of system, what is stopping the person from using GTK+ or whatever it is to get the task done? Is KDE superior to GTK+ on those levels? Is GTK+ the royal hack from hell that makes a mockery out of OO?
It is kind of like the Win32 API. You can write it on bare metal, which is fast and you have enough control to fck up everything. Then there are the MFC wrappers, which make screwing things up a whole lot harder. You have the choice to choose your poison. Gnome is the same way. I thought we all decided that choice was a good thing?
And having debian prefixing kde- or kde_ to the start of the package name is beyond reason?
Now that I think about it, that is silly, and so is your comment. If you are worring that it is a KDE package, you are obviously not task driven, but environment driven which doesn't make much sense IMHO.
This is of course different when we talk about configuring the environment, but every application under the sun doesn't need to have k or g prefixed to it. All it does is give the impression that the program is more important because of its environment and not its function.
My proposal was based on the assumption of a burstable connection. From the customer's perspective, if you are paying for bandwidth on a burtable system, you know what your caps are. For me it is 1.5MB to 10MB bursts.
As for the ISP, if they aren't dropping these DOS's at the border networks, they aren't doing their jobs well as they could, IMHO. As for worms like the MSSQL attacks, this is a different beast. It is a DDOS, which makes it harder to catch. This is the case where an ISP could quite easily turn off functionality to a customer's site, on port ms-sql and not feel worried about getting sued for service disruptions (If the opted into the filter manged solution).
when the best book isn't the bible :-)
Cudos though. I really think it can be successful as long as the insensative clods in here start telling real people about it.
Here is a 'simple' policy as an ISP.
If you are hosting business internet lines give the customers 2 options.
1. Wide open internet. Nothing is filtered on the ISP end, as it stands today, and the customer is 100% liable for ANY traffic circulating between the internet and the customer, solicited or not.
2. Abuse Managed Internet. Charge a fee to the customer per month, which get the customer:
- Any abuse, aka DOS attempts removed from the monthly bandwidth
- The ISP will filter abuse attempts before they occur, so if there is a code red floating around, allow a transparent proxy / firewall throw the packets away before it causes your customers harm.
The trade off for the customer is more assured price, and quality of service for the price of flexability and a nominal charge.
I have been soaked on OO theory and I DO know how silly this solution is. You are basically requiring a fast synchronized failover parallel processing environement for this to be viable. The cluster would be faster because all the transactions could be native OO without the DB conversion, but to force such high standards on the environment could be disasterous.
...
Nobody outside of a garage can loose 1 transaction, don't even imagine loosing minutes of them with a failure.
"Carlos Eduardo Villela is a 19-year old Brazilian graduate in Information Systems."
Like their C compiler, but you aren't "Running" it without a license ;-)
Go nuts and ask them :-)
d ha t-config-xfree/
Since it is tied into Gnome, I don't see much hope in your assumptions. Why isn't Gnome Terminal or kterm in X as well? Because X is the bare minimum in functionality, no the biggest and best
http://rhlinux.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/re
XML:
= 4
<Foo>
<Bar value="Value1"/>
<Bar value="Value2"/>
</Foo>
SH:
FOO=BAR1 BAR2
BAR1=Value1
BAR2=Value2
INI:
[Foo]
Bar1=Value1
Bar2=Value2
Tell me who XML is NOT the easiest way to abstract hierarical data. You are diluding yourself if you think that kv pairs are easier to parse / read than XML data.
The larger the hierarchy the more painful that shell scripts become. The larger the hierarchy XML becomes, the readability stays the same. Here is a 3rd level hierarchy.. tell me which is easier to read.
<Foo>
<Bar>
<Cheese value="1"/>
<Cheese value="2">
</Bar>
<Bar>
<Cheese value="3"/>
<Cheese value="4">
</Bar>
</Foo>
FOO=BAR1 BAR2
BAR1=CHEESE1 CHEESE2
BAR2=CHEESE3 CHEESE4
CHEESE1=1
CHEESE2=2
CHEESE3=3
CHEESE4
Plow driver not cutting it anymore? :-)
You are right, and the poster was wincorrect. The article says that the attack can hack ecommerce. As well. The IMAP example was use to show a real-world situation where this situation applies.
When hitting an ecomerce site, you would generally surf more than one page, no?
Neon Lights? Check.
Facist Boss? Check.
Lack of Ambition? Check.
If you ask me, by making coding look unappealing, they reflected the most natural scene for programming as a profession.
I would say that even if you like your job, most people would like to do something else, be elsewhere, etc... I think since we have it so easily that we are more irritable than the rest of the population.
Programming cannot carry though easily in movies because it has a very high learning curve, and it is a very abstract mental concept.
Since most of the population have never even understood what it is to "program", you only have a few choices when making films.
1. Make a movie that is tech realistic and loose most of your audiance because they don't have a clue on what is going on.
2. Make a movie that is 2 years long to introduce the concept of computers, etc.. then tell the story
3. Make a "fluff" piece that most people will understand, but is not accurate the the true nature of IT.
Since the third option is the only economic option, I don't see an accurate representation in films soon.
Although, I do see hope. If we slowly ramp up computer programming enough in movies, we can slowly creep the concept to the viewers over a series of movies, so that after maybe 15 movies, a viewer is able to actually abstract the concept of programming and the culture entrenched in it, in which case, an accurate representation can be protrayed.
P4 XEON's Can address 64GB of memory, so that isn't much of an issue today...
"The database layer is another story entirely. They require a large amount of horsepower, and the whole operation dies if they go down. This means it *must* sit on big, reliable hardware with a support contract"
Solution: Clustered Oracle RAC Enterprise with Redhat AS 2.1 and full support contracts from Redhat and Oracle.
We are planning on this deployment simply because we can save hand over fist amounts of money. You can read all the fud about it from Oracle, but IMHO, it 'could' put a big hit on big iron.
"Shound be, except that it simply wasn't all that good. Meets the criteria for sure."
What? Did we watch the same movie!
"Polanski's probation report said he was profoundly affected by the brutal murder of his wife, actress Sharon Tate, in 1969. Court sources said the film director, imprisoned in Auschwitz by the Nazis during the World War II, was repelled by the thought of possibly serving more time behind bars."
Its not like he could have a first hand count on what actually happened. The question you should pose on morality, allow him to be celebrated because of the acurate portrail of Jewish genocide during WW2, or ostracize him for what he did 26 years ago (not to say it is acceptible).
Well, the FX used to enhance the scenes realism can't really be concidered 'Acting'. At best the FX can be borken into a new category like a 'Recreation of Life' award or something. But, I don't think that many voice only roles will be winning many supporting -blah- roles when there are so many talented human actors doing a better job.
I just watched this movie a few weeks ago, and if you haven't seen it, you are missing a lot. Think of it like Schindler's List, but from the eys of Polish Jews (genocide) instead of a jewish sympathizer.
The movie's subject matter is obviously very dark, but excellent all in all. I think that it may just get best picture. No offense to LOTR, but I doubt any of the 3 will get best picture when there are movies like the pianist in this world.
Reasons why I think Hollywood wants to stop this business from happening:
1. Their cut. I am sure these services that offer the filtering are not doing it for free (correct me if i am wrong), but if hollywood is loosing a potential revenue stream form this, I can see them being angry.
2. Directors. If I was a director, I would be pretty upset with 3rd party disruption of my vision of a movie even if it doesn't fit one's approriate maturity level. The "If you can't handle it don't watch it" rule applies here, which I can totally empithize with. Refer to the Simpsons episode on censoring museums.
3. Loss of control. With DVD's, the idea was to make a medium that could not have been tampered with. That obviously failed. With the reintegrated fight between content owners and content creators, we can see similar war in the horizon. This may just be a reinforcing leagl position to assist future problems.
EG. If I set my DVD player to 'NO_ADS' mode, effectively removeing the crap at the beginning of DVD's which I don't want to see, do I have the right to time shift through it if I deam that I don't want to look at it?
Personally, I think if i bought the DVD, and it does not effect anything outside the scope of what I purchased, I should be able to time shift and 'manipulate' the output of the movie any way like as long as it is legal to do so (no redistribution, etc...).
If I watch the movie from a projector steatching out the picture to look funky, and changing the sound channels, back to front and front to back, I should have the right to as long I am not infringing on the rights of the creators, which I wouldn't be, even though I am viewing a movie in a way not intended by the authors.