(This is only loosely on-topic and will most likely be moderated out of existence. C'est la vie.)
So register.com, CORE, and others are finally in the TLD registration game. Why the hell is it still seventy bucks for two years?! I want competition, dammit! I want market innovation! I want to own cockmaster.org for under twenty bucks!;)
Seriously. Now that there are multiple registrars, surely someone will lock onto the novelty of product pricing. For seventy bucks, I'll stick with the one name I have. But for twenty bucks (okay, maybe up to 40) I'd go get a few more. That means I have to DNS them, host them somewhere, and generally put more money into the economy instead of the cash cache under my mattress.
My own personal, utterly untested, working theory is thus:
I bought my Zip drive in late 1995, not long after they came out. Paid $200 or more for it, and disks were bloody hard to find. (Yep, I also had to walk barefoot, 26 miles each way, in the snow, uphill, to get to a computer store.)
Thus, I'm inclined to think it may simply be ridiculously old hardware, perhaps some really early revision that the current PPA driver no longer knows how to relate to. I'm planning to talk to my sister's GF and borrow her (somewhat newer) Zip drive for testing. Wish me luck.
Yes, Apple has continuously made lots of money from QuickTime, but like so many things, it may be on the wane.
MS Netshow, RealVideo, etc. are (arguably) on their way up. And neither of those companies seem too likely to start throwing source code at us anytime soon. (Insert requisite guffaws re: Microsoft here.)
Taking something this popular, and giving away at least the viewer part of the code, could be successful. They might even adopt the Real Networks model - keep some of the best stuff for themselves, to sell off (say, the server) and give the viewer away. Only this time, with attendant source code, and a real license (none of this weird Apple license stuff, which has entirely too many bugbears in it).
I'm not saying it's likely, not even that it's necessarily wise. But it is an option...
Well, actually, that's a long story. Since this will probably get moderated out of existence anyway, why not tell it?
From 2.0.33 to 2.0.34, both the SCSI and PPA subsystems underwent some hefty revisions. The end result of such was that, for all kernels newer than that (including most of the 2.1 series, 2.2pre, and all 2.2 kernels to date) cause interesting kernel panics whenever I try to mount my Zip drive.
I spent a couple months in close touch with the PPA/parport people, and some with the SCSI people. We simply can't resolve the problem. Yes, I sent in copious bug reports (under an old email address, no less). Yes, I did -DDEBUG for nearly the whole damn kernel (as the problem occasionally manifests itself in places like the VFAT file system, for no reason we understand). No, we don't have a bleepin' clue what's up.
Okay. Go give this a low score, modkins. It deserves it. It's a rant, pure and simple. But it felt realllly good.
I thought that 2.2.0 was supposed to be "the" stable kernel, completely free of bugs, and that nothing like 2.2.6 would even be needed.:-)
Sorry. End of sarcastic aside. Anyone know when development on the 2.3.x series will begin?
it's all technicalities
on
RMS on APSL
·
· Score: 1
Granted, the big corps, full of people who wear suits and pay lawyers more money in a day than I'll likely see in my lifetime might sweat the details. But the flaws RMS perceives in the APSL won't affect J. Random Hacker because, for all intents and purposes, they're not enforceable. If I've got the code here in my apartment, they'll have quite a time preventing me from doing darned near anything I want to it. Is it legal? Maybe not. Is it ethical? Probably.
Sm@rtReseller is only about a year old; the current print issue, where I found the hardcopy of the same article, says "Volume 2 Issue 2." It has some interesting articles, all slanted towards biz of course. (The same issue has an article on how to configure cron, and a columnist ranting about Windows 98. Maybe there is hope for at least a small part of the soulless monolith known as ZD after all...)
If nothing else, the graphs were in the print edition of the article. (Let's hear it for free subscriptions.:) The graphs, and there's only two of them, basically show this:
For Windows file serving, NT peaks at 8 clients and lags behind after that. Caldera peaks at 8, but much higher than NT (about 30 Mbits/sec vs. NT's 22 or so). Red Hat is basically a shadow to the Caldera line until 30 or so clients, where it is a little bit ahead. SuSE peaks at 12 or so. At the end of the graph, with 32 clients, NT has long since bottomed out at about 10 Mb/s while all three Linux distro's are still going strong in the 20-25 range.
For Web serving, all the lines stay pretty much level across the graph. At 32 clients, Caldera is still handling 70+ requests a second, Red Hat about 60, SuSE about 50, and NT about 45.
As others have said, Linux would have been even better if it had been tuned somewhat. (It'd be interesting to see how the NT box works when properly tuned also, just to make it a fairer fight.)
Slashdot Mirror
So register.com, CORE, and others are finally in the TLD registration game. Why the hell is it still seventy bucks for two years?! I want competition, dammit! I want market innovation! I want to own cockmaster.org for under twenty bucks! ;)
Seriously. Now that there are multiple registrars, surely someone will lock onto the novelty of product pricing. For seventy bucks, I'll stick with the one name I have. But for twenty bucks (okay, maybe up to 40) I'd go get a few more. That means I have to DNS them, host them somewhere, and generally put more money into the economy instead of the cash cache under my mattress.
Remember, kids, competition is Good.
"Whoops" is right. They got it all backwards. What good is a free server if there aren't any free clients out there?
I bought my Zip drive in late 1995, not long after they came out. Paid $200 or more for it, and disks were bloody hard to find. (Yep, I also had to walk barefoot, 26 miles each way, in the snow, uphill, to get to a computer store.)
Thus, I'm inclined to think it may simply be ridiculously old hardware, perhaps some really early revision that the current PPA driver no longer knows how to relate to. I'm planning to talk to my sister's GF and borrow her (somewhat newer) Zip drive for testing. Wish me luck.
MS Netshow, RealVideo, etc. are (arguably) on their way up. And neither of those companies seem too likely to start throwing source code at us anytime soon. (Insert requisite guffaws re: Microsoft here.)
Taking something this popular, and giving away at least the viewer part of the code, could be successful. They might even adopt the Real Networks model - keep some of the best stuff for themselves, to sell off (say, the server) and give the viewer away. Only this time, with attendant source code, and a real license (none of this weird Apple license stuff, which has entirely too many bugbears in it).
I'm not saying it's likely, not even that it's necessarily wise. But it is an option...
Well, actually, that's a long story. Since this will probably get moderated out of existence anyway, why not tell it?
From 2.0.33 to 2.0.34, both the SCSI and PPA subsystems underwent some hefty revisions. The end result of such was that, for all kernels newer than that (including most of the 2.1 series, 2.2pre, and all 2.2 kernels to date) cause interesting kernel panics whenever I try to mount my Zip drive.
I spent a couple months in close touch with the PPA/parport people, and some with the SCSI people. We simply can't resolve the problem. Yes, I sent in copious bug reports (under an old email address, no less). Yes, I did -DDEBUG for nearly the whole damn kernel (as the problem occasionally manifests itself in places like the VFAT file system, for no reason we understand). No, we don't have a bleepin' clue what's up.
Okay. Go give this a low score, modkins. It deserves it. It's a rant, pure and simple. But it felt realllly good.
I thought that 2.2.0 was supposed to be "the" stable kernel, completely free of bugs, and that nothing like 2.2.6 would even be needed. :-)
Sorry. End of sarcastic aside. Anyone know when development on the 2.3.x series will begin?
Granted, the big corps, full of people who wear suits and pay lawyers more money in a day than I'll likely see in my lifetime might sweat the details. But the flaws RMS perceives in the APSL won't affect J. Random Hacker because, for all intents and purposes, they're not enforceable. If I've got the code here in my apartment, they'll have quite a time preventing me from doing darned near anything I want to it. Is it legal? Maybe not. Is it ethical? Probably.
Sm@rtReseller is only about a year old; the current print issue, where I found the hardcopy of the same article, says "Volume 2 Issue 2." It has some interesting articles, all slanted towards biz of course. (The same issue has an article on how to configure cron, and a columnist ranting about Windows 98. Maybe there is hope for at least a small part of the soulless monolith known as ZD after all...)
For Windows file serving, NT peaks at 8 clients and lags behind after that. Caldera peaks at 8, but much higher than NT (about 30 Mbits/sec vs. NT's 22 or so). Red Hat is basically a shadow to the Caldera line until 30 or so clients, where it is a little bit ahead. SuSE peaks at 12 or so. At the end of the graph, with 32 clients, NT has long since bottomed out at about 10 Mb/s while all three Linux distro's are still going strong in the 20-25 range.
For Web serving, all the lines stay pretty much level across the graph. At 32 clients, Caldera is still handling 70+ requests a second, Red Hat about 60, SuSE about 50, and NT about 45.
As others have said, Linux would have been even better if it had been tuned somewhat. (It'd be interesting to see how the NT box works when properly tuned also, just to make it a fairer fight.)