Simple. Boeing spent already paid for the new design software that allows them to build without prototypes in the 777 program. Yes, it seems like waste of money to go through the process to design an aircraft that, at the moment, most airlines aren't likely to use. Maybe it is, but it's a gamble, as an earlier poster pointed out.
Consider this. Your primary competition is subsidized by Europoean governments. They've been touting a 747-killer (the 4xx program) for a couple of years now. Believe it or not, the 747 was (and is, depending on the routes) an extremely profitable aircraft for the airlines. Most of your money comes from cargo on overseas routes. 777s and 767ERs can't match that, though they do have a lower per-seat operational cost.
You have to have a practical edge to sell to your customers, even when the market is bad. You own the small/midsize market around the world and even in Europe. Sure, the subsidized company takes a bite of your sales. What you can't have is Airbus eclipsing your technological superiority.
As an added issue, you can't wait until the market appears for the new aircraft. You have to gamble, because modern airliner programs take years to produce a big, soaring hard part. If you wait, Airbus will step in with a new, closer-to-production product, and the preliminary orders will go to them.
Could Boeing do a better job? Well, sure. Any company can. But don't forget that Boeing created the affordable jetliner era (707), the jumbo jet market (747) and the long-range Pacific-certified twin market (777). McDonnell Douglas gets the nod for the small jet market (DC-9), but they're now part of Boeing. So, they don't have an awful track record at picking markets. The added benefit is that Airbus tends to follow the Boeing lead, so they have to spend money on similar design programs in case Boeing hits paydirt.
IIRC, it's a series of kernel patches and some modified basic utilities. I wouldn't be surprised if there was more to it than when I first looked at it a couple of years ago.
But as to NSA backdoors, honestly, how much intel would they gather from the handful of people who would install SELinux? Wouldn't it make way more sense to crack into Microsoft's source code (if a Russian hacker could do it, well, I'm sure they can) and do it in a closed-source, widely adopted OS?
Hey, I'm as much a conspiracy theorist as the next mildly-intelligent person who sees strings pulling the marionettes in our government. But it ultimately comes down to a resource allocation issue. Why bother when there's so much more to be gained with the same (or less, if you consider the need to somehow disguise the backdoor in open code!;) amount of work?
In other sports, past performance may be a better indicator of future performance, even with slightly different environment variables. There are exceptions (numerous, I'd think) like Tom Glavine's first outing as a Met in windy, 38-degree weather (no moisture on the hands for the nuanced friction of a typical release). Rain has a similar effect, but it's more obvious.
And you could say, in football, the Dolphins don't win in the cold, the Packers win in the snow and so on. There, even the changing environment could be figured into a simulation.
But racing is more impacted by microclimates, and those can hardly be predicted for weather forcasting. Particularly at Indy, where the cars don't even use brakes in normal operation (speed primarily drops as the cars drift in the corners or from the associated throttle lift), the simulation goes well beyond the car, track or driver.
And even there, besides the obvious mechanicals, the amount of crud on the track (oil, fuel, rubber, water, carbon fiber threads) and the different rubber compounds available for the tires, the driver is often the least predictable. A sim can say "Schumacher drives this way on this track," but who could have predicted the actions of the unpredictable, talented amateur Kimi Raikkonen? He had no base of data from which to draw, but he scored points as a rookie.
The longer races allow for an exponential increase in all of the above unknown factors. The microclime on turn three changes hour to hour. The new C-compound Pirellis leave more crap on the outside of the hairpin than expected. Billy Boat has a minor case of the flu that is tiring him more rapidly.
So, I'd have to allow that, given a large number of weather scenarios (temp, pressure, wind, sun/shade, precip) combined with weighted random factors for mechanicals and driver behavior, you might predict a portion of a race, like the standings after the first few laps. By feeding live data during the race, you might come closer to predicting the outcome as well.
But remember, if it's possible, a Formula 1 team would likely already be doing it.
Orcale offers hosted OCS (Oracle Collaboration Server), which functions as a complete Exchange replacement and works just peachy with Outlook-only clients. Users don't know the difference. I don't know how much the hosting is per user per month, but at just 20 mailboxes, and the economies of scale playing against you (20 users is the same work as 200 or 2000... the only difference is server size and disk space), it may be a very reasonable solution. At least, it's worth a look.
Most of the fields here are ex-WWII as well. Homeland security was an issue then. Plus, with a war machine like the U.S. put up in WWII, you had to have a *lot* of basic, advanced and conversion training facilities. Besdies, technically, most of the squadrons in Europe, Southeast Asia, the Pacific and Noth Africa had a home field in the contiental U.S.
How true. I learned a lot about MSSQL performance because of a particularly bad application. It reads a 200MB table (and a poorly-indexed table at that) for *almost_every* application function. Plus, the app author refuses to fix the application, pointing the finger at the hardware.
To hit MSSQL server's desired response rate of 5ms, we have to push 40MB/s... sustained... for random reads AND random writes. Engineering around that is possible, but we quit after a month of halfhearted attempts when we finally convinced management that the application really needs to be fixed, not the hardware. For MSSQL, the queue starts to fill if you miss that 5ms time. Once that happens, you hit a vicious cycle that drags everything down with it if the load stays the same (or, god forbid, increases).
It's true that you cannot stress enough the need to normalize your database as well as anticipate how to scale the potential weak spots in the design. In our case, the application proceeded most of the admin staff, so we're just playing cleanup.
To be honest, unless you're working with cubes (and you aren't if you're installing the plain, vanilla MSSQL server), your limiting factor will be IO then network. You *probably* won't run into a CPU-bound issue. Go with the two CPUs and invest the rest in ram, disk controllers and disks.
And when I say invest in disks and controllers, I mean multiple raid controllers with multiple channels and several drives on each channel. MSSQL server gets supremely cranky of the IO backs up. Same goes for the network traffic, but the random reads/writes will cause more havoc before you flood your NIC.
Of course, if you can buy enough ram so all your reads and writes can happen in memory (maybe a ramdisk?), you'll be very happy. Hey, if you have to use an M$ product, MSSQL server is about the most solid product they sell.
Clean look and good international support
on
Google Does the News
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I know lots of news pages exist, but this is nice and clean. Plus, they seem to have a good amount of international news. I can see using this every day. Plus, it's nice not to be beaten over the head with layers, flash and such. Imagine that... just the news!
IBM seems the most likely (having publicly stated as fact, at least) to give up their commercial *nix in favor of Linux. But, as good as Linux is (and I have it everywhere), it still has maybe a decade to go to have the sort of stable lineage of the other commercial *nix products.
That isn't to say it's less stable, exactly. It's just a matter of how many times vital features have been tested, added and changed. HP-UX, as an example, has a bright future. HP is integrating features from Tru64 (volume management, etc) to an already supremely stable platform.
By comparison, DG/UX (Data General) still has more advanced features (NUMA, NUMA, NUMA, etc and did I mention NUMA? HP doens't want to listen on that one), and development died on DG/UX years ago. But HP-UX soldiers on because of stability and compatibility with large installations. Heck, even the old K's are going for a premium now because some customers won't give them up.
I'd even suggest Solaris might be in the same boat. The install base is huge. The reliability is outstanding. Linux and BSD can compete, but they have a ways to go to get that install base.
I'd say the future is less bright for non-*nix commercial operating systems. Netware has the user base, but I don't think it's grown in a few years. NT/2K is growing, but companies won't stomach the restrictive and expensive licensing for long. Forget about the promise of.NET... it's the price tag that will kill it.
I haven't found one I like yet, but this one was close. At least, it worked well in an unstructured sort of way that made using it very easy:
http://freshmeat.net/projects/bartleby/
And it could track any kind of system since you really just free-form the change data. We need something a bit more formal, though. But, it may be just the ticket for you.
I'd humbly offer that the content is well worth $1 per month to me. I know there are tons of books and open resources for Perl (I've used or bought most of them, I think). But, the articles always seemed to go quite deep into the subject with plenty of examples. And, the range of topics is great. Here's at least one vote for $1 per month. 2999 left to go.
Our AS/400s are actually new. The oldest one is only a year old. For us, despite our deep Unix and NT backgroud, Linux on an iSeries (there, I said it... the new name... blech) holds little more than sideshow value. For us, we have almost no investment in AS/400 admins or developers. We just add HP/Compaq servers if we want more Linux.
However...
We aren't a typical/400 shop. Someone like our parent company that has AS/400s everywhere (30+) probably sees a huge benefit to running several Linux virtual servers on an LPAR* or older single system. The key to stress is reuse of older systems. Some of the first generation RISC systems (F10s and the like) would make great highly-available Linux machines.
What's more, a company with a large investment in the hardware has probably moved all but some development off of a depreciated system. The shops that have two systems still running V3R7 won't be interested.
Part of the problem is that IBM doesn't really push economical LPAR-ing for Linux up front. In our case, they said "Sell you on LPAR? Well, if you aren't interested, we can't change your mind." Really, the Rochester salespeople are technically very knowedgeable, but they just don't "sell" sometimes. And, I can't go back and get the money now to do an LPAR "just for Linux".
The other issue is that IBM (to date, anyway) doesn't push AS/400 to SAN connectivity, which increases the value of the AS/400 as the key system in your enterprise whether you run Linux on an LPAR or not. You could, in theory, run a fairly-sized enterprise with a handful of 8xx-series machines. You'd have an NT-based FSIOP (or Novell, if you swing that way) if you had a need for it. You'd LPAR a big box to carve out several virtual Linux machines to keep your development options open. And, you'd have great MTBF on the hardware (except for the problems with the 17GB drives... those die like flies). Back all of that with an enterpise-class SAN (Shark, EMC... no Hitachi or HP XP-series because they don't support the 520-byte block size), and you can snap whole systems from LPAR to LPAR and system to system. Then, you can use a CNT-like solution for data replication over IP to a disater recovery site because all your data is on your SAN.
Sorry for the ramble, but I guess the point is that making the case for Linux on an AS/400 is part of a big picture. I'd say the cost-savings of having a handful of the same hardware in your computer room but the flexibility to run virtually any application is an outstanding point.
* LPAR == Logical PARtition... it's similar to how a Sun E10k can be carved into separate systems at the hardware level. And, yes, lots of other companies have done the same thing. It's not new.
There's a decent article on doing just that with CVS in this month's Linux Journal (http://www.linuxjournal.com). Of course, it assumes a working CVS install and some knowledge of CVS. Still, it's a less automatic but more flexible approach than Windows roaming profiles.
Seriously, it sounds cliche, but I've always thought the best environmental support you can offer comes in your own neighborhood. Barring that, find a locally-concerned group that runs an educational nature center. The Sierra Club (and most larger organizations) could use your money, but the narrow focus of a local group gets more for the dollar. Maybe go to a city planning (or county commission meesting) if you want to be more involved. They deal a lot with traffic congestion (and pollution), green space construction, local conservation and noise pollution. Besides, they tend to really care if you show up. If we all took a little more time in our own corner of the world, we'd make a larger difference.
Large, generally-focused organizations (in my case, IMBA, a trail-rights organization for mountain bikers... www.imba.com) can represent your views in the "big picture", and that is important. Pick one, and donate. But, the best thing you can do is get even marginally involved on a local level.
And, to a large degree, Carlin is right. The ecosystem will take care of us if we become too much of a burden.
Hey, I live on the other coast, so I'm not likely to be personally impacted, but...
So many fault lines run beneath densely-populated areas, the expensive warning system may be of dubious quality to Californiana. I thought the Northridge quake was pretty much centered under a moderately-populated area? But, for the heavily monitored areas on the other side of the Pacific Rim, it could be a real boon, particularly to quakes that cause tsunamis.
Had to ask this one since the other vegetarian post was moderated out...
I'm not a vegan or vegetarian, but my wife and several acquaintances are. There's quite a bit of selection in the frozen foods section, and you've certainly covered several recipies that are at least vegetarian (the tofu episode was, certainly, inspired). I'd like to be able to cook a meal that would be tasty for all palettes without using the ingredients the vegan crowd would find objectionable.
Are there some fundamental steps to preparing tasty, vegan-friendly meals in the way of getting meat substitutes and seasonings to work in harmony? Are there ingredients that significantly enhance popular vegetarian fare that typically don't make it into the dish?
I've seen just about every episode (more than twice, my wife will vouch for that), and I know that the first question of cooking tools is usually quality. But, a close second is always multipurposity (yeah, I like making up the goofy phrase or two). Even those of us with significant kitchen budgets have a hard time acquiring a good collection of tools. What makes your top ten (or twelve, or twenty-two) list for essential, mutlitasking cooking tools?
Heck, what are the ten things that should be in my fridge and pantry at all times?
Really, Heat is an administrative nightmare. The database is in a constant state of corruption. Upgrades are next to impossible as a result. Our last version jump (6.01 to 6.4) took about 3 months to sort out for only about 50 users. And, we easily spent 5 figures for "support" from Frontrange to get everything working. I can't say the application functions poorly, though, from an end-user perspective. And, it does have lots of features. But, oh it sucks so very much to upgrade.
My key complaint about MS Project (and something I'd like to see as a feature in another package) is the poor project plan distribution mechanism. MS pretty much forces all participants to run Project just to see details of the tasks. We don't want to buy 100 copies for a couple of projects per year. Hence, we print out the whole, stinkin' project plan once a week. Of course, I'm sure there are several php and cgi based project management packages in varying degrees of finish, but I can't sell any of the managers in my company on unloading Project unless all of the functionality is there and the interface is very similar.
Hmmm. Interesting idea, and one I can honestly say I'd given no thought.
Just sort of off the cuff, and in a Linux-based world, how about an extension to XFree86 (module, if you like) where you'd define additional screens and/or pointing devices for the wall viewer.
It could be kinda kludgy because it's just an extension of existing tech, but the viewtablet could be a new sort of X device itself. Think of it like an old Wacom digitizer but with video. Maybe you'd move the window to a virtual desktop that is wall-viewer-aware. You'd maintain joint control via the tablet or another form of pointing device.
Also, wouldn't it be more straightforward to extending X using the current device concepts (Screen, Input) for the new concepts? I'd think it would be possible to extend that to an eye-tracking mechanism and voice commands (see the Sun-produced movie "Starfire" -- http://www.asktog.com/starfire/starfireHome.html) so you could free yourself from mouse and keyboard actions as well.
I guess it doesn't sound so daunting after all. It seems like it's just a matter of having drivers and definitions for the new devices. I think I'm oversimplifying, though. It might be the wonderful Indian food I had for lunch... too many endorphins.
Running on an intranet web server/samba server
on
XFS on a Web Server?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I use XFS on an intranet web server and samba server with positive results. It's an older kernel (I needed the ACL kernel patches so the NT domain ACLs would work with samba), so I don't have to recover from crashes. But, performance-wise, I have no complaints. Granted, I have a fraction of the traffic that your site would have.
I also followed Daniel Robbin's advice on XFS (which you've no doubt read already, but just in case: http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/librar y/l-fs10.html
1) you wear a suit or other appropriate attire to a proceeding
2) you speak politely rather than rudely shouting over the voices of others
3) you realize that POPULAR SUPPORT is necessary before the content companies submit to your point of view
4) you accept that POPULAR SUPPORT usually means having the general public, not the RMS cognoscenti, behind you
5) you build a bridge to the people that matter in the long run in the discussion (artists and others) to make an end-run around the content distribution companies
My, oh my. Shouting and laughing during the proceedings. That will really make a difference. We all want to scream in Valenti's face. We'd all like to throttle Rosen and say "we know you're lying!" But, it doesn't help the case.
I don't want to be overly-critical of the good folk (RMS included) who took time from their busy days to put in the appearance. They are all good people, I'm sure, who just want to be heard. I want to be heard. But, we've got to be more adult about this discourse. We have to do the hard work of writing letters, informning friends and communicating to elected officials. That's how this works.
I think that's an absolutely valid concern, particularly given the propensity for the virus-killer companies (as they see themselves, anyway) to overblow virus threats.
But, I would say two things in their defense:
1) They tend to hype more than hide. The worst thing is that they will try to get securityfocus.com on the map with IT execs by hyping the security flaws disclosed in bugtraq. Now, it's a double-edge sword, but I don't think it will be awful if certain M$-based operating systems were a bit more publicly scrutinized.
2) Slashdot didn't change after the aquisition, at least not outwardly. I don't work here, so I can't talk about the behind-the-scenes, but the postings are as hard-hitting as ever. Granted, Andover isn't a corporation the size or with the intrests of Symantec. But it's a valid point.
While I'd be inclined to agree that Microsoft products are not necessary worth the cost ("if they can't pirate the software...), what makes anyone think for a moment that the same people would adhere to the GPL?
The Chinese marketplace is rife with copyright infringements, ranging from the innocuous to the obscene. I'd think that statement applies to many, many marketplaces, to be fair. But is it really advantageous for GPL-ed software to be treated the same way?
I'm not contending that Chinese coders will not comply with the GPL. After all, in comparison to Microsoft, it's virtually free to comply with the GPL. But, it doesn't benefit GPL-ish licenses if the code is modified or improved but not re-released.
I am suggesting that, someone who would, on a widescale basis, subvert commercial software licensing won't necessarily treat GPL software in the proper manner just because there is no monetary license cost associated.
It's great for China to go open-source, but it just doesn't seem likely for a closed-door society (which is, admittedly and thankfully, changing bit by bit) to contribute happily to the open source ideal.
Heck, the GPL is in many ways an ideal of a free market economy. Good projects flourish. Not as good projects don't. If a market is a conversation, GPL-ed software is a prime example. It's better than the BSD-style licenses because participants have to continue the conversation. It's not a matter of law, but of polite agreement.
I guess I just don't think it's much cause for celebration when a non-free market entity weighs in on a free market discussion. I could be wrong, and I certainly hope I am. I hope legions of Chinese coders contribute heavily to quality, internationalized software.
Slashdot Mirror
Why? Why? Why?
Simple. Boeing spent already paid for the new design software that allows them to build without prototypes in the 777 program. Yes, it seems like waste of money to go through the process to design an aircraft that, at the moment, most airlines aren't likely to use. Maybe it is, but it's a gamble, as an earlier poster pointed out.
Consider this. Your primary competition is subsidized by Europoean governments. They've been touting a 747-killer (the 4xx program) for a couple of years now. Believe it or not, the 747 was (and is, depending on the routes) an extremely profitable aircraft for the airlines. Most of your money comes from cargo on overseas routes. 777s and 767ERs can't match that, though they do have a lower per-seat operational cost.
You have to have a practical edge to sell to your customers, even when the market is bad. You own the small/midsize market around the world and even in Europe. Sure, the subsidized company takes a bite of your sales. What you can't have is Airbus eclipsing your technological superiority.
As an added issue, you can't wait until the market appears for the new aircraft. You have to gamble, because modern airliner programs take years to produce a big, soaring hard part. If you wait, Airbus will step in with a new, closer-to-production product, and the preliminary orders will go to them.
Could Boeing do a better job? Well, sure. Any company can. But don't forget that Boeing created the affordable jetliner era (707), the jumbo jet market (747) and the long-range Pacific-certified twin market (777). McDonnell Douglas gets the nod for the small jet market (DC-9), but they're now part of Boeing. So, they don't have an awful track record at picking markets. The added benefit is that Airbus tends to follow the Boeing lead, so they have to spend money on similar design programs in case Boeing hits paydirt.
IIRC, it's a series of kernel patches and some modified basic utilities. I wouldn't be surprised if there was more to it than when I first looked at it a couple of years ago.
;) amount of work?
But as to NSA backdoors, honestly, how much intel would they gather from the handful of people who would install SELinux? Wouldn't it make way more sense to crack into Microsoft's source code (if a Russian hacker could do it, well, I'm sure they can) and do it in a closed-source, widely adopted OS?
Hey, I'm as much a conspiracy theorist as the next mildly-intelligent person who sees strings pulling the marionettes in our government. But it ultimately comes down to a resource allocation issue. Why bother when there's so much more to be gained with the same (or less, if you consider the need to somehow disguise the backdoor in open code!
Now about those microwave towers...
In other sports, past performance may be a better indicator of future performance, even with slightly different environment variables. There are exceptions (numerous, I'd think) like Tom Glavine's first outing as a Met in windy, 38-degree weather (no moisture on the hands for the nuanced friction of a typical release). Rain has a similar effect, but it's more obvious.
And you could say, in football, the Dolphins don't win in the cold, the Packers win in the snow and so on. There, even the changing environment could be figured into a simulation.
But racing is more impacted by microclimates, and those can hardly be predicted for weather forcasting. Particularly at Indy, where the cars don't even use brakes in normal operation (speed primarily drops as the cars drift in the corners or from the associated throttle lift), the simulation goes well beyond the car, track or driver.
And even there, besides the obvious mechanicals, the amount of crud on the track (oil, fuel, rubber, water, carbon fiber threads) and the different rubber compounds available for the tires, the driver is often the least predictable. A sim can say "Schumacher drives this way on this track," but who could have predicted the actions of the unpredictable, talented amateur Kimi Raikkonen? He had no base of data from which to draw, but he scored points as a rookie.
The longer races allow for an exponential increase in all of the above unknown factors. The microclime on turn three changes hour to hour. The new C-compound Pirellis leave more crap on the outside of the hairpin than expected. Billy Boat has a minor case of the flu that is tiring him more rapidly.
So, I'd have to allow that, given a large number of weather scenarios (temp, pressure, wind, sun/shade, precip) combined with weighted random factors for mechanicals and driver behavior, you might predict a portion of a race, like the standings after the first few laps. By feeding live data during the race, you might come closer to predicting the outcome as well.
But remember, if it's possible, a Formula 1 team would likely already be doing it.
Orcale offers hosted OCS (Oracle Collaboration Server), which functions as a complete Exchange replacement and works just peachy with Outlook-only clients. Users don't know the difference. I don't know how much the hosting is per user per month, but at just 20 mailboxes, and the economies of scale playing against you (20 users is the same work as 200 or 2000... the only difference is server size and disk space), it may be a very reasonable solution. At least, it's worth a look.
Most of the fields here are ex-WWII as well. Homeland security was an issue then. Plus, with a war machine like the U.S. put up in WWII, you had to have a *lot* of basic, advanced and conversion training facilities. Besdies, technically, most of the squadrons in Europe, Southeast Asia, the Pacific and Noth Africa had a home field in the contiental U.S.
How true. I learned a lot about MSSQL performance because of a particularly bad application. It reads a 200MB table (and a poorly-indexed table at that) for *almost_every* application function. Plus, the app author refuses to fix the application, pointing the finger at the hardware.
... sustained ... for random reads AND random writes. Engineering around that is possible, but we quit after a month of halfhearted attempts when we finally convinced management that the application really needs to be fixed, not the hardware. For MSSQL, the queue starts to fill if you miss that 5ms time. Once that happens, you hit a vicious cycle that drags everything down with it if the load stays the same (or, god forbid, increases).
To hit MSSQL server's desired response rate of 5ms, we have to push 40MB/s
It's true that you cannot stress enough the need to normalize your database as well as anticipate how to scale the potential weak spots in the design. In our case, the application proceeded most of the admin staff, so we're just playing cleanup.
To be honest, unless you're working with cubes (and you aren't if you're installing the plain, vanilla MSSQL server), your limiting factor will be IO then network. You *probably* won't run into a CPU-bound issue. Go with the two CPUs and invest the rest in ram, disk controllers and disks.
And when I say invest in disks and controllers, I mean multiple raid controllers with multiple channels and several drives on each channel. MSSQL server gets supremely cranky of the IO backs up. Same goes for the network traffic, but the random reads/writes will cause more havoc before you flood your NIC.
Of course, if you can buy enough ram so all your reads and writes can happen in memory (maybe a ramdisk?), you'll be very happy. Hey, if you have to use an M$ product, MSSQL server is about the most solid product they sell.
I know lots of news pages exist, but this is nice and clean. Plus, they seem to have a good amount of international news. I can see using this every day. Plus, it's nice not to be beaten over the head with layers, flash and such. Imagine that... just the news!
IBM seems the most likely (having publicly stated as fact, at least) to give up their commercial *nix in favor of Linux. But, as good as Linux is (and I have it everywhere), it still has maybe a decade to go to have the sort of stable lineage of the other commercial *nix products.
.NET... it's the price tag that will kill it.
That isn't to say it's less stable, exactly. It's just a matter of how many times vital features have been tested, added and changed. HP-UX, as an example, has a bright future. HP is integrating features from Tru64 (volume management, etc) to an already supremely stable platform.
By comparison, DG/UX (Data General) still has more advanced features (NUMA, NUMA, NUMA, etc and did I mention NUMA? HP doens't want to listen on that one), and development died on DG/UX years ago. But HP-UX soldiers on because of stability and compatibility with large installations. Heck, even the old K's are going for a premium now because some customers won't give them up.
I'd even suggest Solaris might be in the same boat. The install base is huge. The reliability is outstanding. Linux and BSD can compete, but they have a ways to go to get that install base.
I'd say the future is less bright for non-*nix commercial operating systems. Netware has the user base, but I don't think it's grown in a few years. NT/2K is growing, but companies won't stomach the restrictive and expensive licensing for long. Forget about the promise of
I haven't found one I like yet, but this one was close. At least, it worked well in an unstructured sort of way that made using it very easy:
http://freshmeat.net/projects/bartleby/
And it could track any kind of system since you really just free-form the change data. We need something a bit more formal, though. But, it may be just the ticket for you.
I'd humbly offer that the content is well worth $1 per month to me. I know there are tons of books and open resources for Perl (I've used or bought most of them, I think). But, the articles always seemed to go quite deep into the subject with plenty of examples. And, the range of topics is great. Here's at least one vote for $1 per month. 2999 left to go.
Our AS/400s are actually new. The oldest one is only a year old. For us, despite our deep Unix and NT backgroud, Linux on an iSeries (there, I said it... the new name... blech) holds little more than sideshow value. For us, we have almost no investment in AS/400 admins or developers. We just add HP/Compaq servers if we want more Linux.
/400 shop. Someone like our parent company that has AS/400s everywhere (30+) probably sees a huge benefit to running several Linux virtual servers on an LPAR* or older single system. The key to stress is reuse of older systems. Some of the first generation RISC systems (F10s and the like) would make great highly-available Linux machines.
However...
We aren't a typical
What's more, a company with a large investment in the hardware has probably moved all but some development off of a depreciated system. The shops that have two systems still running V3R7 won't be interested.
Part of the problem is that IBM doesn't really push economical LPAR-ing for Linux up front. In our case, they said "Sell you on LPAR? Well, if you aren't interested, we can't change your mind." Really, the Rochester salespeople are technically very knowedgeable, but they just don't "sell" sometimes. And, I can't go back and get the money now to do an LPAR "just for Linux".
The other issue is that IBM (to date, anyway) doesn't push AS/400 to SAN connectivity, which increases the value of the AS/400 as the key system in your enterprise whether you run Linux on an LPAR or not. You could, in theory, run a fairly-sized enterprise with a handful of 8xx-series machines. You'd have an NT-based FSIOP (or Novell, if you swing that way) if you had a need for it. You'd LPAR a big box to carve out several virtual Linux machines to keep your development options open. And, you'd have great MTBF on the hardware (except for the problems with the 17GB drives... those die like flies). Back all of that with an enterpise-class SAN (Shark, EMC... no Hitachi or HP XP-series because they don't support the 520-byte block size), and you can snap whole systems from LPAR to LPAR and system to system. Then, you can use a CNT-like solution for data replication over IP to a disater recovery site because all your data is on your SAN.
Sorry for the ramble, but I guess the point is that making the case for Linux on an AS/400 is part of a big picture. I'd say the cost-savings of having a handful of the same hardware in your computer room but the flexibility to run virtually any application is an outstanding point.
* LPAR == Logical PARtition... it's similar to how a Sun E10k can be carved into separate systems at the hardware level. And, yes, lots of other companies have done the same thing. It's not new.
There's a decent article on doing just that with CVS in this month's Linux Journal (http://www.linuxjournal.com). Of course, it assumes a working CVS install and some knowledge of CVS. Still, it's a less automatic but more flexible approach than Windows roaming profiles.
Seriously, it sounds cliche, but I've always thought the best environmental support you can offer comes in your own neighborhood. Barring that, find a locally-concerned group that runs an educational nature center. The Sierra Club (and most larger organizations) could use your money, but the narrow focus of a local group gets more for the dollar. Maybe go to a city planning (or county commission meesting) if you want to be more involved. They deal a lot with traffic congestion (and pollution), green space construction, local conservation and noise pollution. Besides, they tend to really care if you show up. If we all took a little more time in our own corner of the world, we'd make a larger difference.
Large, generally-focused organizations (in my case, IMBA, a trail-rights organization for mountain bikers... www.imba.com) can represent your views in the "big picture", and that is important. Pick one, and donate. But, the best thing you can do is get even marginally involved on a local level.
And, to a large degree, Carlin is right. The ecosystem will take care of us if we become too much of a burden.
Hey, I live on the other coast, so I'm not likely to be personally impacted, but...
So many fault lines run beneath densely-populated areas, the expensive warning system may be of dubious quality to Californiana. I thought the Northridge quake was pretty much centered under a moderately-populated area? But, for the heavily monitored areas on the other side of the Pacific Rim, it could be a real boon, particularly to quakes that cause tsunamis.
And displayed neatly, I might add... hey, sue me. It must be a good question if he's answered it already :)
Had to ask this one since the other vegetarian post was moderated out...
I'm not a vegan or vegetarian, but my wife and several acquaintances are. There's quite a bit of selection in the frozen foods section, and you've certainly covered several recipies that are at least vegetarian (the tofu episode was, certainly, inspired). I'd like to be able to cook a meal that would be tasty for all palettes without using the ingredients the vegan crowd would find objectionable.
Are there some fundamental steps to preparing tasty, vegan-friendly meals in the way of getting meat substitutes and seasonings to work in harmony? Are there ingredients that significantly enhance popular vegetarian fare that typically don't make it into the dish?
I've seen just about every episode (more than twice, my wife will vouch for that), and I know that the first question of cooking tools is usually quality. But, a close second is always multipurposity (yeah, I like making up the goofy phrase or two). Even those of us with significant kitchen budgets have a hard time acquiring a good collection of tools. What makes your top ten (or twelve, or twenty-two) list for essential, mutlitasking cooking tools?
Heck, what are the ten things that should be in my fridge and pantry at all times?
Really, Heat is an administrative nightmare. The database is in a constant state of corruption. Upgrades are next to impossible as a result. Our last version jump (6.01 to 6.4) took about 3 months to sort out for only about 50 users. And, we easily spent 5 figures for "support" from Frontrange to get everything working. I can't say the application functions poorly, though, from an end-user perspective. And, it does have lots of features. But, oh it sucks so very much to upgrade.
My key complaint about MS Project (and something I'd like to see as a feature in another package) is the poor project plan distribution mechanism. MS pretty much forces all participants to run Project just to see details of the tasks. We don't want to buy 100 copies for a couple of projects per year. Hence, we print out the whole, stinkin' project plan once a week. Of course, I'm sure there are several php and cgi based project management packages in varying degrees of finish, but I can't sell any of the managers in my company on unloading Project unless all of the functionality is there and the interface is very similar.
Hmmm. Interesting idea, and one I can honestly say I'd given no thought.
Just sort of off the cuff, and in a Linux-based world, how about an extension to XFree86 (module, if you like) where you'd define additional screens and/or pointing devices for the wall viewer.
It could be kinda kludgy because it's just an extension of existing tech, but the viewtablet could be a new sort of X device itself. Think of it like an old Wacom digitizer but with video. Maybe you'd move the window to a virtual desktop that is wall-viewer-aware. You'd maintain joint control via the tablet or another form of pointing device.
Also, wouldn't it be more straightforward to extending X using the current device concepts (Screen, Input) for the new concepts? I'd think it would be possible to extend that to an eye-tracking mechanism and voice commands (see the Sun-produced movie "Starfire" -- http://www.asktog.com/starfire/starfireHome.html) so you could free yourself from mouse and keyboard actions as well.
I guess it doesn't sound so daunting after all. It seems like it's just a matter of having drivers and definitions for the new devices. I think I'm oversimplifying, though. It might be the wonderful Indian food I had for lunch... too many endorphins.
I use XFS on an intranet web server and samba server with positive results. It's an older kernel (I needed the ACL kernel patches so the NT domain ACLs would work with samba), so I don't have to recover from crashes. But, performance-wise, I have no complaints. Granted, I have a fraction of the traffic that your site would have.
r y/l-fs10.html
I also followed Daniel Robbin's advice on XFS (which you've no doubt read already, but just in case: http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/libra
1) you wear a suit or other appropriate attire to a proceeding
2) you speak politely rather than rudely shouting over the voices of others
3) you realize that POPULAR SUPPORT is necessary before the content companies submit to your point of view
4) you accept that POPULAR SUPPORT usually means having the general public, not the RMS cognoscenti, behind you
5) you build a bridge to the people that matter in the long run in the discussion (artists and others) to make an end-run around the content distribution companies
My, oh my. Shouting and laughing during the proceedings. That will really make a difference. We all want to scream in Valenti's face. We'd all like to throttle Rosen and say "we know you're lying!" But, it doesn't help the case.
I don't want to be overly-critical of the good folk (RMS included) who took time from their busy days to put in the appearance. They are all good people, I'm sure, who just want to be heard. I want to be heard. But, we've got to be more adult about this discourse. We have to do the hard work of writing letters, informning friends and communicating to elected officials. That's how this works.
I think that's an absolutely valid concern, particularly given the propensity for the virus-killer companies (as they see themselves, anyway) to overblow virus threats.
But, I would say two things in their defense:
1) They tend to hype more than hide. The worst thing is that they will try to get securityfocus.com on the map with IT execs by hyping the security flaws disclosed in bugtraq. Now, it's a double-edge sword, but I don't think it will be awful if certain M$-based operating systems were a bit more publicly scrutinized.
2) Slashdot didn't change after the aquisition, at least not outwardly. I don't work here, so I can't talk about the behind-the-scenes, but the postings are as hard-hitting as ever. Granted, Andover isn't a corporation the size or with the intrests of Symantec. But it's a valid point.
While I'd be inclined to agree that Microsoft products are not necessary worth the cost ("if they can't pirate the software...), what makes anyone think for a moment that the same people would adhere to the GPL?
The Chinese marketplace is rife with copyright infringements, ranging from the innocuous to the obscene. I'd think that statement applies to many, many marketplaces, to be fair. But is it really advantageous for GPL-ed software to be treated the same way?
I'm not contending that Chinese coders will not comply with the GPL. After all, in comparison to Microsoft, it's virtually free to comply with the GPL. But, it doesn't benefit GPL-ish licenses if the code is modified or improved but not re-released.
I am suggesting that, someone who would, on a widescale basis, subvert commercial software licensing won't necessarily treat GPL software in the proper manner just because there is no monetary license cost associated.
It's great for China to go open-source, but it just doesn't seem likely for a closed-door society (which is, admittedly and thankfully, changing bit by bit) to contribute happily to the open source ideal.
Heck, the GPL is in many ways an ideal of a free market economy. Good projects flourish. Not as good projects don't. If a market is a conversation, GPL-ed software is a prime example. It's better than the BSD-style licenses because participants have to continue the conversation. It's not a matter of law, but of polite agreement.
I guess I just don't think it's much cause for celebration when a non-free market entity weighs in on a free market discussion. I could be wrong, and I certainly hope I am. I hope legions of Chinese coders contribute heavily to quality, internationalized software.