It drops the brightness on FLV files (the only ones I've seen that problem with) by 25 ticks and looks about right to me on my laptop. Seems to fix the color issues that FLV (from Youtube and the like) files have. For other files, the color is perfect: DVD (MPEG2), MPEG4, etc... There are many ways to fix the problems and that's just one. The other one I used to use with the older NVidia drivers on my Linux Media center, were to have my script that calls xine to play files send the NVidia driver directives to adjust RGB and C/B values since it only affected overlay and not the desktop itself. (Yes there are TWO sets of color and brightness/contrast settings. One for the desktop and one for the overlay that Xine, Mplayer and a host of other media apps use. It's like this on Windows too.)
...when there is 'mplayer'. It does stream dumps for just about any playable stream out there. That's how I'm ripping the "Play again" content on the BBCs radio sites for time shifting onto my Rio Karma digital music player.
...would they choose to simulate Mars in someone's attic. Most simulations of this kind are much better performed in the basement of one's parent's house.
You know the old saying... "you get what you stay for". As long as you're logging in as root you will damage your system. It's a known fact. Anyone who logs in as root eventually dostoyevsky's their system. Logging in as root is dangerous. Even using 'su -' is dangerous. 'sudo' provides some level of security and accountability but even that is dangerous. I can't tell you how many times I've seen people type 'sudo bash' and then tool around doing everything as root all the time. The only way to really be safe is to never use any super user abilities whatsoever. The way I've handled it is that any time I run into something that I need root access for, I just give up. So I don't have any new users other than the ones I originally set up when I installed Ubuntu. I also don't have any access to the CD-RW drive built into the system, but that's OK since I'm not an illegal music and software pirate (only pirates use CD-R/CD-RW). I can't use the attached scanner that once worked in Windows 98 but that's OK since there is no need to scan photos or anything in Linux since there are no apps with which to work on them anyway. Whenever the system pops up asking me for the root password I just cancel out and stick with whatever settings the system had. Basically for me, a request for the root password is a threat to the security of my PC, myself and possible the nation or even global security. So in short DO NOT EVER USE root access of ANY kind. It's very dangerous and best left to the experts (bearded and bald scientists in dusty university halls).
He does what I do. You write and write and write all over the net. Sometimes as a troll, sometimes honestly, sometimes just to take the piss. Then you archive everything you write waiting for the right article to post in. But, if it would make you happy, I have a ton of documentation I've written for applications that may at some time in the future exist. If you have an app that matched, I'd be happy to send you a copy.:)
... "So, where is everyone?" To which I reply: "Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemists"...
Ohhh... I just HAVE to say it to make the point clear... "We should invade their Web 2.0 development houses, kill their project managers, and convert them to C programmers". YES. I was making a real point, but I was having fun while I was at it... And hey, it got a conversation going which is something considering the rest of the primates went off to Digg a while back for a flea picking party that's become nearly orgiastic.
Really? You have a totally different perspective on "at best" than I do. I see it as a limiting term that specifically quantifies an object. In this case it's quantifying someone's ability. If someone is "at best" a jazz musician, that isn't insulting in the least. It's just stating a fact. Since when is "WEB application developer" an insult? It's just someone with a different set of abilities from a person who codes in C/C++/Java, etc... Neither one is better than the other. I'm just railing against the hot dogs who think they can code anything in any language which is all too common on both sides of the equation. If you feel insulted by my post, then maybe you should ask yourself whether you're the sort of person I was targeting. If that's the way you want to read it, you're free to do so. I was simply making some plain and unbiased statements about what the majority of coder space is occupied by these days: Lots of people who claim to know everything about coding, when in fact they know very little. (Hehe... and if you didn't catch that last sentence, then you deserve to feel insulted)
The problem with "playing nice with others" is that when the others are not grasping what it is that you are trying to convey to them because of their own ignorance or laziness, you can't get too far. There is an ideal that many of us have in our minds of how things should be. Settling for some compromise is not an option.
To that I counter: Show me a web based application for image editing that's as good as Photoshop or even Gimp. When you can show me that, then the two (desktop applications vs. web applications) will be identical. The problem is that people seem to only focus on business applications when thinking of application design. I think of every kind of application including video, audio and photo editing applications. To me they're all important desktop applications and the web is not ready (nor do I think it ever will be without some helper like Flash. Yuck.) to handle for a variety of reason. Photoshop, Cubase, Protools, Adobe Premiere, Avid products are all equally if not more important than MS Office.
It's been my experience that "Web designers" always think of themselves as equivalent to "Web Developers". So much so, that I really don't see any distinction since almost 100% of the ones I've met started off coding static HTML pages using MS Word and then later Frontpage. Some of them broke away from that and moved onto ASP, Perl, PHP, etc... But most of them NEVER started off as a coder first. So, as a result they want to control every aspect of the design of a web site or application (the line is fuzzy). Everything from the UI, the look and feel and the backend code. They want to own it all regardless of the fact that they don't have the ability to do it all well. Again, there might be a rare person or two who can, but it's not common. So in reality, there is no such thing as a "Web Developer" who is distinct from a "Web Designer". They are for all intents and purposes, the same thing to most people. Just like a computer/network admin is expected to fix your Tivo...
Whoa... stop putting words in my mouth. What I was trying to say is that I don't expect someone who is really great at a language like C or C++ to be good at Perl or PHP as applied to web applications. AJAX even less so. There are similarities in the logic behind the scenes for a web application, but the visual aspect of the web seems to always interfere with what a C/C++ programmer is familiar with. I'm not saying that one or the other is better. I never said that. I think that's what everyone is getting their panties all in a bunch about. They're misreading what I wrote.
Exactly. The only reason for my existence is to piss people off and make them think a little further than their limited minds normally allow.:) So I love it when I get the peanut gallery trying to modbomb and troll me as AC. It just makes it all the more worthwhile.:)
You're all missing the point. I've never once met a decent desktop application developer who was a good web developer. And I've never met a decent web developer who could write a desktop application to save his/her life. Period. End of story. There might be a very very few rare people who can cross between both worlds, but as a rule web devels can't code for a Windows desktop, KDE or Gnome and guys who write stuff in C, C++ or even VB can't make a decent web app. Whenever they try, they fail every time. They might not know it. In fact they might think they're great at both. But the users and other knowledgeable tech sector folks know it. That's the point. And it's not even the main point I was making. The main point in my original post was that truly talented people in the tech sector (I mean people who can make their computers do anything without needing to rely on tons of commercial products that do it out of the can) are nearly always bad at business. To attract this type of person, you need a challenging problem for them to sink their teeth into that is very interesting to them. That's why the dot-bomb era happened: Too much focus on business people and wannabe execs who couldn't code, come up with decent uses for technology, but knew the right buzzwords and wanted to be in on the party. The right people will produce something successful. And most of the time the right people aren't into business or aren't very good at it.
If there's one thing that bothered me about the dot-com culture, it was all the wasted money on crap like foosball tables. I don't like corporate culture either, but for god's sake people have some perspective and MODERATE! Here are some plain truths that few people want to admit to:
1. Someone who actually knows what they're doing when it comes to computers is not a business person or an executive. A lot of people who dream about jobs in the technology sector always imagine that it somehow leads to the top of the glass tower and a corner office. It doesn't and it shouldn't. If you want that and you have middling to poor technical skills, then you're not cut out for technology. Instead you should go straight for that MBA now. Sure, there's the very rare and occasional individual who is very good with computers and also has business acumen, but you really have to look far and wide to find these strange hybrids. Most business people just aren't that good at computers other than using Office, maybe some SQL and that's about it. (This is not meant to insult anyone BTW)
2. A good software developer writes applications that are meant to be run as binaries. Sorry web folks, you're not software developers. At the very best, you are WEB application developers. At worst, you're still coding static HTML pages and trying to get that six figure job. Yes, web developers are necessary. Yes, web developers are quite talented. But web developers are rarely well versed in C or C++. However, many web developers have a leg up on software developers in the visual department though. Not always, but more often than not.
3. Everything I said about the web developers above? It all applies in reverse to the software developers. As always, there are some exceptions, but they are rare. Software developers should typically not try to write web applications. At best, you'll wind up re-inventing something some other web developer has already done that's ten times better. At worst, you'll wind up with some ugly monstrosity of a web page that isn't user friendly and while the backend might be super efficient, it won't actually do a lot. Stick to software development, it's a different creature altogether. If you are dead set on becoming a web developer, then try REALLY hard NOT to bring much of what you know about UI design (which tends to be little) to the web app side. Remember that the web is primarily a visual medium, including the text. It has to look at least as good as it works.
4. Microsoft based developers are totally different animal. A lot of you are quite talented within your own realm and can whip up some fantastic stuff much faster than your Java and Unix based C using counterparts in terms of look and feel and reusable objects. (The only possible exception being the QT/KDE folks in Unix land) And the subsets of development apply to you as well. There are those of you who develop web apps and those of you who develop applications for use on the desktop. Once again, it's a rare person who can cross those boundaries and do well on both sides. So stick to your side of the development space, unless you want to make a major career change and can actually let go of what you know and take on a totally different mindset.
5. IT computer and network admins are also not executive or "office" positions. A lot of people seem to think that working in IT means a clean office, and you get to wear suits or at the very least business casual. You're wrong. Computer and network admins tend to be the grunts who crawl under desks in a lot of small to medium sized businesses. If you happen to be lucky enough to work in a large or global business, then it's possible that your position will be considered close to but not quite "suit"-ish. Again, if that's what you want, you're better off focusing on the MBA with a minor in CS.
But the bottom line here is that people who really know what they're doing with computers are rarely business people. They are rarely cut out to function within c
You can also use global network block devices with a Linux box as your storage server. In my case here at work we've got a SAN, but we als have budget cuts and we're a non-profit... So I can't afford ESX. At home, well... I just like having enterprise functionality without the cost.:)
Re:Xen "Just Works" (I know. I use it every day)
on
Desperately Seeking Xen
·
· Score: 4, Informative
It depends on what I'm doing. If you weren't trying to be cute, I'd say you were trolling. In reality, it's very common practice to use LVM to clone a filesystem, make some changes to the various files that set IP and hostname as well as other unique host settings and bring up alternate "Test" VMs on a Xen box. So some days I might be running three VMs other days eight or ten. It all depends on what I need to do.
As an aside, I forgot to mention that there are NO other products other than VMWare ESX that offer "live migration" of a running VM from one hardware host to another. That's right... you can take a VM that is running with many users actively using it and move it from one physical box to another with only a few milliseconds down time. The users NEVER notice. The free VMWare server can't do that. Micrsoft's Virtual Server can't do that until they have a hypervisor. And there really isn't anything else that can.
Xen "Just Works" (I know. I use it every day)
on
Desperately Seeking Xen
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Not only that, but I've been running it in a production environment for about a year and I'm about to deploy a HUGE set of servers as VMs using it. Xen beats VMware in one arena: price. If you use the open source version (which I'm doing) it's free. Only VMWare's ESX can compare to Xen. And unlike some people here have been saying, you DON'T need a special processor for Xen unless you plan to virtualize Windows. In my environment, I'm only virtualizing Linux, so I can use regular x86 CPUs dating back to 1998 for Xen. The only exception is the deployment of Zimbra I'm going to do. It requires Redhat Enterprise Linux 4 and NPTL, so I can't run it paravirtualized, it must run HVM which requires the special processors. However, who today isn't getting new hardware with HVM support?
Currently my two Xen servers here at work serve out about four VMs (all paravirtualized on older hardware) for critical and I/O intensive tasks like proxy servers for nearly 1000 machines, or the firewall syslog server for a dual T3 link with about 5000 users behind it sucking the bandwidth dry. So you can't claim it doesn't perform either. Now, if you want point and click administration and an easy set up, then yeah, Xen is behind the times. But performance wise it's leaps and bounds above VMWare. Trust me, I was a VMWare fan before you were in virtualization diapers. And I still am for some applications. But for places where I need something to be cost effective AND give me the features of VMWare ESX, Xen is the ONLY answer.
If you were born before 1970, chances are you that you "get" why this is such a great film on so many levels:
1. Based on a story by the master of science fiction for the thinking person: Philip K. Dick (PKD) 2. Got the approval of PKD when he saw the portion that was in production before he died 3. It was the very beginning of the cyberpunk model for all scifi films in this genre to come. 4. Directed by Ridley Scott who has an incredible sense of visual artistry and does nearly everything very well 5. Soundtrack by Vangelis. Who better to do scifi soundtracks? Orchestral sound tracks are overrated, and the modern approach of using pop music is lame. 6. Excellent selection of actors and actresses well suited to the roles they played 7. Fun production glitches to look for (aka "easter eggs") 8. Any film about machines from an emotional perspective is exactly what *I* like. I LOVED A.I. But I saw it from a totally different perspective than most. I saw it from the perspective of a machine.
He said we were getting close to time travel and that the equipment already was on the horizon! How long before we do our first trials in sending objects back in time? Only time will tell!
I'm not much of a fan of iSCSI myself. I prefer NBD which I use liberally at home. It's great for playing DVDs via WiFi or even watching full MPEG program stream files (recordings of TV shows). I've also used it for video editing with really huge, high volume access (we're talking gigbit network as well). So I think my approach will likely be NBD or GNBD, but... the link above might be interesting too.
...between doing this or running Linux instead and using:
1. Either hardware or software RAID for redundancy and performance 2. Using LVM2 to slice up the disks any way that is desired 3. Using NBD or GNDB (network block device or global network block device) to export the LVMs to other systems as block devices or just using Linux's iSCSI implementation or even (yuck) ATAoE 4. Using Samba and/or NFS to share volumes for temporary mappings (as opposed to the permanent mappings with (g)nbd
This is what I was planning on doing. What makes ZFS and RAID-Z better than the above options, which I find to be very easy to implement?
Slashdot Mirror
This works with xine:
xine --post eq:brightness=-24
It drops the brightness on FLV files (the only ones I've seen that problem with) by 25 ticks and looks about right to me on my laptop. Seems to fix the color issues that FLV (from Youtube and the like) files have. For other files, the color is perfect: DVD (MPEG2), MPEG4, etc... There are many ways to fix the problems and that's just one. The other one I used to use with the older NVidia drivers on my Linux Media center, were to have my script that calls xine to play files send the NVidia driver directives to adjust RGB and C/B values since it only affected overlay and not the desktop itself. (Yes there are TWO sets of color and brightness/contrast settings. One for the desktop and one for the overlay that Xine, Mplayer and a host of other media apps use. It's like this on Windows too.)
...when there is 'mplayer'. It does stream dumps for just about any playable stream out there. That's how I'm ripping the "Play again" content on the BBCs radio sites for time shifting onto my Rio Karma digital music player.
...would they choose to simulate Mars in someone's attic. Most simulations of this kind are much better performed in the basement of one's parent's house.
You know the old saying... "you get what you stay for". As long as you're logging in as root you will damage your system. It's a known fact. Anyone who logs in as root eventually dostoyevsky's their system. Logging in as root is dangerous. Even using 'su -' is dangerous. 'sudo' provides some level of security and accountability but even that is dangerous. I can't tell you how many times I've seen people type 'sudo bash' and then tool around doing everything as root all the time. The only way to really be safe is to never use any super user abilities whatsoever. The way I've handled it is that any time I run into something that I need root access for, I just give up. So I don't have any new users other than the ones I originally set up when I installed Ubuntu. I also don't have any access to the CD-RW drive built into the system, but that's OK since I'm not an illegal music and software pirate (only pirates use CD-R/CD-RW). I can't use the attached scanner that once worked in Windows 98 but that's OK since there is no need to scan photos or anything in Linux since there are no apps with which to work on them anyway. Whenever the system pops up asking me for the root password I just cancel out and stick with whatever settings the system had. Basically for me, a request for the root password is a threat to the security of my PC, myself and possible the nation or even global security. So in short DO NOT EVER USE root access of ANY kind. It's very dangerous and best left to the experts (bearded and bald scientists in dusty university halls).
He does what I do. You write and write and write all over the net. Sometimes as a troll, sometimes honestly, sometimes just to take the piss. Then you archive everything you write waiting for the right article to post in. But, if it would make you happy, I have a ton of documentation I've written for applications that may at some time in the future exist. If you have an app that matched, I'd be happy to send you a copy. :)
... "So, where is everyone?" To which I reply: "Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemists"...
Ohhh... I just HAVE to say it to make the point clear... "We should invade their Web 2.0 development houses, kill their project managers, and convert them to C programmers". YES. I was making a real point, but I was having fun while I was at it... And hey, it got a conversation going which is something considering the rest of the primates went off to Digg a while back for a flea picking party that's become nearly orgiastic.
Really? You have a totally different perspective on "at best" than I do. I see it as a limiting term that specifically quantifies an object. In this case it's quantifying someone's ability. If someone is "at best" a jazz musician, that isn't insulting in the least. It's just stating a fact. Since when is "WEB application developer" an insult? It's just someone with a different set of abilities from a person who codes in C/C++/Java, etc... Neither one is better than the other. I'm just railing against the hot dogs who think they can code anything in any language which is all too common on both sides of the equation. If you feel insulted by my post, then maybe you should ask yourself whether you're the sort of person I was targeting. If that's the way you want to read it, you're free to do so. I was simply making some plain and unbiased statements about what the majority of coder space is occupied by these days: Lots of people who claim to know everything about coding, when in fact they know very little. (Hehe... and if you didn't catch that last sentence, then you deserve to feel insulted)
The problem with "playing nice with others" is that when the others are not grasping what it is that you are trying to convey to them because of their own ignorance or laziness, you can't get too far. There is an ideal that many of us have in our minds of how things should be. Settling for some compromise is not an option.
To that I counter: Show me a web based application for image editing that's as good as Photoshop or even Gimp. When you can show me that, then the two (desktop applications vs. web applications) will be identical. The problem is that people seem to only focus on business applications when thinking of application design. I think of every kind of application including video, audio and photo editing applications. To me they're all important desktop applications and the web is not ready (nor do I think it ever will be without some helper like Flash. Yuck.) to handle for a variety of reason. Photoshop, Cubase, Protools, Adobe Premiere, Avid products are all equally if not more important than MS Office.
It's been my experience that "Web designers" always think of themselves as equivalent to "Web Developers". So much so, that I really don't see any distinction since almost 100% of the ones I've met started off coding static HTML pages using MS Word and then later Frontpage. Some of them broke away from that and moved onto ASP, Perl, PHP, etc... But most of them NEVER started off as a coder first. So, as a result they want to control every aspect of the design of a web site or application (the line is fuzzy). Everything from the UI, the look and feel and the backend code. They want to own it all regardless of the fact that they don't have the ability to do it all well. Again, there might be a rare person or two who can, but it's not common. So in reality, there is no such thing as a "Web Developer" who is distinct from a "Web Designer". They are for all intents and purposes, the same thing to most people. Just like a computer/network admin is expected to fix your Tivo...
Whoa... stop putting words in my mouth. What I was trying to say is that I don't expect someone who is really great at a language like C or C++ to be good at Perl or PHP as applied to web applications. AJAX even less so. There are similarities in the logic behind the scenes for a web application, but the visual aspect of the web seems to always interfere with what a C/C++ programmer is familiar with. I'm not saying that one or the other is better. I never said that. I think that's what everyone is getting their panties all in a bunch about. They're misreading what I wrote.
Exactly. The only reason for my existence is to piss people off and make them think a little further than their limited minds normally allow. :) So I love it when I get the peanut gallery trying to modbomb and troll me as AC. It just makes it all the more worthwhile. :)
You're all missing the point. I've never once met a decent desktop application developer who was a good web developer. And I've never met a decent web developer who could write a desktop application to save his/her life. Period. End of story. There might be a very very few rare people who can cross between both worlds, but as a rule web devels can't code for a Windows desktop, KDE or Gnome and guys who write stuff in C, C++ or even VB can't make a decent web app. Whenever they try, they fail every time. They might not know it. In fact they might think they're great at both. But the users and other knowledgeable tech sector folks know it. That's the point. And it's not even the main point I was making. The main point in my original post was that truly talented people in the tech sector (I mean people who can make their computers do anything without needing to rely on tons of commercial products that do it out of the can) are nearly always bad at business. To attract this type of person, you need a challenging problem for them to sink their teeth into that is very interesting to them. That's why the dot-bomb era happened: Too much focus on business people and wannabe execs who couldn't code, come up with decent uses for technology, but knew the right buzzwords and wanted to be in on the party. The right people will produce something successful. And most of the time the right people aren't into business or aren't very good at it.
If there's one thing that bothered me about the dot-com culture, it was all the wasted money on crap like foosball tables. I don't like corporate culture either, but for god's sake people have some perspective and MODERATE! Here are some plain truths that few people want to admit to:
1. Someone who actually knows what they're doing when it comes to computers is not a business person or an executive. A lot of people who dream about jobs in the technology sector always imagine that it somehow leads to the top of the glass tower and a corner office. It doesn't and it shouldn't. If you want that and you have middling to poor technical skills, then you're not cut out for technology. Instead you should go straight for that MBA now. Sure, there's the very rare and occasional individual who is very good with computers and also has business acumen, but you really have to look far and wide to find these strange hybrids. Most business people just aren't that good at computers other than using Office, maybe some SQL and that's about it. (This is not meant to insult anyone BTW)
2. A good software developer writes applications that are meant to be run as binaries. Sorry web folks, you're not software developers. At the very best, you are WEB application developers. At worst, you're still coding static HTML pages and trying to get that six figure job. Yes, web developers are necessary. Yes, web developers are quite talented. But web developers are rarely well versed in C or C++. However, many web developers have a leg up on software developers in the visual department though. Not always, but more often than not.
3. Everything I said about the web developers above? It all applies in reverse to the software developers. As always, there are some exceptions, but they are rare. Software developers should typically not try to write web applications. At best, you'll wind up re-inventing something some other web developer has already done that's ten times better. At worst, you'll wind up with some ugly monstrosity of a web page that isn't user friendly and while the backend might be super efficient, it won't actually do a lot. Stick to software development, it's a different creature altogether. If you are dead set on becoming a web developer, then try REALLY hard NOT to bring much of what you know about UI design (which tends to be little) to the web app side. Remember that the web is primarily a visual medium, including the text. It has to look at least as good as it works.
4. Microsoft based developers are totally different animal. A lot of you are quite talented within your own realm and can whip up some fantastic stuff much faster than your Java and Unix based C using counterparts in terms of look and feel and reusable objects. (The only possible exception being the QT/KDE folks in Unix land) And the subsets of development apply to you as well. There are those of you who develop web apps and those of you who develop applications for use on the desktop. Once again, it's a rare person who can cross those boundaries and do well on both sides. So stick to your side of the development space, unless you want to make a major career change and can actually let go of what you know and take on a totally different mindset.
5. IT computer and network admins are also not executive or "office" positions. A lot of people seem to think that working in IT means a clean office, and you get to wear suits or at the very least business casual. You're wrong. Computer and network admins tend to be the grunts who crawl under desks in a lot of small to medium sized businesses. If you happen to be lucky enough to work in a large or global business, then it's possible that your position will be considered close to but not quite "suit"-ish. Again, if that's what you want, you're better off focusing on the MBA with a minor in CS.
But the bottom line here is that people who really know what they're doing with computers are rarely business people. They are rarely cut out to function within c
You can also use global network block devices with a Linux box as your storage server. In my case here at work we've got a SAN, but we als have budget cuts and we're a non-profit... So I can't afford ESX. At home, well... I just like having enterprise functionality without the cost. :)
It depends on what I'm doing. If you weren't trying to be cute, I'd say you were trolling. In reality, it's very common practice to use LVM to clone a filesystem, make some changes to the various files that set IP and hostname as well as other unique host settings and bring up alternate "Test" VMs on a Xen box. So some days I might be running three VMs other days eight or ten. It all depends on what I need to do.
As an aside, I forgot to mention that there are NO other products other than VMWare ESX that offer "live migration" of a running VM from one hardware host to another. That's right... you can take a VM that is running with many users actively using it and move it from one physical box to another with only a few milliseconds down time. The users NEVER notice. The free VMWare server can't do that. Micrsoft's Virtual Server can't do that until they have a hypervisor. And there really isn't anything else that can.
Not only that, but I've been running it in a production environment for about a year and I'm about to deploy a HUGE set of servers as VMs using it. Xen beats VMware in one arena: price. If you use the open source version (which I'm doing) it's free. Only VMWare's ESX can compare to Xen. And unlike some people here have been saying, you DON'T need a special processor for Xen unless you plan to virtualize Windows. In my environment, I'm only virtualizing Linux, so I can use regular x86 CPUs dating back to 1998 for Xen. The only exception is the deployment of Zimbra I'm going to do. It requires Redhat Enterprise Linux 4 and NPTL, so I can't run it paravirtualized, it must run HVM which requires the special processors. However, who today isn't getting new hardware with HVM support?
Currently my two Xen servers here at work serve out about four VMs (all paravirtualized on older hardware) for critical and I/O intensive tasks like proxy servers for nearly 1000 machines, or the firewall syslog server for a dual T3 link with about 5000 users behind it sucking the bandwidth dry. So you can't claim it doesn't perform either. Now, if you want point and click administration and an easy set up, then yeah, Xen is behind the times. But performance wise it's leaps and bounds above VMWare. Trust me, I was a VMWare fan before you were in virtualization diapers. And I still am for some applications. But for places where I need something to be cost effective AND give me the features of VMWare ESX, Xen is the ONLY answer.
Hello. I'm eno2001. How can I help you today?
Actually, I loved Solaris for the same reasons I love the Blade Runner. It was a beautiful film.
BEST MOVIE EVAR!
If you were born before 1970, chances are you that you "get" why this is such a great film on so many levels:
1. Based on a story by the master of science fiction for the thinking person: Philip K. Dick (PKD)
2. Got the approval of PKD when he saw the portion that was in production before he died
3. It was the very beginning of the cyberpunk model for all scifi films in this genre to come.
4. Directed by Ridley Scott who has an incredible sense of visual artistry and does nearly everything very well
5. Soundtrack by Vangelis. Who better to do scifi soundtracks? Orchestral sound tracks are overrated, and the modern approach of using pop music is lame.
6. Excellent selection of actors and actresses well suited to the roles they played
7. Fun production glitches to look for (aka "easter eggs")
8. Any film about machines from an emotional perspective is exactly what *I* like. I LOVED A.I. But I saw it from a totally different perspective than most. I saw it from the perspective of a machine.
He said we were getting close to time travel and that the equipment already was on the horizon! How long before we do our first trials in sending objects back in time? Only time will tell!
I'm not much of a fan of iSCSI myself. I prefer NBD which I use liberally at home. It's great for playing DVDs via WiFi or even watching full MPEG program stream files (recordings of TV shows). I've also used it for video editing with really huge, high volume access (we're talking gigbit network as well). So I think my approach will likely be NBD or GNBD, but... the link above might be interesting too.
...between doing this or running Linux instead and using:
1. Either hardware or software RAID for redundancy and performance
2. Using LVM2 to slice up the disks any way that is desired
3. Using NBD or GNDB (network block device or global network block device) to export the LVMs to other systems as block devices or just using Linux's iSCSI implementation or even (yuck) ATAoE
4. Using Samba and/or NFS to share volumes for temporary mappings (as opposed to the permanent mappings with (g)nbd
This is what I was planning on doing. What makes ZFS and RAID-Z better than the above options, which I find to be very easy to implement?
You sound suspiciously like a creationist... Don't be that guy.