Checksums would still give a nice big performance hit because you'd have to read-in the entire file first, calculate a checksum, and then compare it to the one on file. Sounds like a hit to me.
Let's be real about this. The biggest problem today isn't viruses. It's spyware. Something that the top virus scanners still have a spotty history picking up.
I haven't gotten a virus on any of the machines I use for years, and the last one was a piece of shit spyware that hid itself as a rootkit. It didn't do anything except show me ads.
Yea, I didn't say otherwise. I only said that I don't like real-time scanning, not that I preferred ClamAV in any way. ClamWin is excessively slow scanning things. AVG is a close second. Symantec is pretty fast.
Why should I scan removable devices? The only removable devices I use are my own removable devices..
At least with Symantec AV (Corp) you can select inclusion or exclusion lists for files to scan. You can only set "On access" or "On Write" globally, but you can pick just certain folders to scan. Of course, because all on-access type scanners have a filesystem shim, you won't completely avoid the performance hit on things you're not scanning but it will be a small hit.
I don't want my AV scanner to scan every file on my machine everytime I use them or write to them. It's a horrible waste of disk performance - and it DOES affect disk performance.
I scan things with ClamAV when I download them and that's about it. Works for me.
I did find the name selection a bit peculiar myself. I mean, out of all of the words in the English language - they decide to use one that is tightly associated with Mozilla?
I can't understand the motivation behind that. It's quite possible that the name didn't stem from Mozilla's use of the word chrome, but shouldn't they have changed it at some point just to differentiate?
Google's new, feature weak browser that runs on Windows only. Ohh, wow, so they'll release it on Linux and MacOS now, sweet!
I really could care less. Once Firefox was released I switched to that and have found absolutely no compelling reason to use anything else. Not IE7, not Opera, not Chrome.
It's pretty obvious that Google wants a new browser that they can implement their own extensions and such on so they can deliver better web applications to your desktop. It really sounds just like Internet Explorer all over again.
There's only so much you can do with an icon that small.
I don't like the new inverse/transparent G as at first glance you can't even tell it's a G. But whatever. Someone at Google needs to feed their family so if Google is willing to pay someone to come up with this crap then more power to them.
So what you're saying is, that me - a guy from Rhode Island - needs to provide documentation and quantifiable proof to you - some random dude on the Internet?
Why don't you prove to me the reason we SHOULD NOT provide Internet access to all our citizens? And don't give me that "we're talking about broadband here" bullshit because dial-up just isn't going to work these days. The front page on Digg is over 100K worth of HTML download, without clicking a single thing. Many web sites are a lot more than that. To actually use the modern Internet you NEED "broadband" access.
You are still spouting your nonsense about cost/benefit ratios. I don't think we should talk ONLY cost/benefit when it comes to the education of our children or the abilities for our businesses to be competitive. This is my opinion, and I'm not going to write a thesis to prove it to YOU. My new president is already on my side on this one.
You can take your analysis and shove it up your ass, unless you can provide any sort of analysis as to why NOT do this for our people. You can try to make my argument sound small by mentioning some shitkicker little town somewhere, but there's actually a lot of those towns out there and they make up a very big percentage of our population. And there's some pretty populated parts of our country without a decent high speed infrastructure, and that needs to be fixed.
I just can't understand your cold, un-compassionate position on this. I guess you're all about the dollar and nothing else. I'm glad I'm not like you.
The government isn't going to say "YOU MUST RUN HIGH SPEED INTERNET TO SHITTOWN USA." At least, I doubt they will for a long time.
It will provide incentives to run new high speed internet lines. Tax breaks. Subsidizing the cost.
So if Verizon has a tax break to run new fiber, they'll start at the more profitable areas and then work down to the least - just like now, except that the reach of the ISP will be much farther.
Subsidies and tax incentives shouldn't come with no string attached. Many times, when this happens the company that actually lays out the lines must least them to competition, as well.
You seem live in a fantasy world where capitalism is best and it's all about the mighty dollar. Are those 50 million kids without internet access worth the MONEY? I say they are, because we NEED those kids to get online, to have access to the technology, and to keep our country competitive in the world economy. You think people should all move to the big cities instead. Yea, good idea.
Or, we could say "naa, you're not worth the money" and end up shooting ourselves in the foot 30 years down the road when all the new talent is coming from the countries where Internet access isn't considered a privilege for people living in the urban areas only.
There's more to growing our society than just "Why should *I* pay for YOUR KIDS." I don't have kids, I don't plan to, and I still don't mind some of my tax dollars going to the education of our children. I put Internet in the same category.
Of course, it's not just about kids. It's about adults getting access as well, and businesses in those areas.
I won't re-hash everything I've already said, and you've already made up your mind and seem closed to the possibility that this should be done at all. So we'll leave it at that.
Ahh, I see. You're trying to use the "If you don't like it, MOVE!" argument.
That's such crap in so many ways. People shouldn't have to uproot their entire lives for something that should be a utility, like decent Internet access. The Internet has become so ambiguous that it's practically required to get along in the modern world.
Besides that, the kids of these people living in the more remote places don't have a choice. A 10 year old kid can't just up and move to one of the coasts to get decent Internet access.
Why should we leave a pretty big chunk of our population behind when there's some really bright people that could benefit all of us if they could?
That's such an ignorant argument that it's disappointing to see it regurgitated once again. And then you try to make some lame comparison to food? Whatever, it doesn't even make sense.
The US Government isn't going to go into the ISP business. What they WILL do is help finance and give tax incentives to actual commercial ISP's in order to get them to run lines to everywhere people live.
Right now, it's too expensive to run high speed fiber optic lines to small towns in the mid west. With incentives, Verizon could subsidize some of this initial investment with the government and run those lines. The system will be owned and operated by Verizon, not the US government.
I use Verizon as an example; it could be any business.
I think this is a necessary evil to get all of our citizens connected to the Internet. I don't love the idea completely but we will be left in the dust by other competing markets because these other governments ARE doing this, and their people are benefiting with very fast Internet connections, whereas a lot of the people in the US are still on Dial-up.
Yea - it would definately be cool. One problem I've always had with hard-surface keyboards is that they are uncomfortable to type with for much more than a short e-mail. When you are taping your fingers on a hard surface it actually does start to hurt after awhile. Keyboards provide a cushion which prevents your fingertips from aching.
Also, the keyboard is a tactile device and I don't look down much when I type; I've been typing for more than 20 years. Without the feel of the spacing between keys and/or the home key notches I'd have to keep looking down to make sure my fingers were in the right place.
I guess a big touch screen with a built-in keyboard somewhere wouldn't be bad; or a keyboard that when you move around the table it would automatically move things away from it so you don't block anything with it would be okay.
There's just so many hurdles to going completely touch without keyboard and mouse. Not saying it's not worth trying but at this point I can't see it being more than a nitche product for things like drafting, drawing, and displaying data in a graphical way (allowing you to manipulate the data with your hands.) For small devices and Kiosks it's already THE way to go right now.
It works both ways. I don't think using "-based" invalidates the statement, and in fact it signifies a system BASED on touching, rather than a single action or function.
The drafting table idea isn't perfect. You don't usually get to sit in a very comfortable position in front of a drafting table - you sit on a small seat - usually with a small or no back to lean on. You hunch over the table and look down on it - while better than looking at a completely flat desk, it's not a great solution either.
For someone that is going to be writing code, typing, or anything else on the computer (besides perhaps CAD) for a full work day, 5 days a week - the drafting table solution isn't much of a solution at all.
You miss the point so absurdly. The problem isn't a screen you LOOK at; the problem is that your screen, sitting on it's stand, makes for an uncomfortable keyboard. (Hint: You have to keep your arms raised.)
It also makes an uncomfortable mouse. It can be bad enough having to move your fingers off the keyboard to reach for the mouse - imaging having to reach up to a screen to touch something?
The mouse and keyboard are pretty damned near perfect human interface devices and it's going to take a major overhaul of the workspace, UI design, and software in general to eliminate them. To make it feasible for the workplace, you're also going to need some sort of voice recognition that is smart and can determine if you're talking to the computer or the person sitting next to you.
Touch computing is fantastic for things like kiosks, small devices, and one-off systems such as the Microsoft "table" computer thing. But not for general purpose computing. Not for a long time, if ever - who knows, by then something better might come along.
The difference between OWA in IE and other browsers is quite a lot. Drag and drop, advanced editing features, better overall interface..
They've improved OWA for non-IE browsers in Exchange 2007 but it's just a joke. There's no reason they can't make OWA with all the bells and whistles by using standard web browser features. I've seen it done on some other web mail clients. Microsoft is a joke when it comes to their obvious attempts to force people to use their browser.
I really only use IETab for Outlook Web Access. although perfectly doable to make OWA just as functional in any browser as IE, Microsoft keeps on making OWA suck for non-IE browsers.
So, I IETab for OWA and that's pretty much it. There's the occational site out there that STILL requires IE to render properly but generally those are just shit little sites, or sites that use the Media Player plug-in that doesn't work correctly on Firefox + x64 Vista.
Heck, even if the Intel solution might be a LITTLE better, I'll still pick AMD a lot of times.
And, at work I have the say as to what systems our clients will order for VMware hosts, and I always pick Opterons, even if they're a little more expensive. With AMD you get better multi-core performance when you're using a lot of RAM - perfect for VMware.
This is likely to change when Intel releases their Server CPU's with what is basically HyperTransport and an embedded memory controller (which they said was a BAD idea...) But I'll still choose AMD because I want to support the company that's moving the technology forward.
When you think about all of the big improvements to the x86 architecture in the last 10 years, it's almost all AMD innovations. A high-speed interconnect bus with no north bridge. An integrated memory controller. x64. The list goes on - AMD led the way, and it's amazing the arrogance you hear from the executives and product managers at Intel. They actually had the balls to say, when questioned about the similarities between Intel's new CPU and Athlon/Opteron, "Smart people can come up with the same ideas." Ohh, sure they can, but these engineers haven't been living in a box for the last 8 years, so that's utter bullshit. Unbelievable.
Yes, but you fail to note that the P4 was designed to reach insane clock speeds (which it never ended up being able to do.)
You can't get a Core 2 CPU to run at 5Ghz no matter how hard you try.
What this proves for AMD's CPU is that the architecture is able to handle 6Ghz, and the only problem is heat. Heat is a big problem, sure, but it's delt with every day in all sorts of new and creative ways - but usually just from reducing fab size and lowering voltage.
I personally don't care much anymore about who's CPU is 5% faster than the other. I choose what gives me the best options.. And I really have had excellent results with AMD's processors in the past. I have a few Core 2 based machines and they're nice too, no doubt. It just doesn't really matter anymore.
IT is a pretty lucrative field, so I find it strange that "appeal" would have much to do with it. If I weren't into computers I'd look for a career that would pay me well, be it welding or whatever. The fact that there's so few women in IT tells me that too many women think it's just "too hard" or they don't care about the money as much as men do.
"False - distcc does require the same version of the OS. I've tried using distcc to spread compilation of the kernel across a ubuntu & redhat machine that I have (both x64), and it refused."
You didn't read my post or you have low comprehension skills. I said "Depending on the source you're compiling."
A Kernel build might require specific libraries to be the same version. Building Firefox might not. Some apps you can build on Linux and use a cygwin box running distcc to help. Others you cannot.
It's not a RULE. It depends the the source. That's what I said. Then again you might have actually realized that and that's why you posted AC.
Well, not days, hours. Historically, Gentoo has provided some binary packages for software that takes an undue amount of time to compile and won't affect the rest of the system if compiled with generic options.
If I recall correctly, OpenOffice was one such package.
Slashdot Mirror
Checksums would still give a nice big performance hit because you'd have to read-in the entire file first, calculate a checksum, and then compare it to the one on file. Sounds like a hit to me.
Let's be real about this. The biggest problem today isn't viruses. It's spyware. Something that the top virus scanners still have a spotty history picking up.
I haven't gotten a virus on any of the machines I use for years, and the last one was a piece of shit spyware that hid itself as a rootkit. It didn't do anything except show me ads.
Yea, I didn't say otherwise. I only said that I don't like real-time scanning, not that I preferred ClamAV in any way. ClamWin is excessively slow scanning things. AVG is a close second. Symantec is pretty fast.
Why should I scan removable devices? The only removable devices I use are my own removable devices..
At least with Symantec AV (Corp) you can select inclusion or exclusion lists for files to scan. You can only set "On access" or "On Write" globally, but you can pick just certain folders to scan. Of course, because all on-access type scanners have a filesystem shim, you won't completely avoid the performance hit on things you're not scanning but it will be a small hit.
I don't want my AV scanner to scan every file on my machine everytime I use them or write to them. It's a horrible waste of disk performance - and it DOES affect disk performance.
I scan things with ClamAV when I download them and that's about it. Works for me.
Are you really that dim or are you just having a bad day?
I did find the name selection a bit peculiar myself. I mean, out of all of the words in the English language - they decide to use one that is tightly associated with Mozilla?
I can't understand the motivation behind that. It's quite possible that the name didn't stem from Mozilla's use of the word chrome, but shouldn't they have changed it at some point just to differentiate?
Google's new, feature weak browser that runs on Windows only. Ohh, wow, so they'll release it on Linux and MacOS now, sweet!
I really could care less. Once Firefox was released I switched to that and have found absolutely no compelling reason to use anything else. Not IE7, not Opera, not Chrome.
It's pretty obvious that Google wants a new browser that they can implement their own extensions and such on so they can deliver better web applications to your desktop. It really sounds just like Internet Explorer all over again.
There's only so much you can do with an icon that small.
I don't like the new inverse/transparent G as at first glance you can't even tell it's a G. But whatever. Someone at Google needs to feed their family so if Google is willing to pay someone to come up with this crap then more power to them.
So what you're saying is, that me - a guy from Rhode Island - needs to provide documentation and quantifiable proof to you - some random dude on the Internet?
Why don't you prove to me the reason we SHOULD NOT provide Internet access to all our citizens? And don't give me that "we're talking about broadband here" bullshit because dial-up just isn't going to work these days. The front page on Digg is over 100K worth of HTML download, without clicking a single thing. Many web sites are a lot more than that. To actually use the modern Internet you NEED "broadband" access.
You are still spouting your nonsense about cost/benefit ratios. I don't think we should talk ONLY cost/benefit when it comes to the education of our children or the abilities for our businesses to be competitive. This is my opinion, and I'm not going to write a thesis to prove it to YOU. My new president is already on my side on this one.
You can take your analysis and shove it up your ass, unless you can provide any sort of analysis as to why NOT do this for our people. You can try to make my argument sound small by mentioning some shitkicker little town somewhere, but there's actually a lot of those towns out there and they make up a very big percentage of our population. And there's some pretty populated parts of our country without a decent high speed infrastructure, and that needs to be fixed.
I just can't understand your cold, un-compassionate position on this. I guess you're all about the dollar and nothing else. I'm glad I'm not like you.
You *still* don't understand how it would work.
The government isn't going to say "YOU MUST RUN HIGH SPEED INTERNET TO SHITTOWN USA." At least, I doubt they will for a long time.
It will provide incentives to run new high speed internet lines. Tax breaks. Subsidizing the cost.
So if Verizon has a tax break to run new fiber, they'll start at the more profitable areas and then work down to the least - just like now, except that the reach of the ISP will be much farther.
Subsidies and tax incentives shouldn't come with no string attached. Many times, when this happens the company that actually lays out the lines must least them to competition, as well.
You seem live in a fantasy world where capitalism is best and it's all about the mighty dollar. Are those 50 million kids without internet access worth the MONEY? I say they are, because we NEED those kids to get online, to have access to the technology, and to keep our country competitive in the world economy. You think people should all move to the big cities instead. Yea, good idea.
Or, we could say "naa, you're not worth the money" and end up shooting ourselves in the foot 30 years down the road when all the new talent is coming from the countries where Internet access isn't considered a privilege for people living in the urban areas only.
There's more to growing our society than just "Why should *I* pay for YOUR KIDS." I don't have kids, I don't plan to, and I still don't mind some of my tax dollars going to the education of our children. I put Internet in the same category.
Of course, it's not just about kids. It's about adults getting access as well, and businesses in those areas.
I won't re-hash everything I've already said, and you've already made up your mind and seem closed to the possibility that this should be done at all. So we'll leave it at that.
Ahh, I see. You're trying to use the "If you don't like it, MOVE!" argument.
That's such crap in so many ways. People shouldn't have to uproot their entire lives for something that should be a utility, like decent Internet access. The Internet has become so ambiguous that it's practically required to get along in the modern world.
Besides that, the kids of these people living in the more remote places don't have a choice. A 10 year old kid can't just up and move to one of the coasts to get decent Internet access.
Why should we leave a pretty big chunk of our population behind when there's some really bright people that could benefit all of us if they could?
That's such an ignorant argument that it's disappointing to see it regurgitated once again. And then you try to make some lame comparison to food? Whatever, it doesn't even make sense.
Use your brains.
Dumbasses, the whole lot of you.
The US Government isn't going to go into the ISP business. What they WILL do is help finance and give tax incentives to actual commercial ISP's in order to get them to run lines to everywhere people live.
Right now, it's too expensive to run high speed fiber optic lines to small towns in the mid west. With incentives, Verizon could subsidize some of this initial investment with the government and run those lines. The system will be owned and operated by Verizon, not the US government.
I use Verizon as an example; it could be any business.
I think this is a necessary evil to get all of our citizens connected to the Internet. I don't love the idea completely but we will be left in the dust by other competing markets because these other governments ARE doing this, and their people are benefiting with very fast Internet connections, whereas a lot of the people in the US are still on Dial-up.
Yea - it would definately be cool. One problem I've always had with hard-surface keyboards is that they are uncomfortable to type with for much more than a short e-mail. When you are taping your fingers on a hard surface it actually does start to hurt after awhile. Keyboards provide a cushion which prevents your fingertips from aching.
Also, the keyboard is a tactile device and I don't look down much when I type; I've been typing for more than 20 years. Without the feel of the spacing between keys and/or the home key notches I'd have to keep looking down to make sure my fingers were in the right place.
I guess a big touch screen with a built-in keyboard somewhere wouldn't be bad; or a keyboard that when you move around the table it would automatically move things away from it so you don't block anything with it would be okay.
There's just so many hurdles to going completely touch without keyboard and mouse. Not saying it's not worth trying but at this point I can't see it being more than a nitche product for things like drafting, drawing, and displaying data in a graphical way (allowing you to manipulate the data with your hands.) For small devices and Kiosks it's already THE way to go right now.
It works both ways. I don't think using "-based" invalidates the statement, and in fact it signifies a system BASED on touching, rather than a single action or function.
The drafting table idea isn't perfect. You don't usually get to sit in a very comfortable position in front of a drafting table - you sit on a small seat - usually with a small or no back to lean on. You hunch over the table and look down on it - while better than looking at a completely flat desk, it's not a great solution either.
For someone that is going to be writing code, typing, or anything else on the computer (besides perhaps CAD) for a full work day, 5 days a week - the drafting table solution isn't much of a solution at all.
So, you're proposing a small monitor - with a high resolution - that gets "optically blown up?"
Pretty sure there's going to be enough prior art to stop your patent. (hint: they're called projectors.)
You miss the point so absurdly. The problem isn't a screen you LOOK at; the problem is that your screen, sitting on it's stand, makes for an uncomfortable keyboard. (Hint: You have to keep your arms raised.)
It also makes an uncomfortable mouse. It can be bad enough having to move your fingers off the keyboard to reach for the mouse - imaging having to reach up to a screen to touch something?
The mouse and keyboard are pretty damned near perfect human interface devices and it's going to take a major overhaul of the workspace, UI design, and software in general to eliminate them. To make it feasible for the workplace, you're also going to need some sort of voice recognition that is smart and can determine if you're talking to the computer or the person sitting next to you.
Touch computing is fantastic for things like kiosks, small devices, and one-off systems such as the Microsoft "table" computer thing. But not for general purpose computing. Not for a long time, if ever - who knows, by then something better might come along.
The difference between OWA in IE and other browsers is quite a lot. Drag and drop, advanced editing features, better overall interface..
They've improved OWA for non-IE browsers in Exchange 2007 but it's just a joke. There's no reason they can't make OWA with all the bells and whistles by using standard web browser features. I've seen it done on some other web mail clients. Microsoft is a joke when it comes to their obvious attempts to force people to use their browser.
I really only use IETab for Outlook Web Access. although perfectly doable to make OWA just as functional in any browser as IE, Microsoft keeps on making OWA suck for non-IE browsers.
So, I IETab for OWA and that's pretty much it. There's the occational site out there that STILL requires IE to render properly but generally those are just shit little sites, or sites that use the Media Player plug-in that doesn't work correctly on Firefox + x64 Vista.
Absolutely. I agree with you.
Heck, even if the Intel solution might be a LITTLE better, I'll still pick AMD a lot of times.
And, at work I have the say as to what systems our clients will order for VMware hosts, and I always pick Opterons, even if they're a little more expensive. With AMD you get better multi-core performance when you're using a lot of RAM - perfect for VMware.
This is likely to change when Intel releases their Server CPU's with what is basically HyperTransport and an embedded memory controller (which they said was a BAD idea...) But I'll still choose AMD because I want to support the company that's moving the technology forward.
When you think about all of the big improvements to the x86 architecture in the last 10 years, it's almost all AMD innovations. A high-speed interconnect bus with no north bridge. An integrated memory controller. x64. The list goes on - AMD led the way, and it's amazing the arrogance you hear from the executives and product managers at Intel. They actually had the balls to say, when questioned about the similarities between Intel's new CPU and Athlon/Opteron, "Smart people can come up with the same ideas." Ohh, sure they can, but these engineers haven't been living in a box for the last 8 years, so that's utter bullshit. Unbelievable.
Yes, but you fail to note that the P4 was designed to reach insane clock speeds (which it never ended up being able to do.)
You can't get a Core 2 CPU to run at 5Ghz no matter how hard you try.
What this proves for AMD's CPU is that the architecture is able to handle 6Ghz, and the only problem is heat. Heat is a big problem, sure, but it's delt with every day in all sorts of new and creative ways - but usually just from reducing fab size and lowering voltage.
I personally don't care much anymore about who's CPU is 5% faster than the other. I choose what gives me the best options.. And I really have had excellent results with AMD's processors in the past. I have a few Core 2 based machines and they're nice too, no doubt. It just doesn't really matter anymore.
Microsoft doesn't have much to fear from Apple and won't for still some time even if Apple keeps slowly increasing their market share.
What you see here is an interest in the competition, a dialog to consider improving your own product in response to a competitor.
Sounds like the market actually working, but it's not fear.
IT is a pretty lucrative field, so I find it strange that "appeal" would have much to do with it. If I weren't into computers I'd look for a career that would pay me well, be it welding or whatever. The fact that there's so few women in IT tells me that too many women think it's just "too hard" or they don't care about the money as much as men do.
"False - distcc does require the same version of the OS. I've tried using distcc to spread compilation of the kernel across a ubuntu & redhat machine that I have (both x64), and it refused."
You didn't read my post or you have low comprehension skills. I said "Depending on the source you're compiling."
A Kernel build might require specific libraries to be the same version. Building Firefox might not. Some apps you can build on Linux and use a cygwin box running distcc to help. Others you cannot.
It's not a RULE. It depends the the source. That's what I said. Then again you might have actually realized that and that's why you posted AC.
Well, not days, hours. Historically, Gentoo has provided some binary packages for software that takes an undue amount of time to compile and won't affect the rest of the system if compiled with generic options.
If I recall correctly, OpenOffice was one such package.
Gentoo isn't that masochistic.
Yea man, that thing is fucking awesome. I love the graphics.
Who said super computing had to be boring?
That's the kind of work I wish I could be doing.. building and configuring those monsters.
That being said, look at the size of that room! If half of it is the computer, then that's one big open space left doing nothing.
I'm sure they'll use it for something eventually.