Debian and FreeBSD both have strong and weak points, and quite a few smilarities. In general neither is better then the other.
I find that it is easier to keep the Debian system files up to date as everything is a package. The command 'apt-get update && apt-get -u upgrade' just works. Debian handles config file changes very well. Debian deffinately has more packages, includeing some really weird ones. Debian is primarily a binary distrobution which is both good and bad. Debian dependacies can get a little silly. Package maintainers tend to enable every option that package might have. For example I would like to see emacs-noX, and exim-noLDAP packages. Debian has a more modern feel. The developers have been willing to try out new ways of organizing and administery the system. However as another poster wrote, some of the fanciness like 'alternatives' can be annoying. FreeBSD is more conservation relying on more tried and true practices. The Debian/Linux system is a little more chaotic, probably due to the 1000+ developers.
FreeBSD benifits greatly from a smaller core team. The base system is well organized, well tested, and well documented. FreeBSD is a system administrator's OS. (So are OpenBSD and NetBSD) In general these three BSDs don't try to be as fancy as Debian. As a result these systems can be easier for the advanced user to administer. FreeBSD package dependancies are more sane. FreeBSD has binary packages but is primarily a source distrobution. Compiling from source allows for better site configuration.
FreeBSD and Debian have equally awfull install scripts. Fortunately you only have to do that once! Both Debian and FreeBSD suffer somewhat from trying to be the *nix for "everyone." Both systems have mature packages or ports with few bugs. Both systems have Current, Testing/Stable, and Release branches. Although these are handled a little differently. Almost all software that runs on one, will run on the other. (but not VMware3!) It is very easy to install and maintain software on both systems.
Both FreeBSD and Debian/Linux are high quality operating systems backed by a team of intelligent, dedicated developers. I can not recommend one over the other.
Agreed. The Portage package management system is nicer then FreeBSD's ports. However the Gentoo packages themselves need some work. I have had a few problems with the Gentoo packages. All the core packages have worked well. Some of the extra packages, not as well tested packages, have not installed cleanly. Fortunately it is incredibly easy to modify the 'ebuild' files. FreeBSD is more mature then Gentoo and it shows. I have not had any difficulty with FreeBSD ports.
Just as a quick followup. A complete base install of OpenBSD 3.2 (all *.tgz, no source) is only about 300MB. The install guide claims that a minimal install would be about 100MB.
I have a stripped down Debian firewall. Debian is not the easiest to trim down. Some of the dependancies really complicate matters. (ex: Exim depends on openldap, even if you don't need the ldap support.) Not that you can't trim down Debian it just not as easy as starting with a smaller distro to begin with.
Start with Slackware or better still OpenBSD. OpenBSD is everything you need in a *nix install and nothing more. My old OpenBSD 2.7 is only 320MB with X v3. 70MB of that is additional packages. This mostly default install includes X, gcc, apache, and 15MB of perl. Samba, Vim, and Emacs were installed from packages.
In Ontario, Canada the phone monopoly, Bell, implemented data caps, and yet continued to advertise "Unlimited Internet Access." Their reasoning is that the Internet is still available 24/7: there are no time limits. The sad part is that a large number of customers bought into this and went on to defend Bell's "Unlimited Internet" despite the 5GB data cap. To add insult to injury if a customer were to do the sorts of activities shown in the Bell ads, music jamming online, sucking back video content, the customer would very quickly hit the 5GB data cap.
Book authors have been useing "pen names" for years without fear of loseing their copyright. Useing a pseudonym for source code copyright should not be any different.
Wishing that a product was something completely different is useless speculation. Wishing a different product existed and affordable is different. M-Systems make solid state flash disks. A 4GB IDE flash disk costs about $3500 USD.
Many of us aren't "missing the point." This DRAM disk as sold is not particularly usefull except purhaps in some limit roles. (I will note that I have yet to read a post where this device is better then more system ram.)
The idea of storeing your system state at boot and loading that at boot has potential. My compture has a hibernate mode already where the system state is stored to disk and reloaded at boot time. I find that it isn't much faster to return from a hibernate state then to reboot in the first place . I am not sure how much faster booting as you propose would actually be.
The important question is why do you care so much about your reboot times? Specifically why would you want to spend so much money simply to increase your boot times? I reboot my laptop fairly often as I prefer to leave it off while the laptop is being transported. The boot times don't bother me. What I would spend money on is a faster hard drive. A faster hard drive would speed up boot times, and increase overall system performance.
According to Acoustic Rnaissance for Audio the bitstream encoding used on SACDs is not better then PCM with a comparatively high sample rate and sample size. Both encodeing techniques have their advantages. According to the linked paper, for the purposes of digital audio storage and playback, PCM is better. Although the paper does not delve deeply into the advantages of bitstream encoding, the paper does say that bitstream is better when there is a direct connection between the ADC and DAC.
Wow. The technical details in is article aren't wrong, but they aren't correct either. PCM isen't the problem. PCM at 44kHz with 16bit samples is the problem.
The AC is right: This EDWARD JAY EPSTEIN guy is a poser.
I don't see why this is surpriseing. If the content is hard to find on a site or hard to read people will go elsewhere. I thought that this was self evident.
Re:200 mph? In their dreams!
on
Landshark
·
· Score: 2
The fastest production motorcycle, the Suzuki Hayabusa, can do 200mph (320kph). However the manufacturers have agreed to limit superbikes to 298kph or 186mph. The 'Busa has a 1300cc 4 cylinder 4stroke engine and a claimed dry weight of 217kg/478lbs. Some people have modified their 'Busa and Kawasaki ZZ-12R motorcycles with superchargers, turbochargers, and nitrous. These motorcycles will do better then 200mph. GrandPrix 2 stroke 500cc, and 4 stroke 1000cc motorcycles have more powerful engines in lighter bikes, but are leased for 1 million dollars a year or more.
It is worth noteing that motorcycles are incredibly non-areodynamic compared to most enclosed vehicles such as this Landshark. I would not be surprised if a light aerodynamic vehicle with a well tuned 400cc engine could do 200mph. Humans can do over 60mph on aerodynamic bikes. That said I doubt the Landshark with its 400cc engine can do 200mph with 3 passengers or even 1 passenger. 200mph is fast! You need a well tuned optomised vehicle to go that fast. Trying to get a hybrid car/boat to go that fast with a reasonable price tag is not easy.
The Urbanmech is damn slow: 2/3/2 movement. It sports an AC/10, a small laser, and 6 tons of armour. It is basically a (slightly) mobile gun turret. It is more useless then it looks.
Re:OT: Re:.357? Try a Gauss Rifle.
on
Is Mac OS X Slow?
·
· Score: 2
It is my basement. Thank you very much. I will sit in it if I want.
Linux kernel has taken off in a very short time (about 10 years).
Try two years maybe less. Seriously. People were doing real work in a Linux environment running the version 0.99.x kernels which were release in 1993. Linux ran X, vi, emacs, and the GNU tools. For a lot of acedemics on a limited budget this was more then enough.
Just FYI: The audio bandwith of stereo FM radio is about 18kHz or less. The stereo pilot signal is at 19kHz, and the Left-Right signal is centered at 38kHz. So the radio receiver is going to need some pretty good filters to produce the full audio bandwidth, and eliminate the 19kHz pilot.
AM radio stations are only 10kHz apart so you are limited to less then 5kHz of clear audio bandwidth.
This web page has some good info. It shows only 15kHz of audio bandwidth for FM stereo which is probably typical, but that is not a limitation of the specification.
When codeing it is great to have the documents on one screen and the IDE on another. When debugging a third monitor is even better. You can put your program and debugging info on the third monitor leaving lots of room on the main monitor to view your code.
A crick in your neck is nothing compared to carpel tunnel from hitting alt-F1, alt-F2, multiple times just to check if you have the syntax correct. Besides with the second monitor setup just to the left and angled towards me I don't even move my head. I just have to move my eyes.
Your conclusion is correct: a PPC is better then a.357. However there are some technical errors.
The PPC (IS) produces 10 heat, the ERPPC (Clan/IS) produces 15. The Clan ERPPC does 15 damage. The IS PPC, and ERPPC both do 10 damage. The Guass Rifle produces 1 heat, and does 15 damage.
Guass rifle ammo is a nickel-ferrous slug. The guass rifle ammo does not explode if it takes a critical hit. However if the gauss rifle itself takes a critical hit the power capacitors will explode doing 20 points of damage. It is not specifically stated if a guass rifle is caseable.
The PPC can be installed in mechs less then 45 tons. The Inner Sphere PPCs weight 7 tons and could be put in a 20 ton mech. Although the resulting mech would have 6/9 movement, and only 2 tons of armour. It would not be the most practical of mechs. A more usefull mech may be a 30 tons Urbanmech with PPC. The reliable 35 tons PNT-6R Panther of the Draconis Combine is actually equiped with a PPC on the right arm. Along with its SRM 4, 4 tons of armour, and 4/6/4 movement the Panther is a capable mech.
As a Clan ERPPC only weights 6 tons, and all Clan tech is lighter and cheesier then IS tech, a 20 or 25 tons clan mech could easily support a PPC. A 25 tons Clanner with, XL engine, endo steel, 67 points of ferro-fibrous armour, and double efficiency heat sinks could streak around the field at 7/11/6 with an ER PPC, two ER Medium Lasers, and an ER Small Laser.
Slashdot Mirror
Debian and FreeBSD both have strong and weak points, and quite a few smilarities. In general neither is better then the other.
I find that it is easier to keep the Debian system files up to date as everything is a package. The command 'apt-get update && apt-get -u upgrade' just works. Debian handles config file changes very well. Debian deffinately has more packages, includeing some really weird ones. Debian is primarily a binary distrobution which is both good and bad. Debian dependacies can get a little silly. Package maintainers tend to enable every option that package might have. For example I would like to see emacs-noX, and exim-noLDAP packages. Debian has a more modern feel. The developers have been willing to try out new ways of organizing and administery the system. However as another poster wrote, some of the fanciness like 'alternatives' can be annoying. FreeBSD is more conservation relying on more tried and true practices. The Debian/Linux system is a little more chaotic, probably due to the 1000+ developers.
FreeBSD benifits greatly from a smaller core team. The base system is well organized, well tested, and well documented. FreeBSD is a system administrator's OS. (So are OpenBSD and NetBSD) In general these three BSDs don't try to be as fancy as Debian. As a result these systems can be easier for the advanced user to administer. FreeBSD package dependancies are more sane. FreeBSD has binary packages but is primarily a source distrobution. Compiling from source allows for better site configuration.
FreeBSD and Debian have equally awfull install scripts. Fortunately you only have to do that once! Both Debian and FreeBSD suffer somewhat from trying to be the *nix for "everyone." Both systems have mature packages or ports with few bugs. Both systems have Current, Testing/Stable, and Release branches. Although these are handled a little differently. Almost all software that runs on one, will run on the other. (but not VMware3!) It is very easy to install and maintain software on both systems.
Both FreeBSD and Debian/Linux are high quality operating systems backed by a team of intelligent, dedicated developers. I can not recommend one over the other.
Portage isn't better. Its different.
Agreed. The Portage package management system is nicer then FreeBSD's ports. However the Gentoo packages themselves need some work. I have had a few problems with the Gentoo packages. All the core packages have worked well. Some of the extra packages, not as well tested packages, have not installed cleanly. Fortunately it is incredibly easy to modify the 'ebuild' files. FreeBSD is more mature then Gentoo and it shows. I have not had any difficulty with FreeBSD ports.
Just as a quick followup. A complete base install of OpenBSD 3.2 (all *.tgz, no source) is only about 300MB. The install guide claims that a minimal install would be about 100MB.
I have a stripped down Debian firewall. Debian is not the easiest to trim down. Some of the dependancies really complicate matters. (ex: Exim depends on openldap, even if you don't need the ldap support.) Not that you can't trim down Debian it just not as easy as starting with a smaller distro to begin with.
Start with Slackware or better still OpenBSD. OpenBSD is everything you need in a *nix install and nothing more. My old OpenBSD 2.7 is only 320MB with X v3. 70MB of that is additional packages. This mostly default install includes X, gcc, apache, and 15MB of perl. Samba, Vim, and Emacs were installed from packages.
In Ontario, Canada the phone monopoly, Bell, implemented data caps, and yet continued to advertise "Unlimited Internet Access." Their reasoning is that the Internet is still available 24/7: there are no time limits. The sad part is that a large number of customers bought into this and went on to defend Bell's "Unlimited Internet" despite the 5GB data cap. To add insult to injury if a customer were to do the sorts of activities shown in the Bell ads, music jamming online, sucking back video content, the customer would very quickly hit the 5GB data cap.
Book authors have been useing "pen names" for years without fear of loseing their copyright. Useing a pseudonym for source code copyright should not be any different.
Actually if you documented your rootkit and listed it as a feature you probably could CC EAL4.
I hope to have my EAL4 certified clay brick later this year.
Those items are sold at the Ideal Store.
but wait it is a democracy! Private citizens run the government.
Read the Chaum paper. It is possible to satisfy your three criteria and more.
Several original Pentiums boot fine from CD, as do some of the later 486s.
yes. Trent Reznor has been working with the id guys for some time now.
What if you could boot from this drive?
You can't.
If it were Flash Ram
It isn't. The drive uses volitile DRAM.
Wishing that a product was something completely different is useless speculation. Wishing a different product existed and affordable is different. M-Systems make solid state flash disks. A 4GB IDE flash disk costs about $3500 USD.
Many of us aren't "missing the point." This DRAM disk as sold is not particularly usefull except purhaps in some limit roles. (I will note that I have yet to read a post where this device is better then more system ram.)
The idea of storeing your system state at boot and loading that at boot has potential. My compture has a hibernate mode already where the system state is stored to disk and reloaded at boot time. I find that it isn't much faster to return from a hibernate state then to reboot in the first place . I am not sure how much faster booting as you propose would actually be.
The important question is why do you care so much about your reboot times? Specifically why would you want to spend so much money simply to increase your boot times? I reboot my laptop fairly often as I prefer to leave it off while the laptop is being transported. The boot times don't bother me. What I would spend money on is a faster hard drive. A faster hard drive would speed up boot times, and increase overall system performance.
According to Acoustic Rnaissance for Audio the bitstream encoding used on SACDs is not better then PCM with a comparatively high sample rate and sample size. Both encodeing techniques have their advantages. According to the linked paper, for the purposes of digital audio storage and playback, PCM is better. Although the paper does not delve deeply into the advantages of bitstream encoding, the paper does say that bitstream is better when there is a direct connection between the ADC and DAC.
Wow. The technical details in is article aren't wrong, but they aren't correct either. PCM isen't the problem. PCM at 44kHz with 16bit samples is the problem.
The AC is right: This EDWARD JAY EPSTEIN guy is a poser.
I don't see why this is surpriseing. If the content is hard to find on a site or hard to read people will go elsewhere. I thought that this was self evident.
The fastest production motorcycle, the Suzuki Hayabusa, can do 200mph (320kph). However the manufacturers have agreed to limit superbikes to 298kph or 186mph. The 'Busa has a 1300cc 4 cylinder 4stroke engine and a claimed dry weight of 217kg/478lbs. Some people have modified their 'Busa and Kawasaki ZZ-12R motorcycles with superchargers, turbochargers, and nitrous. These motorcycles will do better then 200mph. GrandPrix 2 stroke 500cc, and 4 stroke 1000cc motorcycles have more powerful engines in lighter bikes, but are leased for 1 million dollars a year or more.
It is worth noteing that motorcycles are incredibly non-areodynamic compared to most enclosed vehicles such as this Landshark. I would not be surprised if a light aerodynamic vehicle with a well tuned 400cc engine could do 200mph. Humans can do over 60mph on aerodynamic bikes. That said I doubt the Landshark with its 400cc engine can do 200mph with 3 passengers or even 1 passenger. 200mph is fast! You need a well tuned optomised vehicle to go that fast. Trying to get a hybrid car/boat to go that fast with a reasonable price tag is not easy.
The Urbanmech is damn slow: 2/3/2 movement. It sports an AC/10, a small laser, and 6 tons of armour. It is basically a (slightly) mobile gun turret. It is more useless then it looks.
It is my basement. Thank you very much. I will sit in it if I want.
Linux kernel has taken off in a very short time (about 10 years).
Try two years maybe less. Seriously. People were doing real work in a Linux environment running the version 0.99.x kernels which were release in 1993. Linux ran X, vi, emacs, and the GNU tools. For a lot of acedemics on a limited budget this was more then enough.
Just FYI: The audio bandwith of stereo FM radio is about 18kHz or less. The stereo pilot signal is at 19kHz, and the Left-Right signal is centered at 38kHz. So the radio receiver is going to need some pretty good filters to produce the full audio bandwidth, and eliminate the 19kHz pilot.
AM radio stations are only 10kHz apart so you are limited to less then 5kHz of clear audio bandwidth.
This web page has some good info. It shows only 15kHz of audio bandwidth for FM stereo which is probably typical, but that is not a limitation of the specification.
Er. No.
When codeing it is great to have the documents on one screen and the IDE on another. When debugging a third monitor is even better. You can put your program and debugging info on the third monitor leaving lots of room on the main monitor to view your code.
A crick in your neck is nothing compared to carpel tunnel from hitting alt-F1, alt-F2, multiple times just to check if you have the syntax correct. Besides with the second monitor setup just to the left and angled towards me I don't even move my head. I just have to move my eyes.
Your conclusion is correct: a PPC is better then a .357. However there are some technical errors.
The PPC (IS) produces 10 heat, the ERPPC (Clan/IS) produces 15. The Clan ERPPC does 15 damage. The IS PPC, and ERPPC both do 10 damage. The Guass Rifle produces 1 heat, and does 15 damage.
Guass rifle ammo is a nickel-ferrous slug. The guass rifle ammo does not explode if it takes a critical hit. However if the gauss rifle itself takes a critical hit the power capacitors will explode doing 20 points of damage. It is not specifically stated if a guass rifle is caseable.
The PPC can be installed in mechs less then 45 tons. The Inner Sphere PPCs weight 7 tons and could be put in a 20 ton mech. Although the resulting mech would have 6/9 movement, and only 2 tons of armour. It would not be the most practical of mechs. A more usefull mech may be a 30 tons Urbanmech with PPC. The reliable 35 tons PNT-6R Panther of the Draconis Combine is actually equiped with a PPC on the right arm. Along with its SRM 4, 4 tons of armour, and 4/6/4 movement the Panther is a capable mech.
As a Clan ERPPC only weights 6 tons, and all Clan tech is lighter and cheesier then IS tech, a 20 or 25 tons clan mech could easily support a PPC. A 25 tons Clanner with, XL engine, endo steel, 67 points of ferro-fibrous armour, and double efficiency heat sinks could streak around the field at 7/11/6 with an ER PPC, two ER Medium Lasers, and an ER Small Laser.
Mozilla may be there, but "stable Mozilla v1.1" is not.
I thought that the openSSH vulnerability was heap based. Maybe I am wrong. Heap attacks are more rare then stack smashing thouhg.