This. If possible, I like to use disks from the same vintage, but of slightly different runtime, into the same storage block (whatever your technology may be). It eliminates the need for different disk batches/etc. (which is a management headache to deal with after the fact, and can lead to weird perf issues) by staggering the likely failure.
Well, Nokia is basically just making just a handful of phones these days, the Lumias. In a market full of Androids and iPhones for years, they stand out a bit as being 'different'. And as far as the hardware is concerned, they're pretty high quality, with good battery life, and stand up to a beating. So they do have a niche.
As much as I dislike them, Juniper switches (which run FreeBSD, iirc) seem to be pretty damn common these days.
Enterprises won't move from Cisco for quite some time due to the institutional knowledge requirement: they've got a lot of equipment which requires people to maintain.
In a recession or depression like we're in, things like network infrastructure changing is uncommon. The big companies don't change things because change is risky and expensive (unless change is their business, such as in IT). Upheaval, mergers, etc. - those changes can cause potential IT infrastructure changes, yes, but it's not likely right now.
Sorry, I can't find anything of substance in this (worthless, InfoWorld) article. There's a handful of reasons why "Linux will be the next network OS" isn't holding any water:
* First and foremost, it's the license. No hardware vendor out there wants to be stuck supporting software in the way that a GPL'd product often requires. They want to control the platform, and they can't do that if it's truly open. * Second, Linux has had iptables (and the menagerie of other tools) to make it a 'network OS' for years and years. It hasn't helped it gain much traction except in the SMB/home router market demographic. * Third, Linux is lacking some of the important things that are necessary for network equipment these days - or at least, not as elegantly as other "free" options. * There are many vendors which offer network equipment which does NOT run on Linux: Juniper, NET10, and pfSense based products all come to mind (and I've personally seen pfSense successfully blow Cisco solutions out of the water in price, redundancy, and performance with a markedly more capable configuration). * Oh yeah, and nothing he says in the article is in any way exclusive to Linux; it can just as easily be applied to eg. FreeBSD or OpenBSD.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a dyed in the wool Linux fiend... but Linux doesn't really shine in this department.
Don't feel bad. At least you don't work for Juniper. That's a reputation an engineer can do without!
Think of it this way: Juniper has to hire the best and brightest, because if they don't, they're fucked. Their products are horrible; they need drastic improvement, and they don't have the market share like Cisco does to muscle competitors or victims.
Minor nitpick: there are 64 original levels, not 32. Once you beat the game, you can play it through again a second time with slightly different levels and different (harder) enemies.
I haven't been able to trigger the 'infinite lives' bug/easteregg yet, but presumably it's there - or maybe he didn't know about it?
Six months down the line, when those people are in the unemployment line and have given up looking for work, it'll be "We need more H1B visas, we can't find enough workers!"
OK, so why are we hating on the guy (or girl) who distributed the picture to the Internet?
If someone is given something, they've presumably been given privilege to do with it as they please: masturbate to it, respond to it, share it with friends, share it with the world. Whatever, as long as they don't sell it. That's how these things work.
Don't like it, and don't trust the other person as much as you do a close friend or relative? Sign a contract - presumably goods of some sort are being exchanged, yes? Maybe it's nude pictures for esteem, perhaps.
Or, better yet, follow the following protocol: don't be a slut, or at least be a bit more selective. That goes for guys, too, though obviously there are more women sending nude selfies than guys. If you're going to trust someone, be damn sure they're trustworthy. (You have sex with a condom even when you trust someone enough to let them smear their genitals all over your own, so why not a little precaution with pictures?)
There's so much porn on the Internet at this point that I don't really get the fear. There are so many unnamed boobs on the Internet at this point (not including ACs) it hardly matters.
Wow, really? You're blaming Obama's "shortcomings" on Republicans?
Why not just blame them on Bush?
Obama is fully responsible for the Benghazi coverup, breaches of civil liberty, expansion and militarization of DHS within our country as a standing army, erosion of the actual military, continued warfare and heightened death rates with negative progress in Afghanistan, and let's not forget the complete disaster that everyone now, finally realizes Obamacare to be - except the corporations and unions which are more than happy to push their pensioners off onto the backs of taxpayers.
No, the reason this is possible is because he's had full collusion from most of Congress, and tacit approval from the majority of the remainder.
I have worked in and around many environments where no degree of clear documentation would help due to how completely brainfucked the implementations are. Despite the tombs of very thorough documentation, they're still a goddamn mess. Even the high level overview has caveats and exceptions of how it works, where it works, etc.
Hell, pick an operating system. You typically need at least a high level overview of how it works before you dive in: "This is UNIX. We use pipes and redirects, and everything is a file. Go."
Now, a system which follows best practices? Absolutely, there should be no 'teaching' required, assuming it's of moderate complexity. "x happens when y occurs in certain scenarios" or the like. But I've rarely seen an environment which even approaches 'best practices' because status quo just-get-it-done has been the order of the day for entirely too long, and people are lazy and/or overworked.
This is coming from the systems/network side of things, often in environments which are developer centric (and historically 'managed' by the devs). Custom applications cobbled together for functionality across a dozen hosts with half a dozen scripting languages over a period of a decade... it's a nightmare, and frequent.
As someone who has invariably come into environments with little/no usable documentation, and have since been thanked several times for leaving behind such useful documentation (yes, in wikis), there's a time and a place for documentation. High level things (need, purpose, etc.) as well as 'gotcha' specifics are useful.
It used to not be a problem, that's the thing. Before all the modern schedulers came to be (so, back in the 2.4 days) it was entirely possible to stream a video over the network without stuttering - while running a -j3 kernel build, updatedb, and a find on root with memory exhaustion taking place (eg. browser was loaded up). It was a matter of pride that these things could be done on Linux, because Windows would fall over under similar loads. Nowadays, Windows handles these situations better than Linux does due to Windows improvements and regressions in Linux.
Chalk it up to server-oriented performance tuning.
From where I'm sitting, as someone who used to routinely build rc releases and use them, this is how things look.
Five, ten years ago you had people such as myself who would build RC (or AC, etc.) kernel trees to test things and see how they'd work. I know several people who regularly made LKML submissions, many of which turned out to contribute to fixes.
Today, using the rc releases isn't as practical because they're fairly divergent from distribution patchsets. A lot goes into a distribution kernel which isn't present in the vanilla kernel.org kernels, it seems.
More often than not, pulling everything together to build our own kernels isn't worth the extra effort: possibly due to the shortened cycle and possibly due to general code maturity, there's little benefit. Maybe our definitions of 'benefit' has changed, too - but arguably, the changes in the kernel today are nowhere near as drastic or significant as when (say) XFS was getting merged with additional kernel and disk schedulers.
The current process resulted in us having CFQ + EXT3 as the default for a long time (some distros still have this). This basically means any sort of interactive performance is worse than horrible. The only reason we're beyond it now is because EXT3 is on its way out with EXT4 being preferred.
IIRC, wasn't CFQ one of the first major infrastructural things put into 'stable' after this 'rapid release' approach was adopted?
Also, udev.
I'm sure there are other examples... and maybe I'm projecting a bit.
Yeah, but there are a couple things to consider...
When most people exercise, they're exercising "key muscle groups". Your body needs time to heal between exercising those groups and so people work on other groups. But those muscle groups are
In particular, core strength is neglected, as is muscle fitness. Ever see those guys who are about 5'10" and 230lb of bicep muscle at the gym, "pumping iron"? Yeah, tehy're roided out, mostly. It's weak muscle because they're training for muscle size not strength. Strength training is what this drug 'mimicks'. It's not going to result in people looking like that, but it might help those meaty wimps gain some real strength. (I say that as someone who infrequently 'works out' but has worked hard my entire life: no, I'm not exceptionally strong, but I still have had to increase the weight on the machines after coming after those guys - and I look like a toothpick.)
Additionally, when someone is (say) doing bench presses to bulk up their shoulders and arms, ever look at their faces? Chances are there's some intense concentration; their entire bodies are tensed, not just the muscle groups they're focusing on. Those other muscles get used, too.
An M1 MBT would go through the mountain; it would not crash. You may bleed a couple miles per hour, though... The Humvee would go over. Is there a waterfall on the mountain? The Tesla's fucked.
As someone who's been rear-ended, side swiped, and merged into by people driving newer, safer low-visibility vehicles (eg. frame members are placed perfectly to obscure vision/"protect the driver"), and an owner of a 1986 Blazer, I can't say I agree with you. You've got to be pretty damn reckless to even approach 'rolling' a vehicle like this (and that's worse case scenario), and I've got better visibility than anything on the road. I can only be accountable for myself on the road, so the biggest danger on the road comes from the outside of the vehicle, always.
Slashdot Mirror
Crysis 2. Metro 2033. Metro: Last Light. Supreme Commander 1 and 2.
Just off the top of my head - all those games will benefit greatly from a faster card (or CPU, in the case of Supreme Commander).
This. If possible, I like to use disks from the same vintage, but of slightly different runtime, into the same storage block (whatever your technology may be). It eliminates the need for different disk batches/etc. (which is a management headache to deal with after the fact, and can lead to weird perf issues) by staggering the likely failure.
Well, Nokia is basically just making just a handful of phones these days, the Lumias. In a market full of Androids and iPhones for years, they stand out a bit as being 'different'. And as far as the hardware is concerned, they're pretty high quality, with good battery life, and stand up to a beating. So they do have a niche.
The answer is obvious. They didn't find a hellish rocky world; they discovered Hell. Naturally, this verifies quite a few things.
As much as I dislike them, Juniper switches (which run FreeBSD, iirc) seem to be pretty damn common these days.
Enterprises won't move from Cisco for quite some time due to the institutional knowledge requirement: they've got a lot of equipment which requires people to maintain.
In a recession or depression like we're in, things like network infrastructure changing is uncommon. The big companies don't change things because change is risky and expensive (unless change is their business, such as in IT). Upheaval, mergers, etc. - those changes can cause potential IT infrastructure changes, yes, but it's not likely right now.
Sorry, I can't find anything of substance in this (worthless, InfoWorld) article. There's a handful of reasons why "Linux will be the next network OS" isn't holding any water:
* First and foremost, it's the license. No hardware vendor out there wants to be stuck supporting software in the way that a GPL'd product often requires. They want to control the platform, and they can't do that if it's truly open.
* Second, Linux has had iptables (and the menagerie of other tools) to make it a 'network OS' for years and years. It hasn't helped it gain much traction except in the SMB/home router market demographic.
* Third, Linux is lacking some of the important things that are necessary for network equipment these days - or at least, not as elegantly as other "free" options.
* There are many vendors which offer network equipment which does NOT run on Linux: Juniper, NET10, and pfSense based products all come to mind (and I've personally seen pfSense successfully blow Cisco solutions out of the water in price, redundancy, and performance with a markedly more capable configuration).
* Oh yeah, and nothing he says in the article is in any way exclusive to Linux; it can just as easily be applied to eg. FreeBSD or OpenBSD.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a dyed in the wool Linux fiend... but Linux doesn't really shine in this department.
Don't feel bad. At least you don't work for Juniper. That's a reputation an engineer can do without!
Think of it this way: Juniper has to hire the best and brightest, because if they don't, they're fucked. Their products are horrible; they need drastic improvement, and they don't have the market share like Cisco does to muscle competitors or victims.
Minor nitpick: there are 64 original levels, not 32. Once you beat the game, you can play it through again a second time with slightly different levels and different (harder) enemies.
I haven't been able to trigger the 'infinite lives' bug/easteregg yet, but presumably it's there - or maybe he didn't know about it?
Six months down the line, when those people are in the unemployment line and have given up looking for work, it'll be "We need more H1B visas, we can't find enough workers!"
Since when did the 1st Amendment (or any of the others not directly inferring government control) mean anything? I think it was probably around 2008.
In other words, it'll be yet another bludgeon being able to be used in court against a husband (or father).
At least it might help hinder the Paparazzi.
OK, so why are we hating on the guy (or girl) who distributed the picture to the Internet?
If someone is given something, they've presumably been given privilege to do with it as they please: masturbate to it, respond to it, share it with friends, share it with the world. Whatever, as long as they don't sell it. That's how these things work.
Don't like it, and don't trust the other person as much as you do a close friend or relative? Sign a contract - presumably goods of some sort are being exchanged, yes? Maybe it's nude pictures for esteem, perhaps.
Or, better yet, follow the following protocol: don't be a slut, or at least be a bit more selective. That goes for guys, too, though obviously there are more women sending nude selfies than guys. If you're going to trust someone, be damn sure they're trustworthy. (You have sex with a condom even when you trust someone enough to let them smear their genitals all over your own, so why not a little precaution with pictures?)
There's so much porn on the Internet at this point that I don't really get the fear. There are so many unnamed boobs on the Internet at this point (not including ACs) it hardly matters.
Wrong. He's worse than Bush, by a long shot, at this point.
Wow, really? You're blaming Obama's "shortcomings" on Republicans?
Why not just blame them on Bush?
Obama is fully responsible for the Benghazi coverup, breaches of civil liberty, expansion and militarization of DHS within our country as a standing army, erosion of the actual military, continued warfare and heightened death rates with negative progress in Afghanistan, and let's not forget the complete disaster that everyone now, finally realizes Obamacare to be - except the corporations and unions which are more than happy to push their pensioners off onto the backs of taxpayers.
No, the reason this is possible is because he's had full collusion from most of Congress, and tacit approval from the majority of the remainder.
I have worked in and around many environments where no degree of clear documentation would help due to how completely brainfucked the implementations are. Despite the tombs of very thorough documentation, they're still a goddamn mess. Even the high level overview has caveats and exceptions of how it works, where it works, etc.
Hell, pick an operating system. You typically need at least a high level overview of how it works before you dive in: "This is UNIX. We use pipes and redirects, and everything is a file. Go."
Now, a system which follows best practices? Absolutely, there should be no 'teaching' required, assuming it's of moderate complexity. "x happens when y occurs in certain scenarios" or the like. But I've rarely seen an environment which even approaches 'best practices' because status quo just-get-it-done has been the order of the day for entirely too long, and people are lazy and/or overworked.
This is coming from the systems/network side of things, often in environments which are developer centric (and historically 'managed' by the devs). Custom applications cobbled together for functionality across a dozen hosts with half a dozen scripting languages over a period of a decade... it's a nightmare, and frequent.
As someone who has invariably come into environments with little/no usable documentation, and have since been thanked several times for leaving behind such useful documentation (yes, in wikis), there's a time and a place for documentation. High level things (need, purpose, etc.) as well as 'gotcha' specifics are useful.
Are you using an SSD? Was memory exhausted?
The scenarios I describe were/are disk contentious in scenarios at or near memory exhaustion, when the system dips into swap.
You can experience this as soon as the system starts dumping RAM pages to swap even today, assuming you've not got an SSD.
It used to not be a problem, that's the thing. Before all the modern schedulers came to be (so, back in the 2.4 days) it was entirely possible to stream a video over the network without stuttering - while running a -j3 kernel build, updatedb, and a find on root with memory exhaustion taking place (eg. browser was loaded up). It was a matter of pride that these things could be done on Linux, because Windows would fall over under similar loads. Nowadays, Windows handles these situations better than Linux does due to Windows improvements and regressions in Linux.
Chalk it up to server-oriented performance tuning.
From where I'm sitting, as someone who used to routinely build rc releases and use them, this is how things look.
Five, ten years ago you had people such as myself who would build RC (or AC, etc.) kernel trees to test things and see how they'd work. I know several people who regularly made LKML submissions, many of which turned out to contribute to fixes.
Today, using the rc releases isn't as practical because they're fairly divergent from distribution patchsets. A lot goes into a distribution kernel which isn't present in the vanilla kernel.org kernels, it seems.
More often than not, pulling everything together to build our own kernels isn't worth the extra effort: possibly due to the shortened cycle and possibly due to general code maturity, there's little benefit. Maybe our definitions of 'benefit' has changed, too - but arguably, the changes in the kernel today are nowhere near as drastic or significant as when (say) XFS was getting merged with additional kernel and disk schedulers.
Really?
The current process resulted in us having CFQ + EXT3 as the default for a long time (some distros still have this). This basically means any sort of interactive performance is worse than horrible. The only reason we're beyond it now is because EXT3 is on its way out with EXT4 being preferred.
IIRC, wasn't CFQ one of the first major infrastructural things put into 'stable' after this 'rapid release' approach was adopted?
Also, udev.
I'm sure there are other examples... and maybe I'm projecting a bit.
Yeah, but there are a couple things to consider...
When most people exercise, they're exercising "key muscle groups". Your body needs time to heal between exercising those groups and so people work on other groups. But those muscle groups are
In particular, core strength is neglected, as is muscle fitness. Ever see those guys who are about 5'10" and 230lb of bicep muscle at the gym, "pumping iron"? Yeah, tehy're roided out, mostly. It's weak muscle because they're training for muscle size not strength. Strength training is what this drug 'mimicks'. It's not going to result in people looking like that, but it might help those meaty wimps gain some real strength. (I say that as someone who infrequently 'works out' but has worked hard my entire life: no, I'm not exceptionally strong, but I still have had to increase the weight on the machines after coming after those guys - and I look like a toothpick.)
Additionally, when someone is (say) doing bench presses to bulk up their shoulders and arms, ever look at their faces? Chances are there's some intense concentration; their entire bodies are tensed, not just the muscle groups they're focusing on. Those other muscles get used, too.
You
I wouldn't call that living.
No, the drivers will likely drive less safely as the result of them being pretentious assholes.
If vehicle safety were a factor in how careful people drove, motorcycles would be the safest vehicles on the road to own.
An M1 MBT would go through the mountain; it would not crash. You may bleed a couple miles per hour, though... The Humvee would go over. Is there a waterfall on the mountain? The Tesla's fucked.
As someone who's been rear-ended, side swiped, and merged into by people driving newer, safer low-visibility vehicles (eg. frame members are placed perfectly to obscure vision/"protect the driver"), and an owner of a 1986 Blazer, I can't say I agree with you. You've got to be pretty damn reckless to even approach 'rolling' a vehicle like this (and that's worse case scenario), and I've got better visibility than anything on the road. I can only be accountable for myself on the road, so the biggest danger on the road comes from the outside of the vehicle, always.
Um if $100k is just barely covering utilities and rent, then there are only 3 real likelihoods:
1) You decide to live IN San Francisco.
2) You decide to live IN Manhattan
3) You live above your means or have a lot of debt