I'd still rather take a satellite system, especially now that they have a system where you no longer need a phone line "uplink" that you do with the DTV system. Yes, the equipment does cost more, but it is almost definitely worth it. The bandwidth in both directions that P2P requires is becoming more of a requirement for more and more users, including myself. Luckily, I have a cable Internet connection, and it suffices my needs. For those out in rural areas, where cable and DSL aren't options, this may still not be a legitimate option.
The only problem I can see with the service is that it relies on a 56k connection for an uplink. Does this work? Yes, but it won't satisfy the requirements of many users. I could imagine the latency could become a problem, especially when gaming, and performing other tasks requiring high speeds in both directions. Back in the day, cable providers tried this, and it didn't work for them; what makes them think it will work now?
Guess what pal? Secure Computing products are what are protecting our government networks that you never hear about . . . you know, the ones that DON'T GET HACKED! I, for one, am happy that we have such secure products protecting our governmental secrets, like nuclear blueprints, from organizations like Al Queda (sp?). When people in a society can't obey simple laws, and thus threaten many others in the world, steps must be taken to prevent those people from succeeding. Here's a couple more appropriate slogans for you:
"Need to protect nuclear secrets from terrorists? Call Secure Computing!"
"Terrorist hackers cracking your missile guidance computers? Call Secure Computing!"
You evidently thought about what you wrote . . . you just forgot what happened when _airline_ security in the United States became lax. Just think what would happen if _computer_ security became that lax in the US, or another country, like Russia . . . the results wouldn't be good.
XFS a "special-purpose" file system? I think not . . . it handles all size files just fine, though it handles larger ones better than it does smaller ones; Reiser is just the opposite of this. If this is what you think, then you should consider Reiser a "special-purpose" file system. IMHO, XFS is the _best_ FS out there for Linux today; it's solid as a rock, it's compatible with all standard UNIX features (Reiser/NFS? Don't even think about it without patches), and it just plain works! No problems, no worries with XFS. Just my opinion . . .
Your idea about a different versioning scheme makes a lot of sense; however, I think there might be a better solution than what you suggested, since you would have to set a "cut-off" point for each major kernel version to ensure that one was maintaince only, and another was features. My suggestion would be to do what SGI does, and have a "maintaince" and a "feature" stream. This is what SGI does with IRIX, and it works unbelievably well for them. Linus could then release two version of each official kernel, one that had only _fixes_, and another that added actual features. Seperating fixes and features could be a potential problem, but not nearly as large as choosing a kernel now that contains only fixes.:-) Any comments? (Sorry about my sig . . ./. is the first site where it doesn't work well!)
I agree with you on the topic of Linux using CVS. BUT, BSD, in its earlier days, was created mainly by Bill Joy. Bill Joy's equivilent (sp?) in the Linux world would be Linus Torvalds. In the early days of BSD, Bill Joy controlled, for the most part, what went in BSD. There wasn't even CVS back that far . . . onc Joy left, then BSD got more "open" to the ideas and patches of others. The same thing may happen with Linux, if and when Linus decides to move on.
And how would you know that the original UNIX tools aren't as good as the GNU tools? I would much rather have tools that are backwards-compliant with tons of scripts written back in the 70's and 80's. Who knows if the GNU tools are able to do this? I personally don't have the _need_ for this thing, but many others do.
And, getting slightly off topic, I am sick of the attitude of some people in the Linux community that all GNU tools are better than anything else out there. This doesn't necessarily apply to you, but it is an attitude that is very prevalent in the community any more. If you honestly believe the GNU tools are better, please provide me with some reasons.
Re:Where AIX kicks butt (and others need to catch
on
IBM Wants Linux
·
· Score: 1
I havn't had the opportunity to use JFS yet (I've heard it's excellent), but you havn't had the opportunity to use SGI's XFS either. It's simply amazing, and supports things JFS doesn't quite yet, such as quotas, ACLs, and even software RAID. It's amazing in terms of speed, especially with larger MP . . . ah . . . files.:-) Check it out at http://oss.sgi.com/projects/linux-xfs/
Slashdot Mirror
I'd still rather take a satellite system, especially now that they have a system where you no longer need a phone line "uplink" that you do with the DTV system. Yes, the equipment does cost more, but it is almost definitely worth it. The bandwidth in both directions that P2P requires is becoming more of a requirement for more and more users, including myself. Luckily, I have a cable Internet connection, and it suffices my needs. For those out in rural areas, where cable and DSL aren't options, this may still not be a legitimate option.
The only problem I can see with the service is that it relies on a 56k connection for an uplink. Does this work? Yes, but it won't satisfy the requirements of many users. I could imagine the latency could become a problem, especially when gaming, and performing other tasks requiring high speeds in both directions. Back in the day, cable providers tried this, and it didn't work for them; what makes them think it will work now?
Guess what pal? Secure Computing products are what are protecting our government networks that you never hear about . . . you know, the ones that DON'T GET HACKED! I, for one, am happy that we have such secure products protecting our governmental secrets, like nuclear blueprints, from organizations like Al Queda (sp?). When people in a society can't obey simple laws, and thus threaten many others in the world, steps must be taken to prevent those people from succeeding. Here's a couple more appropriate slogans for you:
"Need to protect nuclear secrets from terrorists? Call Secure Computing!"
"Terrorist hackers cracking your missile guidance computers? Call Secure Computing!"
You evidently thought about what you wrote . . . you just forgot what happened when _airline_ security in the United States became lax. Just think what would happen if _computer_ security became that lax in the US, or another country, like Russia . . . the results wouldn't be good.
XFS a "special-purpose" file system? I think not . . . it handles all size files just fine, though it handles larger ones better than it does smaller ones; Reiser is just the opposite of this. If this is what you think, then you should consider Reiser a "special-purpose" file system. IMHO, XFS is the _best_ FS out there for Linux today; it's solid as a rock, it's compatible with all standard UNIX features (Reiser/NFS? Don't even think about it without patches), and it just plain works! No problems, no worries with XFS. Just my opinion . . .
Your idea about a different versioning scheme makes a lot of sense; however, I think there might be a better solution than what you suggested, since you would have to set a "cut-off" point for each major kernel version to ensure that one was maintaince only, and another was features. My suggestion would be to do what SGI does, and have a "maintaince" and a "feature" stream. This is what SGI does with IRIX, and it works unbelievably well for them. Linus could then release two version of each official kernel, one that had only _fixes_, and another that added actual features. Seperating fixes and features could be a potential problem, but not nearly as large as choosing a kernel now that contains only fixes. :-) Any comments? (Sorry about my sig . . . /. is the first site where it doesn't work well!)
I agree with you on the topic of Linux using CVS. BUT, BSD, in its earlier days, was created mainly by Bill Joy. Bill Joy's equivilent (sp?) in the Linux world would be Linus Torvalds. In the early days of BSD, Bill Joy controlled, for the most part, what went in BSD. There wasn't even CVS back that far . . . onc Joy left, then BSD got more "open" to the ideas and patches of others. The same thing may happen with Linux, if and when Linus decides to move on.
And how would you know that the original UNIX tools aren't as good as the GNU tools? I would much rather have tools that are backwards-compliant with tons of scripts written back in the 70's and 80's. Who knows if the GNU tools are able to do this? I personally don't have the _need_ for this thing, but many others do.
And, getting slightly off topic, I am sick of the attitude of some people in the Linux community that all GNU tools are better than anything else out there. This doesn't necessarily apply to you, but it is an attitude that is very prevalent in the community any more. If you honestly believe the GNU tools are better, please provide me with some reasons.
I havn't had the opportunity to use JFS yet (I've heard it's excellent), but you havn't had the opportunity to use SGI's XFS either. It's simply amazing, and supports things JFS doesn't quite yet, such as quotas, ACLs, and even software RAID. It's amazing in terms of speed, especially with larger MP . . . ah . . . files. :-) Check it out at http://oss.sgi.com/projects/linux-xfs/