Really. Check http://www.simonster.com/index.thtml. It's fully XHTML 1.1 compliant. Unfortunately, there are a few consequences of this. First of all, You can't center a fixed width table. Well, you can, by using left-margin: auto; right-margin: auto; but it doesn't work in any Windows version of IE even though it has been in the CSS standard for a very long time! (It works fine in IE 5 for Mac, Konqueror, Safari, and Mozilla).
XHTML isn't a good idea for teaching a course. Most people don't give a fuck whether your design is technically sound as long as it works right. XHTML 1.0 Transitional might be reasonable, since it supports enough of the old HTML tags to allow browser compatibility, but XHTML 1.1 needs to wait a few years.
Then get a Visor and a VisorPhone. It's a GSM phone as a springboard module. Not sure if they still sell them, but you could probably pick up one used on eBay.
They didn't sell too well because they were expensive and somewhat bulky.
I doubt it's much faster than mod_perl. Mod_perl can be set to compile once at server startup, then run many times. In addition, it has no fork time at all, another benefit.
PHP has to compile every time, so it's slightly slower, but you can do neat things like use persistent MySQL across all sorts of scripts.
Perhaps some of this can be fixed with FastCGI, although Perl and PHP are (IMHO) much easier to learn and write. In addition, I'll bet there's a large enough IPC overhead to make this FastCGI with C/C++ less attractive than mod_perl or PHP.
I could be (and very possibly am) wrong, but doesn't this only affect you if you've installed PHP in your cgi-bin? Otherwise, you can't ignoring.htaccess files by calling PHP directly.
There will always be a local vulnerability where a user could install the PHP binary, but as long as you give users CGI access you are vulnerable to the same kinds of things through a Perl script or a CGI written in C.
My guess is it wouldn't matter. The chip they're using here can't be as fast as, say, the Oxford 911 chipset even. It won't be able to saturate a 400mbps interconnect, much less an 800mbps interconnect....
If you don't control both endpoints, you aren't secure anyway. Who's to say, for example, that the machine you're using the bulletin board from doesn't have a keystroke logger? For real security, you need to own the actual machines too.
The Mac OS X version of FLTK works, but it's mostly a joke. The widgets look nothing like Aqua; the menubar is (IIRC) at the top of the window rather than at the top of the screen. As much as I'd like to use it, it just doesn't adapt too well to OS X.
Because people can't run Windows! Only computers! I would be very suprised to find a single person running Windows...he or she would probably be pretty slow...
A Google search on "HTTP" is a pretty decent metric of measuring the most popular Web sites, and Yahoo! is listed first.
So, perhaps Google is indeed the most well-known search engine, but Yahoo! is a more popular Web site overall. I would actually trust Google's assessment over any others.
In fact, one of the theories is that we'll cause the next ice age. Global warming will cause water to come down from the tops of mountains in the summer. Then it will freeze in the winter and instant ice age.
GNUStep allows for source-level compatibility. This is good for people who plan on targeting Mac OS X as well as Linux, but it's not good for people who want to run Mac OS X apps that run on Mac OS X but not on Linux, such as the Mac OS X window server and Finder. These applications would never be ported to GNUStep, as easy as it is, because Apple wouldn't do it. In addition, this should allow Carbon applications as well as Cocoa applications to run on NetBSD.
Since when have open standards been a source of confusion, besides when Microsoft doesn't comply with them? Microsoft is the only company with enough market power to confuse people about open standards and they have.
There's one major problem with Apple's encrypted disk images: speed. Playing an MP3 off of an encrypted disk image takes 10%+ of the CPU time on my iBook/600.
I read a Scientific American article on hypnosis. According to it, while it may seem as if people under hypnosis remember earlier things, they don't really. They can remember dreams that they would usually be able to separate from memories, but they can't under hypnosis. For example, when asked to act out something from their childhood, adults would behave not as children, but as adults play-acting as children.
LAME produces more than decent mp3 files. Did I mention it's open source?
MP3 is what's used for sharing because it's what's used for sharing. If MP3 wasn't the predominant file sharing format, people wouldn't encode in it. MP3 is the predominant file sharing format because it's what people encode in.
The devices (pictured above) are small PCBs that attach directly to the back of the IDE/ATAPI devices and perform the necessary conversion from the IDE/ATAPI protocol to Ultra160 SCSI. These are not simple cables that perform some magic with wiring tricks but each device is a controller that can correctly convert communication back and forth from the appropriate protocols. As you can see in the photos, the devices each have a micro-controller onboard, the large chip in the ATAPI version and under the heatsink on the IDE version. Each device features upgradable firmware and comes with a 1-year warranty.
Installation
Addonics has made these completely plug-and-play and they require absolutely no drivers for any OS. Installation, therefore, could not be easier. All that you do for either device is to attach the device to the IDE connector on the back of the drive, apply power to the drive and to the converter, and finally, set the the jumpers and hook up the SCSI cable. The installation is that straight forward and is shown visually below.
Each device ships in a small box that includes the converter itself, a Y-cable to provide power to the device and the drive, and installation instructions. The instructions that come with converters are a much more detailed step-by-step process to get you up and running quickly. Also included in the instructions are jumper settings for the SCSI ID and SCSI termination.
The installation is really that easy and both converters worked the first boot without issue. The compact design allows you to install these without even removing the drives from the machine. They also fit very snug on the back of the drives which means that you will not need to rearrange your case's insides just to accommodate the converters. Performance
The next question is obviously, "How do these perform?" We definitely don't want to lose any performance through the conversion process and we would even like to see an increase in speed through the process. One quick note is on the fact that these devices convert IDE to an Ultra160 standard which means that your SCSI bus will not slowed down by a legacy device on the bus. This is a big deal if you have an adapter that downgrades all SCSI devices to the lowest speed on the bus.
All the tests in this review were performed on a IWILL DX400-SN motherboard based platform with dual 2.8GHz Xeons. The onboard SCSI (Qlogic 12160) provided a convenient testbed and provided less opportunity for possible incompatibility.
First we'll check out the IDE to SCSI converter and run the drive through ZCAV under IDE and then SCSI. ZCAV is a utility that measures throughput at various points across a disk. In the graph below we used increments of 100MB.
Above we tried the IDE to SCSI converter on two drives, a Seagate Barracuda III 40GB and an IBM 75GXP 75GB. The graph shows very different results for each drive. The Seagate had much more steady performance with very few fluctuations running on IDE rather than SCSI. SCSI performance fluctuated wildly and overall was under the mark set by IDE. The IBM drive on the other hand actually held a steadier line on SCSI than on IDE and the performance is almost identical across the disk.
To find out more about how read/write performance would actually be on the the Seagate drive, we turned to Bonnie++ for some more detailed file system performance benchmarks.
(Sorry, the table didn't format correctly)
The above table shows that the Seagate drive in some real-world applications would perform virtually identical. You can see that the winning spot goes back and forth across tests and that the difference in the two is very small.
Now turning to the ATAPI to SCSI converter, we will once again analyze reading performance with ZCAV. In this test we used two drives, a Lite-On 48x12x48 CD-RW and a generic 52X CD-ROM. ZCAV reads were done in 10MB increments.
The ATAPI to SCSI converter seems to like both of these drives. On the Lite-On drive, the performance was identical across the disk. On the generic 52X drive, which is a terrible CD-ROM to begin with, the performance was the same across the disk until the end, where the SCSI converter seemed to actually help the drive's performance.
We also wanted to know if tasks such as CD writing would be affected by the converter. To test this we burnt the same CD image with the drive attached to IDE and then to SCSI. What we were interested in at disk burn completion was the average write speed and the minimum fill of the burn buffer. After testing we found that the drive performed identically attached to either bus. The average write speed was 32.4x and the minimum fill was 93%. Conclusion
The first thing we wanted to mention in the conclusion is who would be interested in such a device. A couple of scenarios come to mind:
*
A user that wants to go all SCSI but can't find the devices that they want as SCSI devices. This user is one that wants/needs the advantages of SCSI or just doesn't want the overhead of having additional devices on the PCI bus (the IDE controller) or the extra drivers loaded.
*
Someone that is setting up something such as a server in which they need a large quantity of drives and doesn't want to spend the money on high-end SCSI drives. This could either be a large hard drive array or even a CD reproduction system.
In either of these situations, the converters are just what the doctor ordered. The IDE to SCSI converter had good performance on both drives, although it seems that it may work better on some drives over others. The ATAPI to SCSI converter was flawless in our testing, providing identical or even better performance to that of the device running on the IDE bus.
The price of these devices are a little higher than you might expect at $99 and $109 for the IDE to SCSI and ATAPI to SCSI converters respectfully. The price isn't too bad though when you consider the price SCSI typically carries as compared to IDE. Buying an IDE hard drive over SCSI could save you $300 or more. That would net you an over $200 in savings even with the price of the converter. The ATAPI converter's price is a little more difficult to justify with a price comparison but with the dropping price of CD-RWs to the sub-$80 mark, you wouldn't pay too much more for an IDE drive with SCSI converter over a SCSI drive at a slower speed.
Overall, We were very impressed with the quality, ease of installation, and performance of these devices. Addonics has produced devices that have been missing from the drive market for a long time and they have done it right. If these are something you've been looking for, we highly recommend them. They are more than we expected and receive both our Works with Linux Certification and the LinuxHardware.org Top Honors Award.
They did. And it seems to be missing from the Top 500 list. According to this, 33 XServes reached 217 GFlops/sec. Now, according to Apple, they should be able to reach a much higher speed than this (roughly twice the performance they actually got), but part of the reason might be that they used 100BaseT instead of Gigabit, and theoretical != real world anyway. This earlier cluster of 76 G4's even acheived higher results. JPL found Macs to be "capable of excellent scalability in performance. "
IIRC, FireWire should be able to do this. At one MacWorld, I seem to recall Steve Jobs plugging a camcorder into two machines and simultaneously downloading video to both...Then again, it's possible that this sort of thing wouldn't work with hard disks.
So Windows has FAT32 and all we've got is old Fat Elvis.
Did someone infringe your copyright?
on
Ask Donald Becker
·
· Score: 2
According to this page, the copyright for the rtl8139too driver, a substantial portion of which is your code, was claimed by Jeff Garzik illegally and fraudulently. Is this true? If so, have you done anything in an attempt to get the situation resolved? Do you think that other free software authors should be paranoid about protecting their copyrights?
There are three versions of OpenOffice for Mac OS X in development. The first is Darwin/X11. This is what's going into beta. Then there's Quartz. This is the first version that will not require XFree86, but will have a Windows look and feel. Finally, there's Aqua, which will actually look like a standard Aqua app. Quartz is scheduled for beta in Q2 2003, Aqua is scheduled for beta in Q1 2004.
The RIAA goes after everyone. The software makers, users, ISPs and everyone in between have the potential of being sued.
Some geeks have a problem with one, some geeks have a problem with another.
And some geeks have a problem with all of it. Is there really any reason why the shouldn't? Sure, the copyright is being violated, but so are user's liberties.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe it's referring to people who mimic system administrators...
Really. Check http://www.simonster.com/index.thtml. It's fully XHTML 1.1 compliant. Unfortunately, there are a few consequences of this. First of all, You can't center a fixed width table. Well, you can, by using left-margin: auto; right-margin: auto; but it doesn't work in any Windows version of IE even though it has been in the CSS standard for a very long time! (It works fine in IE 5 for Mac, Konqueror, Safari, and Mozilla).
XHTML isn't a good idea for teaching a course. Most people don't give a fuck whether your design is technically sound as long as it works right. XHTML 1.0 Transitional might be reasonable, since it supports enough of the old HTML tags to allow browser compatibility, but XHTML 1.1 needs to wait a few years.
Hmm...Apple's Fibre Channel Xserve RAID is only $10,999...Only around $300,000 for a petabyte...
Then get a Visor and a VisorPhone. It's a GSM phone as a springboard module. Not sure if they still sell them, but you could probably pick up one used on eBay.
They didn't sell too well because they were expensive and somewhat bulky.
I doubt it's much faster than mod_perl. Mod_perl can be set to compile once at server startup, then run many times. In addition, it has no fork time at all, another benefit.
PHP has to compile every time, so it's slightly slower, but you can do neat things like use persistent MySQL across all sorts of scripts.
Perhaps some of this can be fixed with FastCGI, although Perl and PHP are (IMHO) much easier to learn and write. In addition, I'll bet there's a large enough IPC overhead to make this FastCGI with C/C++ less attractive than mod_perl or PHP.
I could be (and very possibly am) wrong, but doesn't this only affect you if you've installed PHP in your cgi-bin? Otherwise, you can't ignoring .htaccess files by calling PHP directly.
There will always be a local vulnerability where a user could install the PHP binary, but as long as you give users CGI access you are vulnerable to the same kinds of things through a Perl script or a CGI written in C.
Simon
My guess is it wouldn't matter. The chip they're using here can't be as fast as, say, the Oxford 911 chipset even. It won't be able to saturate a 400mbps interconnect, much less an 800mbps interconnect....
If you don't control both endpoints, you aren't secure anyway. Who's to say, for example, that the machine you're using the bulletin board from doesn't have a keystroke logger? For real security, you need to own the actual machines too.
The Mac OS X version of FLTK works, but it's mostly a joke. The widgets look nothing like Aqua; the menubar is (IIRC) at the top of the window rather than at the top of the screen. As much as I'd like to use it, it just doesn't adapt too well to OS X.
Because people can't run Windows! Only computers! I would be very suprised to find a single person running Windows...he or she would probably be pretty slow...
A Google search on "HTTP" is a pretty decent metric of measuring the most popular Web sites, and Yahoo! is listed first.
So, perhaps Google is indeed the most well-known search engine, but Yahoo! is a more popular Web site overall. I would actually trust Google's assessment over any others.
Yes, but a search for "www" returns Google first.
In fact, one of the theories is that we'll cause the next ice age. Global warming will cause water to come down from the tops of mountains in the summer. Then it will freeze in the winter and instant ice age.
GNUStep allows for source-level compatibility. This is good for people who plan on targeting Mac OS X as well as Linux, but it's not good for people who want to run Mac OS X apps that run on Mac OS X but not on Linux, such as the Mac OS X window server and Finder. These applications would never be ported to GNUStep, as easy as it is, because Apple wouldn't do it. In addition, this should allow Carbon applications as well as Cocoa applications to run on NetBSD.
Since when have open standards been a source of confusion, besides when Microsoft doesn't comply with them? Microsoft is the only company with enough market power to confuse people about open standards and they have.
There's one major problem with Apple's encrypted disk images: speed. Playing an MP3 off of an encrypted disk image takes 10%+ of the CPU time on my iBook/600.
I read a Scientific American article on hypnosis. According to it, while it may seem as if people under hypnosis remember earlier things, they don't really. They can remember dreams that they would usually be able to separate from memories, but they can't under hypnosis. For example, when asked to act out something from their childhood, adults would behave not as children, but as adults play-acting as children.
LAME produces more than decent mp3 files. Did I mention it's open source?
MP3 is what's used for sharing because it's what's used for sharing. If MP3 wasn't the predominant file sharing format, people wouldn't encode in it. MP3 is the predominant file sharing format because it's what people encode in.
Try running fix_prebinding if you can access the terminal (or, if you have remote login turned on, use SSH for another machine).
The Devices
The devices (pictured above) are small PCBs that attach directly to the back of the IDE/ATAPI devices and perform the necessary conversion from the IDE/ATAPI protocol to Ultra160 SCSI. These are not simple cables that perform some magic with wiring tricks but each device is a controller that can correctly convert communication back and forth from the appropriate protocols. As you can see in the photos, the devices each have a micro-controller onboard, the large chip in the ATAPI version and under the heatsink on the IDE version. Each device features upgradable firmware and comes with a 1-year warranty.
Installation
Addonics has made these completely plug-and-play and they require absolutely no drivers for any OS. Installation, therefore, could not be easier. All that you do for either device is to attach the device to the IDE connector on the back of the drive, apply power to the drive and to the converter, and finally, set the the jumpers and hook up the SCSI cable. The installation is that straight forward and is shown visually below.
Each device ships in a small box that includes the converter itself, a Y-cable to provide power to the device and the drive, and installation instructions. The instructions that come with converters are a much more detailed step-by-step process to get you up and running quickly. Also included in the instructions are jumper settings for the SCSI ID and SCSI termination.
The installation is really that easy and both converters worked the first boot without issue. The compact design allows you to install these without even removing the drives from the machine. They also fit very snug on the back of the drives which means that you will not need to rearrange your case's insides just to accommodate the converters.
Performance
The next question is obviously, "How do these perform?" We definitely don't want to lose any performance through the conversion process and we would even like to see an increase in speed through the process. One quick note is on the fact that these devices convert IDE to an Ultra160 standard which means that your SCSI bus will not slowed down by a legacy device on the bus. This is a big deal if you have an adapter that downgrades all SCSI devices to the lowest speed on the bus.
All the tests in this review were performed on a IWILL DX400-SN motherboard based platform with dual 2.8GHz Xeons. The onboard SCSI (Qlogic 12160) provided a convenient testbed and provided less opportunity for possible incompatibility.
First we'll check out the IDE to SCSI converter and run the drive through ZCAV under IDE and then SCSI. ZCAV is a utility that measures throughput at various points across a disk. In the graph below we used increments of 100MB.
Above we tried the IDE to SCSI converter on two drives, a Seagate Barracuda III 40GB and an IBM 75GXP 75GB. The graph shows very different results for each drive. The Seagate had much more steady performance with very few fluctuations running on IDE rather than SCSI. SCSI performance fluctuated wildly and overall was under the mark set by IDE. The IBM drive on the other hand actually held a steadier line on SCSI than on IDE and the performance is almost identical across the disk.
To find out more about how read/write performance would actually be on the the Seagate drive, we turned to Bonnie++ for some more detailed file system performance benchmarks.
(Sorry, the table didn't format correctly)
The above table shows that the Seagate drive in some real-world applications would perform virtually identical. You can see that the winning spot goes back and forth across tests and that the difference in the two is very small.
Now turning to the ATAPI to SCSI converter, we will once again analyze reading performance with ZCAV. In this test we used two drives, a Lite-On 48x12x48 CD-RW and a generic 52X CD-ROM. ZCAV reads were done in 10MB increments.
The ATAPI to SCSI converter seems to like both of these drives. On the Lite-On drive, the performance was identical across the disk. On the generic 52X drive, which is a terrible CD-ROM to begin with, the performance was the same across the disk until the end, where the SCSI converter seemed to actually help the drive's performance.
We also wanted to know if tasks such as CD writing would be affected by the converter. To test this we burnt the same CD image with the drive attached to IDE and then to SCSI. What we were interested in at disk burn completion was the average write speed and the minimum fill of the burn buffer. After testing we found that the drive performed identically attached to either bus. The average write speed was 32.4x and the minimum fill was 93%.
Conclusion
The first thing we wanted to mention in the conclusion is who would be interested in such a device. A couple of scenarios come to mind:
*
A user that wants to go all SCSI but can't find the devices that they want as SCSI devices. This user is one that wants/needs the advantages of SCSI or just doesn't want the overhead of having additional devices on the PCI bus (the IDE controller) or the extra drivers loaded.
*
Someone that is setting up something such as a server in which they need a large quantity of drives and doesn't want to spend the money on high-end SCSI drives. This could either be a large hard drive array or even a CD reproduction system.
In either of these situations, the converters are just what the doctor ordered. The IDE to SCSI converter had good performance on both drives, although it seems that it may work better on some drives over others. The ATAPI to SCSI converter was flawless in our testing, providing identical or even better performance to that of the device running on the IDE bus.
The price of these devices are a little higher than you might expect at $99 and $109 for the IDE to SCSI and ATAPI to SCSI converters respectfully. The price isn't too bad though when you consider the price SCSI typically carries as compared to IDE. Buying an IDE hard drive over SCSI could save you $300 or more. That would net you an over $200 in savings even with the price of the converter. The ATAPI converter's price is a little more difficult to justify with a price comparison but with the dropping price of CD-RWs to the sub-$80 mark, you wouldn't pay too much more for an IDE drive with SCSI converter over a SCSI drive at a slower speed.
Overall, We were very impressed with the quality, ease of installation, and performance of these devices. Addonics has produced devices that have been missing from the drive market for a long time and they have done it right. If these are something you've been looking for, we highly recommend them. They are more than we expected and receive both our Works with Linux Certification and the LinuxHardware.org Top Honors Award.
They did. And it seems to be missing from the Top 500 list. According to this, 33 XServes reached 217 GFlops/sec. Now, according to Apple, they should be able to reach a much higher speed than this (roughly twice the performance they actually got), but part of the reason might be that they used 100BaseT instead of Gigabit, and theoretical != real world anyway. This earlier cluster of 76 G4's even acheived higher results. JPL found Macs to be "capable of excellent scalability in performance. "
IIRC, FireWire should be able to do this. At one MacWorld, I seem to recall Steve Jobs plugging a camcorder into two machines and simultaneously downloading video to both...Then again, it's possible that this sort of thing wouldn't work with hard disks.
So Windows has FAT32 and all we've got is old Fat Elvis.
According to this page, the copyright for the rtl8139too driver, a substantial portion of which is your code, was claimed by Jeff Garzik illegally and fraudulently. Is this true? If so, have you done anything in an attempt to get the situation resolved? Do you think that other free software authors should be paranoid about protecting their copyrights?
Bzzt...
There are three versions of OpenOffice for Mac OS X in development. The first is Darwin/X11. This is what's going into beta. Then there's Quartz. This is the first version that will not require XFree86, but will have a Windows look and feel. Finally, there's Aqua, which will actually look like a standard Aqua app. Quartz is scheduled for beta in Q2 2003, Aqua is scheduled for beta in Q1 2004.
See the roadmap here.
The RIAA goes after everyone. The software makers, users, ISPs and everyone in between have the potential of being sued.
Some geeks have a problem with one, some geeks have a problem with another.
And some geeks have a problem with all of it. Is there really any reason why the shouldn't? Sure, the copyright is being violated, but so are user's liberties.