Bzzt. This is another example of STUPID PEOPLE. First of all, these hits I assume are coming from people with static IP only. Now, second of all, people need to know how to set up their DNS settings. In the Win2K/XP DNS setup applet tab, there is a checkbox labeled 'register this connection's address in DNS.' This is meant to integrate with Win2K DDNS, but you should disable it otherwise. The people whose servers this is coming from are MORONS and should not be sysadmins. They should be taken out back and shot by firing squad. If you call yourself a "sysadmin" you should definitely know about this. It's existed since 1999.... and it's news today? Uhhh.... it's been happening since then. Other places with static IP (like universities for example) distribute literature about setting up your resnet connection for newbies/idiots. They explicitly say to disable DDNS (and show you how to do it with pretty pictures). Maybe we need to print up Win2k and MacOS coloring books for retarded sysadmins.
3. Suns usability team created CDE; have you used CDE? Was it usable to you? Ok.. I won't talk about that anymore and no offense to the Usability guys I'm sure you know more about this than I do but CDE just was not a usable product.
CDE is sure 'common' but it's not very usable at all. It's clunky and slow, and the CDE dock bar is not very intuitive to customize...
I think people need to look to the original vanilla Windows 95 / Windows NT4 desktops in terms of what is the most usable. It was simple and very fast. CDE is by no means fast, and yes, this includes when logged into a sparcstation! A simple, fast desktop with a taskbar-like thingie, a couple of xterms, and you've got the killer *nix desktop. None of that customization shit. Shoot, I run WinXP and I have it set to old-skool Windows 200 style... yes, it's the least "customized" but it's also the most efficient setup. Damnit, if you're at work you need to code and get stuff done efficiently, not worry about what your desktop looks like.
An hour at a Tivo-like quality would take over 2GB, which was a problem, because the program wrote only to one file, and the file size was limited to 2GB.
Funny you should mention that since it really makes me wonder about this Creative "filesystem on top of a filesystem" implementation... NTFS supports file sizes in the terabyte-range unlike FAT, so I wonder if this is all done in a way to allow backwards compatibility with FAT. I'm sorry, but for the requirements the article specifies/recommends, you'd think this person would be runnning Windows 2000 or XP anyway. It's kinda analogous to instead of having swap partition(s) in Linux, you just create normal paritions and dd a bunch of swapfiles onto them. Pretty stupid if you ask me.
With a fast CPU, wizzy graphics card, ethernet, DVD and TV out, it would be a handy thing in the living room if it ran a real OS.
If you are so f**king concerned with running Linux on your TV set in the living room, build a computer with a graphics card, ethernet, DVD, and TV out and hook it the fuck up to your TV set. Quit bitching about a what is in all reality A VIDEO GAME CONSOLE. It's not meant to be a PC.
Well, considering they are from a slum, I'd assume they'd use The PIMP. Kinda like The GIMP, but, unlike Wilber, he isn't furry, he just wears a furry hat...
I understand that. But, if you look at what he says, it just doesn't correlate to the hard core benchmark data. If what he says is true, than Apache on Windows should have more than triple the performance of Apache on *nix. Cause, if it is equal to IIS, and Apache on *nix hasn't really changed, then the data still specifies that Windows based servers in this case are a ton faster than *nix web servers. If that was true no one would be running *nix anymore.
But maybe it is true and everyone should move to Windows 200 Adv server. 8-)
They acknowledge that IIS had 10 security alerts this past week but offer no equivalent stat for Apache.
I believe this might be alluding to "Q319733: Internet Information Services Security Roll-up Package" which in a nutshell is a cumulative hotfix for all the exploits in IIS up to date. But then again, this guy is just a technical writer; he's probably never seen a server in his life.
Microsoft and other commercial software companies write software, license and sell it for a profit, which pisses off the open source community. Story at 11.
I've also never been all that impressed with the MS config tools using MS specific terminology which I have to look up in help files to figure out what they're talking about
Yeah, I know the feeling. Here, I'm in the IIS admin applet right now. Let's see if some of these are giving you trouble:
"TCP Port" That's a toughie.
"IP Address" Ouch it's gettin' harder.
"Home Directory" Oooh shiiiit... what was that again?
"Read/Write/Allow Directory Browsing" Directory Browsing? Is that like uh, ls?
"Execute permissions: Scripts/Scripts and Executables/None" Huh? You mean like Apache.exe? What's an executable?
"App Protection: Isolated/Pooled/In-process" Oh man, you like, have to be an uber-geek to figure that one out!
"Default document" What's index.htm do? I forgot. And what's this index.asp stuff anyway? Is it like PHP or perl or something?
"Document footer" Footer? Hah! Sounds like cooter! It must be one of those dirty Easter eggs that MS puts in their programs! Or maybe it has something to do with shoe size.
"IP Address and Domain restrictions" Uhh, what's an IP address again?
"Authentication Control" Who is this "anonymous" person and what does he have to do with IIS? Is he related to that Anonymous Coward guy?
"MIME Types" Heh, I hate mimes too. Reminds me of the good old days in the park.
"Custom error pages" Wots a 404?
Yes, this "MS Specific terminology" is sure a killer, all right. Man, if I got a hold of Bill Gates I'd let him have it with him inventing terms like "IP Address," "MIME type," and "executable." And that "home directory" stuff is just going too far.
Traditionally, IIS on Windows was the leader of the pack on static web serving, beating Apache on Linux by a factor of about 4.5 to 1, Windows (5500 req/s vs ~1200 req/s). Apache on Windows scrubbed the bottom of the graph at a measly 500 (yes, five hundred) req/s. Now, suddenly, Apache 2 for Windows is beating/matching IIS? That would effectively place it in the lead of every other web server on the market, free and commercial. Yet at the same time Apache for Linux and other Unicies is retaining "approximately the same performance." (~1200 req/s). So, what's the moral of the story here? Everyone running a unix box should throw it out, install a copy of NT or 2k and install Apache and be home free?
Of course not. The attitude of the journalist is evidently anti-MS.
Which would mean, if these numbers were in fact true (I don't remember reading any numbers in the article anyway), that Apache on Windows is about 4.5 times faster than it is on Linux and Unix.
Once again, it doesn't make sense. This guy is tying two granny knots with a loop, and it ain't happenin'.
I'd really like some information on these tests that they ran. What, did they run an ASP database call on IIS and compare it to a print "Hello, world\n"; perl script on Apache? Come on, there is obviously something fishy going on here.
I trust this article like I trust The Register... about as far as I can throw the box it's running on (and that, my geeky friends, is not very far at all).
Other than being a really cool idea, this is a great tactical move from Google. On the one hand, by restricting the number of queries made to Google, they ensure that their APIs aren't misused/compromised, it also gives companies an initiative to purchase Google products and deploy this API (probably an unrestricted-query API) on their own network. Furthermore, an API such as this will easily muscle out any sniff of a competition from other search engine wannabes. Google has managed to do all this and yet be as compliant to an Open Source initiative as possible. Remarkable.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL... WTF are first graders doing on Suns? Running MATLAB? Using vi? Compiling with gcc? Enlighten me!
Bzzt. This is another example of STUPID PEOPLE. First of all, these hits I assume are coming from people with static IP only. Now, second of all, people need to know how to set up their DNS settings. In the Win2K/XP DNS setup applet tab, there is a checkbox labeled 'register this connection's address in DNS.' This is meant to integrate with Win2K DDNS, but you should disable it otherwise. The people whose servers this is coming from are MORONS and should not be sysadmins. They should be taken out back and shot by firing squad. If you call yourself a "sysadmin" you should definitely know about this. It's existed since 1999.... and it's news today? Uhhh.... it's been happening since then. Other places with static IP (like universities for example) distribute literature about setting up your resnet connection for newbies/idiots. They explicitly say to disable DDNS (and show you how to do it with pretty pictures). Maybe we need to print up Win2k and MacOS coloring books for retarded sysadmins.
3. Suns usability team created CDE; have you used CDE? Was it usable to you? Ok.. I won't talk about that anymore and no offense to the Usability guys I'm sure you know more about this than I do but CDE just was not a usable product.
CDE is sure 'common' but it's not very usable at all. It's clunky and slow, and the CDE dock bar is not very intuitive to customize...
I think people need to look to the original vanilla Windows 95 / Windows NT4 desktops in terms of what is the most usable. It was simple and very fast. CDE is by no means fast, and yes, this includes when logged into a sparcstation! A simple, fast desktop with a taskbar-like thingie, a couple of xterms, and you've got the killer *nix desktop. None of that customization shit. Shoot, I run WinXP and I have it set to old-skool Windows 200 style... yes, it's the least "customized" but it's also the most efficient setup. Damnit, if you're at work you need to code and get stuff done efficiently, not worry about what your desktop looks like.
HTML-ize the file system browser too?
Hasn't KDE already done this?
An hour at a Tivo-like quality would take over 2GB, which was a problem, because the program wrote only to one file, and the file size was limited to 2GB.
Funny you should mention that since it really makes me wonder about this Creative "filesystem on top of a filesystem" implementation... NTFS supports file sizes in the terabyte-range unlike FAT, so I wonder if this is all done in a way to allow backwards compatibility with FAT. I'm sorry, but for the requirements the article specifies/recommends, you'd think this person would be runnning Windows 2000 or XP anyway. It's kinda analogous to instead of having swap partition(s) in Linux, you just create normal paritions and dd a bunch of swapfiles onto them. Pretty stupid if you ask me.
Funny you mention that because RCA really manufactures/designs the XBox. Microsoft is really the puppeteer to the puppet, as so to speak.
With a fast CPU, wizzy graphics card, ethernet, DVD and TV out, it would be a handy thing in the living room if it ran a real OS.
If you are so f**king concerned with running Linux on your TV set in the living room, build a computer with a graphics card, ethernet, DVD, and TV out and hook it the fuck up to your TV set. Quit bitching about a what is in all reality A VIDEO GAME CONSOLE. It's not meant to be a PC.
RMS is dead folks, from first post.
He should have put Office on those PCs too, to see how long it took the little urchins to begin hating Clippy!
Clippy? Nah, I'd figure they'd be using the new MS Agent character persona... "Larry the Leper"
Well, considering they are from a slum, I'd assume they'd use The PIMP. Kinda like The GIMP, but, unlike Wilber, he isn't furry, he just wears a furry hat...
Is told the professor that the code he copied was licensed under the GPL, so it's all good.
Here is a way do disable this nasty bug. It should work in all affected versions of IE:
1. Right click the toolbar, and select "Customize"
2. Select "Back" in the list marked "Current toolbar buttons"
3. Click the "Remove" button.
4. Click close.
There! Now that bug has been squashed. I suggest you implement this in all corporate deployments of IE pronto.
Enough that I'm probably going to switch to Mozilla as my default browser once 1.0 comes out.
That is, if you're still alive...
I understand that. But, if you look at what he says, it just doesn't correlate to the hard core benchmark data. If what he says is true, than Apache on Windows should have more than triple the performance of Apache on *nix. Cause, if it is equal to IIS, and Apache on *nix hasn't really changed, then the data still specifies that Windows based servers in this case are a ton faster than *nix web servers. If that was true no one would be running *nix anymore.
But maybe it is true and everyone should move to Windows 200 Adv server. 8-)
They acknowledge that IIS had 10 security alerts this past week but offer no equivalent stat for Apache.
I believe this might be alluding to "Q319733: Internet Information Services Security Roll-up Package" which in a nutshell is a cumulative hotfix for all the exploits in IIS up to date. But then again, this guy is just a technical writer; he's probably never seen a server in his life.
The nice thing about the GPL is that all interpretations of it are open source as well.
I hate this sig
Hate all you want, you know I'm right.
KDE does not deliberately cripple other browsers so people will use Konquerer.
Last time I checked, Windows didn't 'cripple' any other browsers either. BTW, spelling is a good skill to have.
Microsoft and other commercial software companies write software, license and sell it for a profit, which pisses off the open source community. Story at 11.
I've also never been all that impressed with the MS config tools using MS specific terminology which I have to look up in help files to figure out what they're talking about
Yeah, I know the feeling. Here, I'm in the IIS admin applet right now. Let's see if some of these are giving you trouble:
"TCP Port" That's a toughie.
"IP Address" Ouch it's gettin' harder.
"Home Directory" Oooh shiiiit... what was that again?
"Read/Write/Allow Directory Browsing" Directory Browsing? Is that like uh, ls?
"Execute permissions: Scripts/Scripts and Executables/None" Huh? You mean like Apache.exe? What's an executable?
"App Protection: Isolated/Pooled/In-process" Oh man, you like, have to be an uber-geek to figure that one out!
"Default document" What's index.htm do? I forgot. And what's this index.asp stuff anyway? Is it like PHP or perl or something?
"Document footer" Footer? Hah! Sounds like cooter! It must be one of those dirty Easter eggs that MS puts in their programs! Or maybe it has something to do with shoe size.
"IP Address and Domain restrictions" Uhh, what's an IP address again?
"Authentication Control" Who is this "anonymous" person and what does he have to do with IIS? Is he related to that Anonymous Coward guy?
"MIME Types" Heh, I hate mimes too. Reminds me of the good old days in the park.
"Custom error pages" Wots a 404?
Yes, this "MS Specific terminology" is sure a killer, all right. Man, if I got a hold of Bill Gates I'd let him have it with him inventing terms like "IP Address," "MIME type," and "executable." And that "home directory" stuff is just going too far.
This article is filled with misinformation.
Somehow... the numbers don't add up.
Traditionally, IIS on Windows was the leader of the pack on static web serving, beating Apache on Linux by a factor of about 4.5 to 1, Windows (5500 req/s vs ~1200 req/s). Apache on Windows scrubbed the bottom of the graph at a measly 500 (yes, five hundred) req/s. Now, suddenly, Apache 2 for Windows is beating/matching IIS? That would effectively place it in the lead of every other web server on the market, free and commercial. Yet at the same time Apache for Linux and other Unicies is retaining "approximately the same performance." (~1200 req/s). So, what's the moral of the story here? Everyone running a unix box should throw it out, install a copy of NT or 2k and install Apache and be home free?
Of course not. The attitude of the journalist is evidently anti-MS.
Which would mean, if these numbers were in fact true (I don't remember reading any numbers in the article anyway), that Apache on Windows is about 4.5 times faster than it is on Linux and Unix.
Once again, it doesn't make sense. This guy is tying two granny knots with a loop, and it ain't happenin'.
I'd really like some information on these tests that they ran. What, did they run an ASP database call on IIS and compare it to a print "Hello, world\n"; perl script on Apache? Come on, there is obviously something fishy going on here.
I trust this article like I trust The Register... about as far as I can throw the box it's running on (and that, my geeky friends, is not very far at all).
Broken IIS
Quietly wanking admin
Leaves hole for hacker
KDE rules the first post. But WinXP Rules KDE.
Oh wait...
Other than being a really cool idea, this is a great tactical move from Google. On the one hand, by restricting the number of queries made to Google, they ensure that their APIs aren't misused/compromised, it also gives companies an initiative to purchase Google products and deploy this API (probably an unrestricted-query API) on their own network. Furthermore, an API such as this will easily muscle out any sniff of a competition from other search engine wannabes. Google has managed to do all this and yet be as compliant to an Open Source initiative as possible. Remarkable.
Currently active TCP connections
Local Remote State Retransmissions Timer Flags
6510 68.53.74.100:3127 SYN-RCVD 0 3 *
6510 195.197.177.165:46743 SYN-RCVD 4 8 *
6510 62.23.145.66:28401 ESTABLISHED 0 3 *
6510 144.134.31.152:1599 SYN-RCVD 1 3 *
6510 68.53.3.20:2035 ESTABLISHED 7 38 *
6510 67.82.198.141:63434 ESTABLISHED 6 24 *
6510 68.0.176.210:3466 LAST-ACK 6 35 *
6510 193.10.66.107:4831 FIN-WAIT-1 0 2 *
6510 132.170.42.189:3313 SYN-RCVD 7 1 *
Maybe it's just that time of night...