Re-read my post. I know there are really skilled Windows admins out there. All I'm saying is that there also is a big class of admins that get by on wizards and don't really know what they're doing, but can get things to (sort of) work.
I also think the same thing is happening in the Linux world.
This is nothing to do with the quality of either product, and is basically off topic, but what I've noticed about things like Active Directory is that they're easy enough to "install" that a lot of clueless system administrators install it without knowing how to use it.
There's a difference between actually setting something up and dumping the image on the hard drive. One of the things I hate about Windows admins is that a lot of them don't learn anything about the fundamentals of what they're using; they just learn which buttons to click that will end up yielding the "Congratulations! You've just installed [mission crittical app]" page in the install wizard.
There's something to be said for systems that are designed to be minimal, small, and efficient, are easily scripted, and actually require you to know what you're doing.
This definately doesn't apply to end user desktops--since, for example, making device installation removal automatic helps everybody. The power users just need to be able to tweak it, but everyone more or less wants the same functionality. Windows servers, however, tend to breed really clueless admins.
That being said, I've met some really good ones in my day as well. And, sadly enough, the number of Linux admins who are getting to be able to get a basic vanilla install of a lot of complicated services up and running without learning how both the software and Linux work is increasing.
I built myself a dual P3-1ghz machine about 2 years ago and haven't looked back since. The only problem is that I bought a cheap motherboard based on the i810 chipset--I'm stuck at 512 megs of RAM and a 133mhz fsb.
Re:A lot of stuff in Gtk is replacing Gnome widget
on
GTK 2.6.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
The idea is that critical components are already sitting on the hard drive. It's only obscure extensions that you have to retrieve.
The situation you'd worry about would be taking a new laptop to the moon--if you've been using it for a while then all the extensions you need should have been asked for and retrieved beforehand.
Re:A lot of stuff in Gtk is replacing Gnome widget
on
GTK 2.6.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
I, too, am really baffled by how the AC took your post.
At any rate, I think toolkit libraries should be able to load and unload different segments into memory like modules in the kernel. If your application needs a calendar widget, it makes a call to load the specific component Toolkit::Calendar and then checks to see if it loaded Toolkit::Calendar properly. The most likely cause of an error would be Toolkit::Calendar not being part of Toolkit's installation on the system.
A mechanism to automatically retrieve missing toolkit components would be cool. The system I'm dreaming of would work like CPAN mixed with Firefox extensions.
Actually, this isn't just limited to toolkits. It's an idea I've been brewing around in my head for a while--develop a common package management interface library that abstracts the local package management system and is able to retrieve minor extensions and components of packages inside software. Dependencies don't come in to play when you try to install software, they come in to play when you try to do something. So the user doesn't specifically interact with the package manager either, unless he needs to install an application. But in current schemes applications will either fail dependency checks or install every possible dependency (including ones that probably won't be needed).
Whatever extensions to the software you need would get taken care of when you use them. They could even get removed if you haven't used them in a while.
This would require not only (re)writing software to add hooks to the package manager interface but also designing the software to specifically avoid having optional dependencies and extensions modify binaries. If the binaries change then you need a new binary when you require new functionality--which cannot be transparently done on the fly.
Or I could be on crack. It is late and I'm tired.
Diskspace is almost free these days. The real crunch is memory space--when your application is run on someone else's computer, it's like being invited over for dinner. It's a delightful exchange, but you have to mind your manners and not intrude.
Disclaimer: More recently, I have migrated to OS X as my primary platform, and I use very little cross platform software here since it rarely integrates well with the rest of the system or follows the HIGs.
Yet another plus is that it stimulates and encourages technological progress. I've covered this topic before, but anyone who has read Darwin will know that in order for anything to advance according to the evolutionary model, there needs to be a lot of different instances of a given thing...the process needs to experiment with a lot of different mutations before it is decided which mutations are permanently integrated into new generations of the organism.
The difference is that every change made to a distribution or piece of software is intended to better the software. With Darwinism, each change not only occurs very rarely, but you also need the change to happen in the right conditions (good competition) and the change actually has to help the situation significantly. And the change has to be significant that it doesn't get watered down in the gene pool of the rest of the group.
Darwinism has been dumped by scientests in favor of punctuated equilibrium--which suggests (amongst other things) that mutation only drives change when random external events like meteors, sudden tribal encounters (in the case of homonids developing cereberal cortexes), etc. enter the picture.
I don't know how a system that progresses itself by accident can be compared to a system that progresses by deliberation.
The progress of distributions can be better compared to the advancement of humanity in societies.
I'm currently posting this on a brief vacation to Baku, Azerbaijan. Do you know where that is (without looking at a map)?
I've lived in several countries outside of the US (including China), and I'll be the first to admit that a lot of what the US government does I disagree with. But your post reeks of bigotry--and the fact that it's bigotry within a post flaming another group of people for their own bigotry makes it smell far more awful.
Do us all a favor and grow up. If there is to be an end to all the excriment that exists in the world that we all seem to unanimously agree upon, let us stop flinging our own, shall we?
China's censorship and Google's response have nothing to do with Fox news or any American media outlet. Our media has many problems, which definately need to be addressed, but you're being over dramatic to say the least. I hate how this stuff gets modded up.
I'm sure you're very bright. Why don't you use your brain to come up with ways of solving these problems? The inability to do so will leave you in the same quagmire of ignorance and "cluelessness" that the very people you're attacking are supposedly in.
I can assert that you care nothing about fixing the problem because if you did you would have thought about how your average American would respond to your post. Clearly, the average American would just get defensive and forget about what you have to say--which is, I think, exactly what you would do if I did the same thing to you.
Must be the education system over there.
P.S. I'm currently suffering from heavy jet lag, so I apologize for any incoherence or if it seems to harsh. You're probably not such a bad guy. Heck, if I were in the neighborhood, I'd buy you a brew at the pub. But what makes me so mad is that I agree that Americans are being largely deceived and intentionally kept ignorant, and I find it both sad and disheartening. I want to change it. You don't seem to want to--and because you both set really high standards for other groups of people to meet, and yet feel comfortable shooting your mouth at them in a very uninformed and bigoted fashion, you seem to me (who has lived in Central America, Europe, USA, and China) to be every bit as bad as the "Americans" you're so rabidly attacking.
I've heard enough rednecks and their "those two-bit good-for-nothing ignor'nt back-stabbing $nationality_of_choice" tripe.
You're the copyright holder. You can change licenses anytime. Even to a proprietary one. People who downloaded the GPL source have the rights of the GPL, but once you start making changes, those downloading the source with the changes will have the new stipulations of the new license.
I'm just waiting for the day when God turns up and claims he has prior art to the patented gene.:-D
Of course, with our system the way it is, sitting on top of prior art and waiting for infringement to come about as a business model has been patented, so God would be in trouble.
This is something--if OpenBSD allows click-through EULAs during the install, then the result could be having to accept tens of licenses during the install phase of OpenBSD. In addition to an inconvenience, this presents a problem for diskless installs.
All this "sputtering and spitting and gesticulating" is what brought us FOSS operating systems to begin with. If you don't like the politics, you're still welcome to use the software, which is provided for you at no charge.
This is one thing I don't like about anti-FOSS fanatics--they think that just because a certain freedom or issue is not important to them, those who care obviously have their priorities out of whack.
In addition to the other reply to your post, with a manual transmission, a lot of racers use a trick called "powershifting" wherein they red-line (that means give it tons of gas 'till the tachometer (rpm gauge) reaches the red line) the vehicle while in neutral, because the laws of physics say that when the clutch is depressed while in gear, the speed of the engine (rotating 5000+ times per second) and the speed of the wheels (rotating 0 times per second) must both work to meet equilibrium. Thus, by red-lining it while in neutral, the wheels will get a "kick forward" and give the car a bit more speed during the shift or start.
No--to do this you would have to build a system from scratch. You'd have to build a version of glibc that can be built against 2.0 headers, with probably gcc 2.95 if gcc 3.4 (or 3.x for that matter) cannot be used. gcc 3.x has gotten a lot more strict about what it will compile, so it's likely that at some point the toolchain would fail.
But assuming 2.95 could do it, you'd have to build glibc, and then a whole system built against it. At that point, you could perform the kernel swapping.
Theoretically. Actually, this would be a month of solid work. For no real point. But it is *probably* at least *possible*.
That's nothing. I have a team of 11,000 midgets, with a dedicated sub-grouping of 26 midgets leading 13 categories, all shouting ones and zeroes in seemingly random succession, either to the group itself or to a "router" group.
MySQL recently has gained clustering support. Not that I'm contending that this is all that's necessary to be "enterprise ready" but it certainly is progress.
Slashdot Mirror
I also think the same thing is happening in the Linux world.
There's a difference between actually setting something up and dumping the image on the hard drive. One of the things I hate about Windows admins is that a lot of them don't learn anything about the fundamentals of what they're using; they just learn which buttons to click that will end up yielding the "Congratulations! You've just installed [mission crittical app]" page in the install wizard.
There's something to be said for systems that are designed to be minimal, small, and efficient, are easily scripted, and actually require you to know what you're doing.
This definately doesn't apply to end user desktops--since, for example, making device installation removal automatic helps everybody. The power users just need to be able to tweak it, but everyone more or less wants the same functionality. Windows servers, however, tend to breed really clueless admins.
That being said, I've met some really good ones in my day as well. And, sadly enough, the number of Linux admins who are getting to be able to get a basic vanilla install of a lot of complicated services up and running without learning how both the software and Linux work is increasing.
It still runs Linux beautifully.
Reductions in air conditioning needs actually far outweigh reductions in power. Most of people's energy bills come from A/C.
I personally prefer maildir.
The situation you'd worry about would be taking a new laptop to the moon--if you've been using it for a while then all the extensions you need should have been asked for and retrieved beforehand.
At any rate, I think toolkit libraries should be able to load and unload different segments into memory like modules in the kernel. If your application needs a calendar widget, it makes a call to load the specific component Toolkit::Calendar and then checks to see if it loaded Toolkit::Calendar properly. The most likely cause of an error would be Toolkit::Calendar not being part of Toolkit's installation on the system.
A mechanism to automatically retrieve missing toolkit components would be cool. The system I'm dreaming of would work like CPAN mixed with Firefox extensions.
Actually, this isn't just limited to toolkits. It's an idea I've been brewing around in my head for a while--develop a common package management interface library that abstracts the local package management system and is able to retrieve minor extensions and components of packages inside software. Dependencies don't come in to play when you try to install software, they come in to play when you try to do something. So the user doesn't specifically interact with the package manager either, unless he needs to install an application. But in current schemes applications will either fail dependency checks or install every possible dependency (including ones that probably won't be needed).
Whatever extensions to the software you need would get taken care of when you use them. They could even get removed if you haven't used them in a while.
This would require not only (re)writing software to add hooks to the package manager interface but also designing the software to specifically avoid having optional dependencies and extensions modify binaries. If the binaries change then you need a new binary when you require new functionality--which cannot be transparently done on the fly.
Or I could be on crack. It is late and I'm tired.
Diskspace is almost free these days. The real crunch is memory space--when your application is run on someone else's computer, it's like being invited over for dinner. It's a delightful exchange, but you have to mind your manners and not intrude.
Posts with "<group of people> are no better than <something said group doesn't like>" in them should always get modded up.
That way passers-by can learn how hypocritical <group of people> really is.
Finally someone looking at the Bush administration from a conservative standpoint. It is on fiscal irresponsibility that I feel Bush is the weakest.
Disclaimer: More recently, I have migrated to OS X as my primary platform, and I use very little cross platform software here since it rarely integrates well with the rest of the system or follows the HIGs.
Which is decidedly a loss for FOSS.
Assertions help here (even if you don't use the assert macro, you can still put checking in your algorithm).
Yet another plus is that it stimulates and encourages technological progress. I've covered this topic before, but anyone who has read Darwin will know that in order for anything to advance according to the evolutionary model, there needs to be a lot of different instances of a given thing...the process needs to experiment with a lot of different mutations before it is decided which mutations are permanently integrated into new generations of the organism.
The difference is that every change made to a distribution or piece of software is intended to better the software. With Darwinism, each change not only occurs very rarely, but you also need the change to happen in the right conditions (good competition) and the change actually has to help the situation significantly. And the change has to be significant that it doesn't get watered down in the gene pool of the rest of the group.
Darwinism has been dumped by scientests in favor of punctuated equilibrium--which suggests (amongst other things) that mutation only drives change when random external events like meteors, sudden tribal encounters (in the case of homonids developing cereberal cortexes), etc. enter the picture.
I don't know how a system that progresses itself by accident can be compared to a system that progresses by deliberation.
The progress of distributions can be better compared to the advancement of humanity in societies.
I've lived in several countries outside of the US (including China), and I'll be the first to admit that a lot of what the US government does I disagree with. But your post reeks of bigotry--and the fact that it's bigotry within a post flaming another group of people for their own bigotry makes it smell far more awful.
Do us all a favor and grow up. If there is to be an end to all the excriment that exists in the world that we all seem to unanimously agree upon, let us stop flinging our own, shall we?
China's censorship and Google's response have nothing to do with Fox news or any American media outlet. Our media has many problems, which definately need to be addressed, but you're being over dramatic to say the least. I hate how this stuff gets modded up.
I'm sure you're very bright. Why don't you use your brain to come up with ways of solving these problems? The inability to do so will leave you in the same quagmire of ignorance and "cluelessness" that the very people you're attacking are supposedly in.
I can assert that you care nothing about fixing the problem because if you did you would have thought about how your average American would respond to your post. Clearly, the average American would just get defensive and forget about what you have to say--which is, I think, exactly what you would do if I did the same thing to you.
Must be the education system over there.
P.S. I'm currently suffering from heavy jet lag, so I apologize for any incoherence or if it seems to harsh. You're probably not such a bad guy. Heck, if I were in the neighborhood, I'd buy you a brew at the pub. But what makes me so mad is that I agree that Americans are being largely deceived and intentionally kept ignorant, and I find it both sad and disheartening. I want to change it. You don't seem to want to--and because you both set really high standards for other groups of people to meet, and yet feel comfortable shooting your mouth at them in a very uninformed and bigoted fashion, you seem to me (who has lived in Central America, Europe, USA, and China) to be every bit as bad as the "Americans" you're so rabidly attacking.
I've heard enough rednecks and their "those two-bit good-for-nothing ignor'nt back-stabbing $nationality_of_choice" tripe.
You're the copyright holder. You can change licenses anytime. Even to a proprietary one. People who downloaded the GPL source have the rights of the GPL, but once you start making changes, those downloading the source with the changes will have the new stipulations of the new license.
I'm just waiting for the day when God turns up and claims he has prior art to the patented gene. :-D
Of course, with our system the way it is, sitting on top of prior art and waiting for infringement to come about as a business model has been patented, so God would be in trouble.
I see you got modded as insightful--but I bet with a higher UID and the right moderator this post could easily go south.
All this "sputtering and spitting and gesticulating" is what brought us FOSS operating systems to begin with. If you don't like the politics, you're still welcome to use the software, which is provided for you at no charge.
This is one thing I don't like about anti-FOSS fanatics--they think that just because a certain freedom or issue is not important to them, those who care obviously have their priorities out of whack.
In addition to the other reply to your post, with a manual transmission, a lot of racers use a trick called "powershifting" wherein they red-line (that means give it tons of gas 'till the tachometer (rpm gauge) reaches the red line) the vehicle while in neutral, because the laws of physics say that when the clutch is depressed while in gear, the speed of the engine (rotating 5000+ times per second) and the speed of the wheels (rotating 0 times per second) must both work to meet equilibrium. Thus, by red-lining it while in neutral, the wheels will get a "kick forward" and give the car a bit more speed during the shift or start.
But assuming 2.95 could do it, you'd have to build glibc, and then a whole system built against it. At that point, you could perform the kernel swapping.
Theoretically. Actually, this would be a month of solid work. For no real point. But it is *probably* at least *possible*.
Clustering support has recently been added to MySQL.
Oh, and they snarl.
MySQL recently has gained clustering support. Not that I'm contending that this is all that's necessary to be "enterprise ready" but it certainly is progress.
Actually, recently MySQL has added clustering support to it's feature list recently.
Read this.
That's the way a lot of software is distributed in Windows...