There aren't any exceptions to this. There are just too many possible things that can be destroyed by people who desire a society or civilization to perish.
And that's just the simple truth of it. So, if we want to be secure, we need to clear up the reasons why people would want our culture to fail. These include things like
A) Not torturing people.
B) Allowing other countries to be sovereign in their own affairs.
C) Not being overly greedy with our wealth. Exploitation is only good for the short term - it's a long-term destabilizing force and that's bad for everyone.
This could be summed up as "Everyone should just get along with each other." Well, duh. I'm sure you realize that these only work if you could get everybody to do them. That is the actual problem, you cannot rely on EVERYONE AKWAYS doing what's best for EVERYONE ELSE. You've got to think about the problem differently.. how do you make people behave more predictably, in a somewhat controlled manner? Sorry, truth sucks.
Open source is an interesting alternative to the giants like Microsoft, but for the mid-range or more niche software you're better off a) writing it all yourself or b) getting a mid-sized vendor you can push around.
I'm having a very hard time seeing how creating "mid range or more" solutions in-house could really ever be cost effective. You might not 100% like what gets delivered to you in a commercial package, but that's bound to happen as the complexity ratchets up. The "I can write that myself and save a million bucks" mentality always comes from people who really haven't thought about how complex mid-range/enterprise software really is, and rides shotgun with YouDon'tNeedThatFeature(TM). Don't take that as an accusation please. Mid-sized vendors are guilty of it, and often overpromising what they can deliver.
My personal view is that enterprise software does have a lot of value, it's just that the complexity hides it. We should spend more time evaluating it (as anyone should when comparing very expensive/complex things) and try to find out WHY they can charge so much more for "the same thing" as the mid-range software. Then, FtLoG, be sure to use the particular features that make it so expensive. My imaginary example.. don't buy an EMC Symmetrix, then decide you can't have both a primary and standby using it because of single point of failure, then buy a totally different, lower class storage system for the standby, leaving an underutilized Symmetrix to a single host with no BCV or SRDF features. W.T.F? Uh.. I made that up, but wouldn't working for those people suck? Yah it would.
But in the end, it's like my dad always said - there are always 2 sides to every story and usually neither of them is right./. users are very Open Source biased, so you'll hear a lot more support for it on this forum.
True, and there is also a heavy SMB bias in the OSS world. I can see where these people are coming from I guess. At the low end, cost is nearly the only concern. Enter OSS^H^H^HFREE software. They're off their rockers though if they believe OSS somehow solves for complexity. That's where you find out they're just not familiar with large operations. See Gimp v. Photoshop, anything v. Exchange, MySQL v. Oracle, Linux v. UNIX, rsync v. NetBackup, etc. Not knocking them, it's just that some people can't tell the difference between the two.
Never mind the fact that your definition would effectively exclude most viruses made before the last decade, DOS TSR viruses/trojans for instance.
Oh please, this is so simple. If you have really had encounters with DOS/early windows viruses, you'd already know the following.
Generally virus = software that does bad stuff locally worm = does bad stuff on a network trojan = tricks you into letting it do bad stuff malware = your dumb ass accepted an EULA letting it do bad stuff
Specifically, these refer to the transmission vectors Virus = inserts self into other executables, boot sectors, kernel files, removable media etc. Not the most common today, because they spread so slowly, or not at all Worm = automatically propagates through vulnerabilities in networked software. Fairly common because it spreads so fast. Trojan = bad software in disguise, user is tricked into permitting it to work. Exceedingly common where people download software from untrusted sources Malware = I don't know if this has a specific definition. Mostly bad software that the AV companies won't touch for legal reasons. Like a trojan, but blessed with an EULA?
Believe it or not, open source software by itself does not solve the problem of trojans. Much OSS comes from unknown authors, and goes through little peer review. Most users will not check source code or make files, and "sudo make install" is all she wrote. Repositories do not prevent trojans, they just provide a trusted source for a subset of OSS software. No different than existing trusted channels in the commercial software world, such as retail and direct downloads. Trust me, there will be OSS trojans some day, just as there are for any other system.
My bad, I did forget to quote who I was replying to.
Thank you/. for your fucked up threading that makes it impossible to see who responded to what. Thank you again for retards that wouldn't bother to try anyway.
Right moron, and did you read TFGP? He suggested using SSL. I quoted it. I quote it so dumbasses like you know what the context is.
SSL.
Does SSL do anything about this situation, Mr AC? NO, you'd still never decrypt PINS in software, it would NEVER, EVER be as secure as a HSM. HSMs are not perfect, and hard to configure, but software crypto... Good jeebus man!
The big boys use Connect:Direct on their mainframes, and it's not very hard to figure out CD for UNIX. A little complex and clunky at first, but it does a lot more than vanilla FTP. Things like retries, execute commands before or after jobs, encryption, etc. I think it's worth it if the business really depends on file transfers working smoothly, as in, anyone dealing with ACH files.
It doesn't have to do with routing, it's because each point to point connection uses a symmetric encryption key, shared in advance. That's what this boils down to, using symmetric key encryption, and needing to make several hops to the destination, instead of using PKI where you could easily share all keys with everyone and encrypt once. How else would you move encrypted data through a network with symmetric keys? You can't have every single issuer and acquirer exchanging symmetric keys with each other, it would be unwieldy. HSMs protect the keys at all times, and procedures are built around key management to ensure no one person can have all key components. The system is actually pretty sophisticated, and suggesting it could just be replaced with SSL is laughable. There's a lot more to it, especially the whole issue of how to manage trust if such a system were to go PKI. PKI only works if you're absolutely SURE you have the real public key, and this is not typically a problem when you're physically exchanging symmetric key components with the switches.
Hey genius, could it be that _ALL_ UNIX admins spend most their time in a terminal, be it putty, gnome-terminal, or Terminal, and gnome-terminal sucks so much ass people would rather use a NonFree(tm) system just for a better terminal emulator?
Answer: Yes
Sorry to be so harsh, but trying to devalue OS X because a subset of users spends most their time in a terminal is just bat-shit insane. Did you consider what most Linux desktops are doing?
Open Source doesn't deliver anything. It's a concept, like say, capitalism or democracy. People (or a company) are the ones that deliver in this case, and the ones who have failed.
Uh huh, sure, just like every lost fight is blamed on battlefield conditions while a win magically legitimizes X, Y, or Z all by itself. Funny how that works. Be real here. Failed implementations are just as important as the successful ones, for different reasons.
In fact I see the relevance of open source at all in this case. Whether the code is open or not, it still doesn't change the fact that the hardware was old, and had huge stability problems.
NONE of these things came to fruition by accident buddy. The good, bad, and ugly details in how the came to be are very relevant. If you're all content with Open Source being nothing more than just an idea, go ahead, ignore the lessons learned here and go back to what you were doing. This is not an effective way to pursue openness in software or technology, and the sooner you all realize that, the better of you'll be.
BTW, to keep mods on their toes, the GPL IS VIRAL. That is the intent, to further spread the GPL (I mean OSS), you fuckwits. Does it jive with commercial software development? Not really. Is commercial development important to consumers? YES. If there are no consumers of OSS, is it relevant? NO. Put the GPL/Linux koolaid down please and think real hard what OSS/openness/freedom etc. in technology really means to you, how it actually (in the real world) benefits others, who it benefits, and focus on THEM, and THEIR needs.
My Opteron 140 chokes on Slashdot too. I had to turn off the bar thing on the left of the forums to be able to scroll. I think it's more of a Firefox performance problem, but not sure.
Are high "cycle per instruction" counts inherent in OoO design, or is that just how Intel builds them?
I thought the real reason OoO is so dependent on clock rates is because software is not able to use the full pipeline without heavy compiler optimization, and therefore we need stuff like hyperthreading so it's not wasted. I don't see how in-order is any different, you just have to find different ways to do parallelism.
Or more generally, you're always either going to depend on faster clock rates, or more parallelism, (or both) to grow performance. OoO isn't the most efficient method of parallelism, but it gives more juice to typical non-parallel software of today.
I'm just learning this stuff myself, correct me if I'm way off base:\
Linux remains a server OS. It's coming around very slowly to the desktop and I've no doubt it will get there -- it's doing quite well on the netbooks where people don't want to install everything in their closet: they just want a functional, email-checking, web-surfing laptop and for that almost any OS will do.
Linux faces similar problems in the server market also. It may be doing fairly well, but there is still a "WorksForMe" attitude present, even with all the commercial backers amazingly. SAN management for example... why should the answer to any Linux problem start with "go to/proc", or "go to/sys"? Where are userspace admin tools for SAN management? I'm still not sure how device mapper fixed more problems than it created too. Why do we need to know about the device, meta device, and.... intermediary meta device?? Plenty of other systems have the same functionality and without subjecting me to dozens of phantom dmX devices in "fdisk -l", iostat, etc. I also can't fathom why it's so easy to find a Linux system without iostat installed.. that's trivial but WHHYYYYY?
I'm jaded:\ Been hearing too many lame excuses like "it has slicker patching, and nicer userland utilities than Solaris" Ahem.. maybe we should just migrate to Windows or OS X then if that's what we really value in a datacenter.
Linux can learn a LOT from commercial UNIX software.
This reminds me of a friend who bought a brand new 2005 Mustang convert, and asked me if he should pry the pony logo off the back (like it was an old Civic or something)
Any sort of layering is a major cause of bugs/slowdown? Quick, throw out TCP/IP. Everyone start using Ethernet frames directly from their apps, even if what you really want to use is SOAP over HTTP over SSL over TCP over IP... I'm not sure how you will get your Ethernet frames past the first router, but I'm sure you will think of something. Damn layering just gets in the way!
Absolutely hilarious that you brought up TCP/IP/Ethernet.
Are you familiar with Fibre Channel? I'm guessing no. Look it up, compare with Ethernet & IP & TCP, SCSI, etc. Do you know what Data Center/Converged Ethernet is? Yup, a COMPLETELY reengineered Ethernet with features of most upper layers (like in order delivery, retransmission, etc) built in to support FCoE. Essentially, it's Ethernet adapted to Fibre Channel, not FC adapted to Ethernet. I'm not really sure what this will do to IP/TCP, but you're going to be very surprised what an Ethernet frame is capable of in a few years.
Continually adding new layers over time is bad engineering IMO.
Bluetooth standard? Because choosing "Bluetooth option" for $20 at order time is a travesty against the aesthetic, right? Mind you, I'm yet to see a consumer laptop under $700 in the last year or so that doesn't have it as standard.
Try asking a new car dealer to get the radio/speakers/antenna etc., off your bill sometime. Good luck with that.
Bluetooth: *clap* *clap* Look at desktops. BTW, how's Bluetooth support coming along in other OSs?
Display brightness controlled by OS? Haha. Unplug any laptop running Vista. What happens? The display dims.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but how do you even know the OS is doing that if it happens when you physically unplug the power? That's probably the system firmware doing it, not that it's bad or anything. Just typical PC unintegration due to all the parties involved. I'm talking brightness controls. You know, the kind that some fucked up 3rd party laptop vendor software binds to FN+keys on laptops. Except, built into the OS. Oh, and for desktops too. Why yes, it IS nice to dial down a 20" display a bit late at night and not fuck with monitor settings.
Gosh, monitor brightness is good for more than power saving? People use wireless peripherals with immobile desktops, gorsh, even for networking? Shocking revelations huh? Amazing what people would like to do with computers if you let them. Linux is almost a testament to that, for very geeky people anyway.
Working power management? Right. So my laptop doesn't spin down the hard drive when it's not being used. Nor does it scale back the CPU when appropriate, nor does it dim the display. And don't even start me on closing the lid, it doesn't go into standby mode either, I must be imagining that too. Extremely quiet? Cite?
Drive to Apple Store Scribble notes in some app Time with watch: Close lid pause Open lid Use app Time? Compare to PC suspend/resume
Next, same laptop, same settings Scribble notes Close lid Watch the white light a second or two REMOVE BATTERY - ask for assistance first, to simulate power loss/bad battery REMOVE POWER du du duuuuu Reconnect just the power Open lid, press power button Wipe surprised look off face. Yes it's automatic, even on desktops. Compare to PC hibernation
Do that, THEN you can talk about power management that WORKS, and not bog standard ACPI implementations that suck ass, and barely work on desktops. How many people do you know hibernating a Windows desktop? Nuff said. Make it automatic and everyone gets the benefit.
Give up indeed
Does "indeed" make you _feel_ smarter?
Extremely quiet? Cite?
Why would this need a citation? Witness firsthand, you ninny. Get out of your basement to a CompUSA or Apple Store, or friend's basement and check for yourself. Why would a citation even be acceptable for a SOUND? Imagine your desktop as quiet as a laptop, both sitting a foot away from your face. There. I don't think I'm asking too much of you to find out for yourself, and if I didn't think you'd be surprised how quiet it is I wouldn't have mentioned it.
Comparing PCs to Macs without taking the time to learn them both first, and you call ME blind? Where do you think all these new Mac users are coming from that are BLIND and cannot see the mixed up PC world they formerly used at home, and most certainly still do at work? Have you thought that all the way through? Blindness isn't the word for describing that. I'll forgive you though. Admit it, and say "I just don't know anything about Apple hardware and software, but I argue with everyone who does." Write it on a chalkboard five times and promise to study what you're talking about next time.
I know this isn't the point you're making, but there is free (freedom) software that you can still pay for. Stallman himself said something to the effect of "if you can make a buck by selling free (freedom) software, do it."
Both FS, and OSS ideologies support paying for free(open) software.
Another awesome abuse of "free": OSS: "1. Free Redistribution The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale"
"6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
Rationale: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it."
From FS site: "Free software does not mean non-commercial. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important. You may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you may have obtained copies at no charge."
Then there's the batshit-insane "Everything Must Be Linux, free means $0, commercial software is evil" movement which splintered from the Open Source Software movement (or was it the opposite?), and this is when everyone realizes "Oh right, I just like the not paying anything part." Please people, wake up; Linux is not the be-all end-all software platform. Free software should run everywhere, support business needs, and stop the purist bullshit.
Why do you care if non-free python, C, or whatever apps run on your computer? Code is code, and websites aren't what they used to be. The web has become a platform for client/server applications. So if you do care about free software on the desktop, it's reasonable that you should care about free software in your browser.
Shhhhhhh! You'll make people question whether they actually support free/open software idealism, or if they just don't want to pay for anything. Better off to just tell them what they should think and leave it at that, right? For the cause, right?
Non-free webapps are a BIG DEAL folks. You should be concerned because someday the EviL fORce$ that be might make web apps NOT FREE == bad, lock-in, DRM, and nobody wants something that isn't free. Us vs. THEM == bad! Amen.
Macs have been nothing more than commodity PCs in a proprietary case since they switched to the x86/x64 platform.
Yup, a commodity PC with bluetooth std, low power components, display brightness controlled by OS, working power management, extremely quiet, ah I give up, most of you lack the ability to differentiate any two computers from any manufacturer, and will never try.
Look, coffee makers and toasters are commodities too, but there's a helluva difference between $10 and $200 ones. Same goes for about any product, as the price goes up, you generally are looking at totally different features. A $200 toaster ought to bake a freaking casserole for me, perfectly. You can't just write off expensive variants of cheaper products because they all make coffee, they all make toast, they all have four wheels, all show my TV signal, they all have the same system architecture, etc. There's so much more to it, and the most demanded features often get pushed down into cheaper products (the real commodities). Don't underestimate that effect, at some point a dual slot toaster might have been ritzy, who knows:)
Some companies have full time recruiters, and that's what they do. That screening is easy, they're non-technical, have no idea what your skills are outside buzzword bingo answers, and will want you to get hired because that's their job. The technical interviews that follow are as fun as any other obviously.
Screw Linux and try *BSD, Solaris, OS X, etc. You might find a better community, server, desktop, or whatever. Shit, try everything, there is lots of software out there that doesn't come with whiney, quasi-religious undertones attached.
*shrug*
You sound like all those other "non-conformists" that dress alike...
I happen to favor Solaris over Linux as a server, but I'd still love to try out HPUX and AIX someday. That's real choice; nobody makes me feel guilty for not running with the pack. I know what Harry Potter's target demographic is, but I'll watch that shit and not give a fuck because it's not all that bad.
This is what made me realize I was drinking the Linux Kool-Aid a while back.. what would it take for you to switch from the Linux kernel to the HURD kernel? To anyone that just felt little shields going up in their head, or just cracked a HURD joke, you are sucking that Kool-Aid down hard. Anyone who feels defensive when BSD is brought up.. wipe that red shit off your mouth fools, dead giveaway. It might be a while before you could use a Microsoft OS and being mature as you can be, find something constructive to say about it that Linux could improve on, but feeling defensive around other non-linux OSS projects is a big red flag that you need to take a moment to introspect.
I agree we need to get out there and show the masses that 'hey your looking at switching to a mac look here first' Tell them that Mac is Linux' prissy cousin and show how it can do everything they do and so much more.
Red Hat 7.0 for me. I feel the same way, until I have to do some work on my brother in laws windows box. I'm not an IT pro, like most people I find it easier to use what I'm familiar with. Windows is too difficult, it doesn't even have decent package management. Third party applications will download automatically but won't install unless you are running with admin privileges. Limited user accounts can't initialise his 3G usb modem without running an app as admin, and even then if you switch to another users account that will disconnect and have to be done again. Seriously, if things as basic as updating software and connecting to the internet aren't done right...
Slashdot Mirror
There aren't any exceptions to this. There are just too many possible things that can be destroyed by people who desire a society or civilization to perish.
And that's just the simple truth of it. So, if we want to be secure, we need to clear up the reasons why people would want our culture to fail. These include things like
A) Not torturing people.
B) Allowing other countries to be sovereign in their own affairs.
C) Not being overly greedy with our wealth. Exploitation is only good for the short term - it's a long-term destabilizing force and that's bad for everyone.
This could be summed up as "Everyone should just get along with each other." Well, duh.
I'm sure you realize that these only work if you could get everybody to do them. That is the actual problem, you cannot rely on EVERYONE AKWAYS doing what's best for EVERYONE ELSE. You've got to think about the problem differently.. how do you make people behave more predictably, in a somewhat controlled manner? Sorry, truth sucks.
I followed you up to here..
Open source is an interesting alternative to the giants like Microsoft, but for the mid-range or more niche software you're better off a) writing it all yourself or b) getting a mid-sized vendor you can push around.
I'm having a very hard time seeing how creating "mid range or more" solutions in-house could really ever be cost effective. You might not 100% like what gets delivered to you in a commercial package, but that's bound to happen as the complexity ratchets up. The "I can write that myself and save a million bucks" mentality always comes from people who really haven't thought about how complex mid-range/enterprise software really is, and rides shotgun with YouDon'tNeedThatFeature(TM). Don't take that as an accusation please. Mid-sized vendors are guilty of it, and often overpromising what they can deliver.
My personal view is that enterprise software does have a lot of value, it's just that the complexity hides it. We should spend more time evaluating it (as anyone should when comparing very expensive/complex things) and try to find out WHY they can charge so much more for "the same thing" as the mid-range software. Then, FtLoG, be sure to use the particular features that make it so expensive. My imaginary example.. don't buy an EMC Symmetrix, then decide you can't have both a primary and standby using it because of single point of failure, then buy a totally different, lower class storage system for the standby, leaving an underutilized Symmetrix to a single host with no BCV or SRDF features. W.T.F? Uh.. I made that up, but wouldn't working for those people suck? Yah it would.
But in the end, it's like my dad always said - there are always 2 sides to every story and usually neither of them is right. /. users are very Open Source biased, so you'll hear a lot more support for it on this forum.
True, and there is also a heavy SMB bias in the OSS world. I can see where these people are coming from I guess. At the low end, cost is nearly the only concern. Enter OSS^H^H^HFREE software. They're off their rockers though if they believe OSS somehow solves for complexity. That's where you find out they're just not familiar with large operations. See Gimp v. Photoshop, anything v. Exchange, MySQL v. Oracle, Linux v. UNIX, rsync v. NetBackup, etc. Not knocking them, it's just that some people can't tell the difference between the two.
Never mind the fact that your definition would effectively exclude most viruses made before the last decade, DOS TSR viruses/trojans for instance.
Oh please, this is so simple. If you have really had encounters with DOS/early windows viruses, you'd already know the following.
Generally
virus = software that does bad stuff locally
worm = does bad stuff on a network
trojan = tricks you into letting it do bad stuff
malware = your dumb ass accepted an EULA letting it do bad stuff
Specifically, these refer to the transmission vectors
Virus = inserts self into other executables, boot sectors, kernel files, removable media etc. Not the most common today, because they spread so slowly, or not at all
Worm = automatically propagates through vulnerabilities in networked software. Fairly common because it spreads so fast.
Trojan = bad software in disguise, user is tricked into permitting it to work. Exceedingly common where people download software from untrusted sources
Malware = I don't know if this has a specific definition. Mostly bad software that the AV companies won't touch for legal reasons. Like a trojan, but blessed with an EULA?
Believe it or not, open source software by itself does not solve the problem of trojans. Much OSS comes from unknown authors, and goes through little peer review. Most users will not check source code or make files, and "sudo make install" is all she wrote. Repositories do not prevent trojans, they just provide a trusted source for a subset of OSS software. No different than existing trusted channels in the commercial software world, such as retail and direct downloads. Trust me, there will be OSS trojans some day, just as there are for any other system.
My bad, I did forget to quote who I was replying to.
Thank you /. for your fucked up threading that makes it impossible to see who responded to what.
Thank you again for retards that wouldn't bother to try anyway.
Right moron, and did you read TFGP? He suggested using SSL. I quoted it. I quote it so dumbasses like you know what the context is.
SSL.
Does SSL do anything about this situation, Mr AC?
NO, you'd still never decrypt PINS in software, it would NEVER, EVER be as secure as a HSM. HSMs are not perfect, and hard to configure, but software crypto... Good jeebus man!
The big boys use Connect:Direct on their mainframes, and it's not very hard to figure out CD for UNIX. A little complex and clunky at first, but it does a lot more than vanilla FTP. Things like retries, execute commands before or after jobs, encryption, etc.
I think it's worth it if the business really depends on file transfers working smoothly, as in, anyone dealing with ACH files.
It doesn't have to do with routing, it's because each point to point connection uses a symmetric encryption key, shared in advance. That's what this boils down to, using symmetric key encryption, and needing to make several hops to the destination, instead of using PKI where you could easily share all keys with everyone and encrypt once. How else would you move encrypted data through a network with symmetric keys? You can't have every single issuer and acquirer exchanging symmetric keys with each other, it would be unwieldy. HSMs protect the keys at all times, and procedures are built around key management to ensure no one person can have all key components. The system is actually pretty sophisticated, and suggesting it could just be replaced with SSL is laughable. There's a lot more to it, especially the whole issue of how to manage trust if such a system were to go PKI. PKI only works if you're absolutely SURE you have the real public key, and this is not typically a problem when you're physically exchanging symmetric key components with the switches.
All those Mac users are running Terminal.
Hey genius, could it be that _ALL_ UNIX admins spend most their time in a terminal, be it putty, gnome-terminal, or Terminal, and gnome-terminal sucks so much ass people would rather use a NonFree(tm) system just for a better terminal emulator?
Answer: Yes
Sorry to be so harsh, but trying to devalue OS X because a subset of users spends most their time in a terminal is just bat-shit insane. Did you consider what most Linux desktops are doing?
Uh, hello, give a little credit to ID and their modding support. Don't forget Team Fortress and how Robin Walker got hired at Valve.
Open Source doesn't deliver anything. It's a concept, like say, capitalism or democracy. People (or a company) are the ones that deliver in this case, and the ones who have failed.
Uh huh, sure, just like every lost fight is blamed on battlefield conditions while a win magically legitimizes X, Y, or Z all by itself. Funny how that works. Be real here. Failed implementations are just as important as the successful ones, for different reasons.
In fact I see the relevance of open source at all in this case. Whether the code is open or not, it still doesn't change the fact that the hardware was old, and had huge stability problems.
NONE of these things came to fruition by accident buddy. The good, bad, and ugly details in how the came to be are very relevant. If you're all content with Open Source being nothing more than just an idea, go ahead, ignore the lessons learned here and go back to what you were doing. This is not an effective way to pursue openness in software or technology, and the sooner you all realize that, the better of you'll be.
BTW, to keep mods on their toes, the GPL IS VIRAL. That is the intent, to further spread the GPL (I mean OSS), you fuckwits. Does it jive with commercial software development? Not really. Is commercial development important to consumers? YES. If there are no consumers of OSS, is it relevant? NO. Put the GPL/Linux koolaid down please and think real hard what OSS/openness/freedom etc. in technology really means to you, how it actually (in the real world) benefits others, who it benefits, and focus on THEM, and THEIR needs.
Thank you.
My Opteron 140 chokes on Slashdot too. I had to turn off the bar thing on the left of the forums to be able to scroll. I think it's more of a Firefox performance problem, but not sure.
Are high "cycle per instruction" counts inherent in OoO design, or is that just how Intel builds them?
I thought the real reason OoO is so dependent on clock rates is because software is not able to use the full pipeline without heavy compiler optimization, and therefore we need stuff like hyperthreading so it's not wasted. I don't see how in-order is any different, you just have to find different ways to do parallelism.
Or more generally, you're always either going to depend on faster clock rates, or more parallelism, (or both) to grow performance. OoO isn't the most efficient method of parallelism, but it gives more juice to typical non-parallel software of today.
I'm just learning this stuff myself, correct me if I'm way off base :\
Linux remains a server OS. It's coming around very slowly to the desktop and I've no doubt it will get there -- it's doing quite well on the netbooks where people don't want to install everything in their closet: they just want a functional, email-checking, web-surfing laptop and for that almost any OS will do.
Linux faces similar problems in the server market also. It may be doing fairly well, but there is still a "WorksForMe" attitude present, even with all the commercial backers amazingly. SAN management for example... why should the answer to any Linux problem start with "go to /proc", or "go to /sys"? Where are userspace admin tools for SAN management? I'm still not sure how device mapper fixed more problems than it created too. Why do we need to know about the device, meta device, and.... intermediary meta device?? Plenty of other systems have the same functionality and without subjecting me to dozens of phantom dmX devices in "fdisk -l", iostat, etc. I also can't fathom why it's so easy to find a Linux system without iostat installed.. that's trivial but WHHYYYYY?
I'm jaded :\ Been hearing too many lame excuses like "it has slicker patching, and nicer userland utilities than Solaris"
Ahem.. maybe we should just migrate to Windows or OS X then if that's what we really value in a datacenter.
Linux can learn a LOT from commercial UNIX software.
This reminds me of a friend who bought a brand new 2005 Mustang convert, and asked me if he should pry the pony logo off the back (like it was an old Civic or something)
Whatever, to each his own I guess.
Any sort of layering is a major cause of bugs/slowdown? Quick, throw out TCP/IP. Everyone start using Ethernet frames directly from their apps, even if what you really want to use is SOAP over HTTP over SSL over TCP over IP... I'm not sure how you will get your Ethernet frames past the first router, but I'm sure you will think of something. Damn layering just gets in the way!
Absolutely hilarious that you brought up TCP/IP/Ethernet.
Are you familiar with Fibre Channel? I'm guessing no. Look it up, compare with Ethernet & IP & TCP, SCSI, etc.
Do you know what Data Center/Converged Ethernet is? Yup, a COMPLETELY reengineered Ethernet with features of most upper layers (like in order delivery, retransmission, etc) built in to support FCoE. Essentially, it's Ethernet adapted to Fibre Channel, not FC adapted to Ethernet. I'm not really sure what this will do to IP/TCP, but you're going to be very surprised what an Ethernet frame is capable of in a few years.
Continually adding new layers over time is bad engineering IMO.
Right, because the most used scripting language on the most used platform matters? What's that, VBScript?
I don't think this was thought all the way through.
Bluetooth standard? Because choosing "Bluetooth option" for $20 at order time is a travesty against the aesthetic, right? Mind you, I'm yet to see a consumer laptop under $700 in the last year or so that doesn't have it as standard.
Try asking a new car dealer to get the radio/speakers/antenna etc., off your bill sometime. Good luck with that.
Bluetooth:
*clap* *clap* Look at desktops. BTW, how's Bluetooth support coming along in other OSs?
Display brightness controlled by OS? Haha. Unplug any laptop running Vista. What happens? The display dims.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but how do you even know the OS is doing that if it happens when you physically unplug the power? That's probably the system firmware doing it, not that it's bad or anything. Just typical PC unintegration due to all the parties involved.
I'm talking brightness controls. You know, the kind that some fucked up 3rd party laptop vendor software binds to FN+keys on laptops. Except, built into the OS. Oh, and for desktops too. Why yes, it IS nice to dial down a 20" display a bit late at night and not fuck with monitor settings.
Gosh, monitor brightness is good for more than power saving? People use wireless peripherals with immobile desktops, gorsh, even for networking? Shocking revelations huh? Amazing what people would like to do with computers if you let them. Linux is almost a testament to that, for very geeky people anyway.
Working power management? Right. So my laptop doesn't spin down the hard drive when it's not being used. Nor does it scale back the CPU when appropriate, nor does it dim the display. And don't even start me on closing the lid, it doesn't go into standby mode either, I must be imagining that too. Extremely quiet? Cite?
Drive to Apple Store
Scribble notes in some app
Time with watch:
Close lid
pause
Open lid
Use app
Time?
Compare to PC suspend/resume
Next, same laptop, same settings
Scribble notes
Close lid
Watch the white light a second or two
REMOVE BATTERY - ask for assistance first, to simulate power loss/bad battery
REMOVE POWER du du duuuuu
Reconnect just the power
Open lid, press power button
Wipe surprised look off face. Yes it's automatic, even on desktops.
Compare to PC hibernation
Do that, THEN you can talk about power management that WORKS, and not bog standard ACPI implementations that suck ass, and barely work on desktops.
How many people do you know hibernating a Windows desktop? Nuff said. Make it automatic and everyone gets the benefit.
Give up indeed
Does "indeed" make you _feel_ smarter?
Extremely quiet? Cite?
Why would this need a citation? Witness firsthand, you ninny. Get out of your basement to a CompUSA or Apple Store, or friend's basement and check for yourself.
Why would a citation even be acceptable for a SOUND? Imagine your desktop as quiet as a laptop, both sitting a foot away from your face. There.
I don't think I'm asking too much of you to find out for yourself, and if I didn't think you'd be surprised how quiet it is I wouldn't have mentioned it.
Comparing PCs to Macs without taking the time to learn them both first, and you call ME blind? Where do you think all these new Mac users are coming from that are BLIND and cannot see the mixed up PC world they formerly used at home, and most certainly still do at work? Have you thought that all the way through? Blindness isn't the word for describing that.
I'll forgive you though. Admit it, and say "I just don't know anything about Apple hardware and software, but I argue with everyone who does." Write it on a chalkboard five times and promise to study what you're talking about next time.
I know this isn't the point you're making, but there is free (freedom) software that you can still pay for. Stallman himself said something to the effect of "if you can make a buck by selling free (freedom) software, do it."
Both FS, and OSS ideologies support paying for free(open) software.
Another awesome abuse of "free":
OSS:
"1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale"
"6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
Rationale: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it."
From FS site:
"Free software does not mean non-commercial. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important. You may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you may have obtained copies at no charge."
Then there's the batshit-insane "Everything Must Be Linux, free means $0, commercial software is evil" movement which splintered from the Open Source Software movement (or was it the opposite?), and this is when everyone realizes "Oh right, I just like the not paying anything part."
Please people, wake up; Linux is not the be-all end-all software platform. Free software should run everywhere, support business needs, and stop the purist bullshit.
Why do you care if non-free python, C, or whatever apps run on your computer? Code is code, and websites aren't what they used to be. The web has become a platform for client/server applications. So if you do care about free software on the desktop, it's reasonable that you should care about free software in your browser.
Shhhhhhh! You'll make people question whether they actually support free/open software idealism, or if they just don't want to pay for anything. Better off to just tell them what they should think and leave it at that, right? For the cause, right?
Non-free webapps are a BIG DEAL folks. You should be concerned because someday the EviL fORce$ that be might make web apps NOT FREE == bad, lock-in, DRM, and nobody wants something that isn't free. Us vs. THEM == bad! Amen.
Macs have been nothing more than commodity PCs in a proprietary case since they switched to the x86/x64 platform.
Yup, a commodity PC with bluetooth std, low power components, display brightness controlled by OS, working power management, extremely quiet, ah I give up, most of you lack the ability to differentiate any two computers from any manufacturer, and will never try.
Look, coffee makers and toasters are commodities too, but there's a helluva difference between $10 and $200 ones. :)
Same goes for about any product, as the price goes up, you generally are looking at totally different features. A $200 toaster ought to bake a freaking casserole for me, perfectly. You can't just write off expensive variants of cheaper products because they all make coffee, they all make toast, they all have four wheels, all show my TV signal, they all have the same system architecture, etc. There's so much more to it, and the most demanded features often get pushed down into cheaper products (the real commodities). Don't underestimate that effect, at some point a dual slot toaster might have been ritzy, who knows
Some companies have full time recruiters, and that's what they do. That screening is easy, they're non-technical, have no idea what your skills are outside buzzword bingo answers, and will want you to get hired because that's their job. The technical interviews that follow are as fun as any other obviously.
Uhh.. why redistribute when it's on youtube?
Screw Linux and try *BSD, Solaris, OS X, etc. You might find a better community, server, desktop, or whatever. Shit, try everything, there is lots of software out there that doesn't come with whiney, quasi-religious undertones attached.
*shrug*
You sound like all those other "non-conformists" that dress alike...
I happen to favor Solaris over Linux as a server, but I'd still love to try out HPUX and AIX someday. That's real choice; nobody makes me feel guilty for not running with the pack. I know what Harry Potter's target demographic is, but I'll watch that shit and not give a fuck because it's not all that bad.
This is what made me realize I was drinking the Linux Kool-Aid a while back.. what would it take for you to switch from the Linux kernel to the HURD kernel? To anyone that just felt little shields going up in their head, or just cracked a HURD joke, you are sucking that Kool-Aid down hard. Anyone who feels defensive when BSD is brought up.. wipe that red shit off your mouth fools, dead giveaway. It might be a while before you could use a Microsoft OS and being mature as you can be, find something constructive to say about it that Linux could improve on, but feeling defensive around other non-linux OSS projects is a big red flag that you need to take a moment to introspect.
I agree we need to get out there and show the masses that 'hey your looking at switching to a mac look here first' Tell them that Mac is Linux' prissy cousin and show how it can do everything they do and so much more.
ROFLMAO
DoesntGetIt(TM)
Red Hat 7.0 for me. I feel the same way, until I have to do some work on my brother in laws windows box. I'm not an IT pro, like most people I find it easier to use what I'm familiar with. Windows is too difficult, it doesn't even have decent package management. Third party applications will download automatically but won't install unless you are running with admin privileges. Limited user accounts can't initialise his 3G usb modem without running an app as admin, and even then if you switch to another users account that will disconnect and have to be done again. Seriously, if things as basic as updating software and connecting to the internet aren't done right ...
Bull. Shit.
That is all.