What constitutes a "growing, active life" is up to society. Likewise, habit is defined the same way. I spend 8 hours a day in front of a flickering box myself--but it's called work, and by society's definition, is probably part of a growing, active life. TV addiction? Yeah, whatever. Defined by people addicted to their own intellectualism--how much credit can you give it? It's not that I don't agree--I do. I'm sure some people watch more TV than they should. But addiction in general? It's human nature--we just put a friendly face on the vice that we like. TV, internet, pornography, drugs, religion, jobs, morality--eventually we'll have a disorder for everything.
I've been working on a tiny server lately, based off some crappy-but-relatively-stable MicroATX board without a single expansion slot (everything is integrated, from the 3Com NIC to the cheesy Intel video), so here's what I've learned so far:
1) Build a custom case, if it's an option. Plexi looks cool and works alright, metal is also an option, though harder to work with by far if you don't have the tools.
2) Use half-height laptop-style CD-ROM/DVD/CD-RW drives (they use the same IDE adaptors as a 2.5" hard drive would use).
3) Pull your PSU out of its housing and mount it wherever you want. Between fans, housing, and open space, there's a lot of waste in the PSU. Obviously, make sure it stays cool and grounded.
4) Get a board with a lot of integrated hardware. Something like the Soyo Dragon+, for example.
5) Make sure to design the system so the airflow is directed where it needs to go. You don't need vast amounts of empty space in your case as long as you have cool air flowing over the right components.
6) Experiment with creative layouts. Try routing ribbon cables along the case walls, where they're not interfering with airflow.
When you know exactly what hardware you have, creating a custom layout for it isn't too hard.
Re:News for nerds? Can a STORY be modded Offtopic?
on
Review: Orange County
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Well, science is geeky. Sci-fi movie and book reviews are geeky. Giving Jon Katz a forum to post whatever the hell he wants is just lame. I'm not saying the site shouldn't be open to items of peripheral geekiness, but at the same time, there have to be limits. We don't need an Ask Slashdot discussion on cat litter, even though most of us have cats. From what I've seen, the movies Jon Katz reviews aren't particularly geeky movies, nor does he write said reviews from a perspective different than you'd find in any newspaper (Joe Queenan you're not, Mr. Katz). In fact, you probably can find reviews of these same movies in just about any newspaper. What's nice about Slashdot is that it concentrates worthwhile geek/nerd news into a single place--news that I'd have to dig through a thousand hardware sites, mainstream news sources, press releases, etc to find otherwise. On the other hand, I can get movie reviews anywhere, and without hardly any trouble at all.
Yeah, I'm just sort of playing Devil's advocate here. I'm not going to rule out other commercial servers, but between IIS and Apache, I agree--Apache is better. I've had both installed at home for kicks (IIS on Windows 2000, Apache on Linux and FreeBSD) and done programming in ASP (on IIS) and PHP/perl (on standard Apache, as well as Cobalt's version) for commercial and personal use on remote hosts. In both cases, I prefered Apache. The Unix way of doing things vs. the MS way of doing things and all (I for one like editing text-based configuration files). And most of the times I've seen the two compared, Apache has come out on top. But you have to admit, there are lots of people whose primary reason for using Apache is that it's the best free server available, and they'd probably find something else to use if they had to pay for Apache.
And that's basically my point--Apache enjoys such popularity in part because it's free. The fact that it competes against commercial servers is pretty remarkable. On the other hand, it's obviously lacking something (and that something may very well be a well-known logo), else nobody would pay for IIS, etc.
Well, that's sort of what I meant by their business vision preventing it from happening. MS has a lot of money and no doubt many, many talented programmers, and between the two, I think a really awesome server could be produced. But you're right, the company would fuck it up. The business side is so bent on complete MS dominance that it's pretty doubtful they'd even consider producing something like this, and even if they did, there would be some absurd OS integration or proprietary protocols for interfacing with, I don't know, Word documents or Excel spreadsheets or something of the like. There would be lots of useless, half-baked features designed to give MS as a whole a leg up on the competition through proprietary interfacing with other MS products. And no doubt they'd release it before thorough testing and it'd be full of bugs. But those are flaws of company policy more than anything else. My main point is that MS has the resources (i.e. cash and clout) to hire experienced Unix programmers, get details on proprietary/commercial operating systems and hardware, etc. It's like this--how much better could Apache be if the guys developing it were getting paid to work on it and it alone 40 hours a week and had immediate access to whatever information/hardware/etc they need? Of course, I doubt there's enough money in the server market (without producing the underlying OS and/or hardware) to justify their doing this even if they were open to the idea. I'm just saying--they could do it.
Not to dump on Apache or anything, but--
One of the reasons why so many people use Apache is that it's free, not that it's necessarily a better product. If you're a small web host, well, a free server running atop a free OS beats the hell out of something like IIS, where you're paying for features that probably aren't going to get used all that often. Apache is a nice product, but let's face it--if MS decided to pour their resources into building a web server for *nix, they could probably produce some pretty incredible stuff. Of course, their whole business vision will probably prevent this from happening (and, for that matter, would probably end up crippling the product anyway). This isn't to say that Apache is a bad product--I have no doubt that there're plenty of hosts running it because it because it's simply the best product on the market for their needs, regardless of cost. Personally, I really prefer Apache to IIS, but I've only used either of them slightly, and never in a real administrative context. As for the article... What exactly does the author think MS is going to do? Drop out of the server market entirely? I mean, honestly, if you're going to draw a conclusion, which one seems more reasonable: that MS's vision of a net dominiated by MS/.Net is going to lead them to delve even deeper into the server market, or that because IIS isn't included with a couple of home/workstation OSs, it's being EOLed by MS? As far as I know, there's never been a full-featured version of IIS included with any home/workstation OS from MS.
I don't know too much about the product (never used it), but I know that if I were creating something of the sort, I wouldn't have any sort of network services (Apache, login, whatever) accessible from the internet side. I mean, right, running everything as root could compromise the system, but only if an attack were launched from within the LAN. From what I've read, this thing is really just meant to secure a LAN from outside attack.
How exactly is the quality of the review in question off-topic? Presumably, the benchmarks and whatnot are all valid, but for me, anyway, when there are some pretty obvious errors in the text of an article, demonstrating that it probably hasn't had any sort of review or gone through any sort of editor, it raises some questions about the integrity of that article as a whole. Who is writing this, and why isn't anyone else reviewing it? I'd rather not make hardware purchasing decisions on the advice of an unprofessional hack who has never heard of proof-reading.
There's practically no OS out there that'll stand up to a seriously incompetent user. I mean, if you botch software/hardware installs, don't know how to troubleshoot resource conflicts, can't diagnose bad hardware, and leave every conceivable app running in the background, chances are your OS is going to get hosed sooner or later. It's like that Onion point-counterpoint story. A good user is going to be hindered by a bad system, but a bad user is going to fuck up whatever system they get. I guess the question is--is Dave Barry a good user or a bad one?
Not to be too nit-picky, but if I have to read one more hardware review that sounds like it was scribbled on a napkin by a 9th grader with ADD while watching Moulin Rouge, I'm going to scream.
"While basically matching the Pentium 4 on a performance level, albeit not even close on a clock-to-clock level."
Well said! It's a good thing you know how to make bar graphs.
Yeah, I phrased that wrong.
What I mean is, I doubt most people get their first programming jobs on the "creative" software development expected to stay in the US. Likewise, I imagine most of the people working on creative development are drawn from the pool of people working on routine development. So with routine development shipped overseas, there'll be a greater talent pool there, and it would surprise me if some of those people don't tackle the more exotic development efforts supposedly be left to American programmers. This isn't meant as any sort of demagoguery, I'm just speculating on what may happen.
But what about future prospects? Your employer may want people with experience and degrees in your position so they can be groomed for higher-level positions. So while you may do your current job just fine, you might not have the credentials (i.e. a degree) needed for the company to make much of an investment in you. Ergo, they'll replace you with someone who can not only do your job, but has the degree and the background to be worth training and promoting further. Best advice--quit and get a degree. Then you can tell potential employers of all the work you got before you even had a degree.
Slashdot Mirror
We can play the world's largest game of Scrabble with the results.
Actually, something like 50% of college-grads are employed in fields other than their college major.
What constitutes a "growing, active life" is up to society. Likewise, habit is defined the same way. I spend 8 hours a day in front of a flickering box myself--but it's called work, and by society's definition, is probably part of a growing, active life. TV addiction? Yeah, whatever. Defined by people addicted to their own intellectualism--how much credit can you give it? It's not that I don't agree--I do. I'm sure some people watch more TV than they should. But addiction in general? It's human nature--we just put a friendly face on the vice that we like. TV, internet, pornography, drugs, religion, jobs, morality--eventually we'll have a disorder for everything.
Heh. Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Heh. I'll let the assumption stand...
1) Build a custom case, if it's an option. Plexi looks cool and works alright, metal is also an option, though harder to work with by far if you don't have the tools.
2) Use half-height laptop-style CD-ROM/DVD/CD-RW drives (they use the same IDE adaptors as a 2.5" hard drive would use).
3) Pull your PSU out of its housing and mount it wherever you want. Between fans, housing, and open space, there's a lot of waste in the PSU. Obviously, make sure it stays cool and grounded.
4) Get a board with a lot of integrated hardware. Something like the Soyo Dragon+, for example.
5) Make sure to design the system so the airflow is directed where it needs to go. You don't need vast amounts of empty space in your case as long as you have cool air flowing over the right components.
6) Experiment with creative layouts. Try routing ribbon cables along the case walls, where they're not interfering with airflow.
When you know exactly what hardware you have, creating a custom layout for it isn't too hard.
Physical threats in an imaginary universe will get you nowhere.
Quoting Prince will get you nowhere.
Perhaps 2 years from now for $10 at Goodwill, eh?
With a Rush song in your sig, I'll bet it's been a while.
Pfft.
Well, science is geeky. Sci-fi movie and book reviews are geeky. Giving Jon Katz a forum to post whatever the hell he wants is just lame. I'm not saying the site shouldn't be open to items of peripheral geekiness, but at the same time, there have to be limits. We don't need an Ask Slashdot discussion on cat litter, even though most of us have cats. From what I've seen, the movies Jon Katz reviews aren't particularly geeky movies, nor does he write said reviews from a perspective different than you'd find in any newspaper (Joe Queenan you're not, Mr. Katz). In fact, you probably can find reviews of these same movies in just about any newspaper. What's nice about Slashdot is that it concentrates worthwhile geek/nerd news into a single place--news that I'd have to dig through a thousand hardware sites, mainstream news sources, press releases, etc to find otherwise. On the other hand, I can get movie reviews anywhere, and without hardly any trouble at all.
And that's basically my point--Apache enjoys such popularity in part because it's free. The fact that it competes against commercial servers is pretty remarkable. On the other hand, it's obviously lacking something (and that something may very well be a well-known logo), else nobody would pay for IIS, etc.
Well, that's sort of what I meant by their business vision preventing it from happening. MS has a lot of money and no doubt many, many talented programmers, and between the two, I think a really awesome server could be produced. But you're right, the company would fuck it up. The business side is so bent on complete MS dominance that it's pretty doubtful they'd even consider producing something like this, and even if they did, there would be some absurd OS integration or proprietary protocols for interfacing with, I don't know, Word documents or Excel spreadsheets or something of the like. There would be lots of useless, half-baked features designed to give MS as a whole a leg up on the competition through proprietary interfacing with other MS products. And no doubt they'd release it before thorough testing and it'd be full of bugs. But those are flaws of company policy more than anything else. My main point is that MS has the resources (i.e. cash and clout) to hire experienced Unix programmers, get details on proprietary/commercial operating systems and hardware, etc. It's like this--how much better could Apache be if the guys developing it were getting paid to work on it and it alone 40 hours a week and had immediate access to whatever information/hardware/etc they need? Of course, I doubt there's enough money in the server market (without producing the underlying OS and/or hardware) to justify their doing this even if they were open to the idea. I'm just saying--they could do it.
Not to dump on Apache or anything, but-- One of the reasons why so many people use Apache is that it's free, not that it's necessarily a better product. If you're a small web host, well, a free server running atop a free OS beats the hell out of something like IIS, where you're paying for features that probably aren't going to get used all that often. Apache is a nice product, but let's face it--if MS decided to pour their resources into building a web server for *nix, they could probably produce some pretty incredible stuff. Of course, their whole business vision will probably prevent this from happening (and, for that matter, would probably end up crippling the product anyway). This isn't to say that Apache is a bad product--I have no doubt that there're plenty of hosts running it because it because it's simply the best product on the market for their needs, regardless of cost. Personally, I really prefer Apache to IIS, but I've only used either of them slightly, and never in a real administrative context. As for the article... What exactly does the author think MS is going to do? Drop out of the server market entirely? I mean, honestly, if you're going to draw a conclusion, which one seems more reasonable: that MS's vision of a net dominiated by MS/.Net is going to lead them to delve even deeper into the server market, or that because IIS isn't included with a couple of home/workstation OSs, it's being EOLed by MS? As far as I know, there's never been a full-featured version of IIS included with any home/workstation OS from MS.
Oh my. The tiny TV world I live in. Next you'll be quoting Zinn.
Damn. Alien Male B? Go all the way and give us Jar-Jar.
I don't know too much about the product (never used it), but I know that if I were creating something of the sort, I wouldn't have any sort of network services (Apache, login, whatever) accessible from the internet side. I mean, right, running everything as root could compromise the system, but only if an attack were launched from within the LAN. From what I've read, this thing is really just meant to secure a LAN from outside attack.
How exactly is the quality of the review in question off-topic? Presumably, the benchmarks and whatnot are all valid, but for me, anyway, when there are some pretty obvious errors in the text of an article, demonstrating that it probably hasn't had any sort of review or gone through any sort of editor, it raises some questions about the integrity of that article as a whole. Who is writing this, and why isn't anyone else reviewing it? I'd rather not make hardware purchasing decisions on the advice of an unprofessional hack who has never heard of proof-reading.
There's practically no OS out there that'll stand up to a seriously incompetent user. I mean, if you botch software/hardware installs, don't know how to troubleshoot resource conflicts, can't diagnose bad hardware, and leave every conceivable app running in the background, chances are your OS is going to get hosed sooner or later. It's like that Onion point-counterpoint story. A good user is going to be hindered by a bad system, but a bad user is going to fuck up whatever system they get. I guess the question is--is Dave Barry a good user or a bad one?
"While basically matching the Pentium 4 on a performance level, albeit not even close on a clock-to-clock level."
Well said! It's a good thing you know how to make bar graphs.
Yeah, I phrased that wrong. What I mean is, I doubt most people get their first programming jobs on the "creative" software development expected to stay in the US. Likewise, I imagine most of the people working on creative development are drawn from the pool of people working on routine development. So with routine development shipped overseas, there'll be a greater talent pool there, and it would surprise me if some of those people don't tackle the more exotic development efforts supposedly be left to American programmers. This isn't meant as any sort of demagoguery, I'm just speculating on what may happen.
Don't mundane jobs usually lead to more creative ones? Where's the talent pool come from?
But what about future prospects? Your employer may want people with experience and degrees in your position so they can be groomed for higher-level positions. So while you may do your current job just fine, you might not have the credentials (i.e. a degree) needed for the company to make much of an investment in you. Ergo, they'll replace you with someone who can not only do your job, but has the degree and the background to be worth training and promoting further. Best advice--quit and get a degree. Then you can tell potential employers of all the work you got before you even had a degree.
Rockot? Rawkawt!