Just go to pricewatch.com, and find the parts you want. They have a seller rating, and I've never had a bad experience buying anything from vendors that submit prices to Pricewatch.com.
Your experience may vary, but just buy some stuff and find a vendor you like. It's not rocket surgery.
Yea they were. Dell and HP were initially pushing Itanium servers running Windows hard. This was Intel's answer to the 64-bit question.
Who knows, maybe if AMD didn't create AMD64 Itanium would have been more accepted and eventually the prices may have dropped some. But we'll never know, and I'm glad for that. I much prefer x86/x64 running the show, as it's accessible to everyone, including the enthusiast, for running server operating systems.
HP has had some success with Itanium on their HP/UX machines, but pretty much all hope of Itanium as a common CPU in the Enterprise is lost by now.
The same can be said about Itanium. The original Itanium (and even the current ones) were so DAMNED expensive and they didn't offer any real performance increase.
What really killed Itanium was AMD's x64 extensions.
Itanium will be around for awhile but it will never become commonplace outside of high end, massively SMP UNIX servers.
Yea, but think about it: A good GPU from 2006 is still PRETTY DAMNED GOOD!
I'm still using an AGP 6800GT in one of my machines, and it's still trucking. I can't run everything at high quality but it's usable.
Yesterday, Intel made a GPU as good as a GPU from 2002. Today it's 2006. Tomorrow they might be competitive. And honestly, with Intel GPU specs being FAR more open than nVidia or ATI, I welcome it. We might actually be able to get GOOD graphics, completely open sourced drivers, on Linux.
The closest I can get is a Cox cablemodem with a 20/2 for $60/mo. It's not bad. 20Mbit is as much as I need (for awhile) and the 2Mbit is as fast as DOCSIS2 can do.
Cox doesn't throttle or limit you in any way (at least in Rhode Island.) I sometimes download many, many gigabytes (sometimes over 100) in a month and never had a problem.
Well, it IS traffic shaping, but I understand what you're telling him: He's not LOSING anything by their system, he's actually GAINing a big boost for the first few moments.
Yes - behind New Jersey, Rhode Island is the second most densely populated state in the country.
But it also has basically ONE ISP serving the state - Cox Communications. DSL is available to only a very small number of communities, and while Verizon is supposedly rolling out FIOS, they started with a town far from the main city areas and haven't expanded the service at all.
So, because most people can only choose Cox, and their "normal" speed is 5Mbit, it makes sense that RI would rank high. There's no cheapo cheap cheap DSL available everywhere with only 1Mbit service.
Comcast is not a bad ISP. My friend has had it for some time (Seekonk, MA) and while it's not as fast as my Cox cable connection, Comcast has always been extremely resistant to blocking any network ports for their subscribers.
Even when Code Red was the big thing (and when most ISP's started blocking incoming ports for their subscribers) Comcast wrote a script to check for the vulnerability themselves, and would only block 80 on those subscribers with unpatched IIS. Once you fixed your IIS server, you could call them, and they'd run the check and then unblock the port. That went way above and beyond what any other ISP did for their subscribers.
He still has 80, 443, 21, 53, 23, 25 open, while Cox requires that you spend twice as much on their business service for the same service.
In Rhode Island I have a Cox connection too, 20/2, for $50/mo.
I often see 2.3MB/s downloads and 250KB/s uploads. I with the upload was faster, but that's the limit of DOCSIS2 so there's nothing that can be done about that until FIOS is available or Cox upgrades their system to DOCSIS3.
I mean, FIOS is fast and all from what the numbers say, but I don't look forward to being a Verizon customer..
1) Make another comparison of IT to another profession 2) Believe you've come up with something new and whitty
Most jobs tend to have the same basic principals, if you break it down enough.
"IT is like flipping burgers. The burgers represent data, and the customers are the users. You have to find the best way to provide burders (data) to the customers (users) for the lowest cost!"
"i am a it security professional w/10 yrs exp and i recommend bgr passwds."
I'm guessing you're either full of shit, or have the worst security documentation EVER because you can't use capital letters and you can't write decent English.
Security is more than downloading and installing anti-virus software, you know.
Why should the FSF apologize for anything? They're not the ones trying to get everyone locked in to proprietary formats, closed software, and violating rules that say (in the US) that you are legally entitled to use your phone with any carrier?
Sure, this is a dumb little exercise and I think their efforts would be better served elsewhere, the FSF itself does and has done really important work. Without them, we'd have NOBODY truly looking out for consumer rights with technology.
If you want to let one little tiny thing like a few posts on some website make you turn your back on the entire FSF, then you're obviously not a real believer in technology freedom and you only care about what sounds cool. "yea man. I support the FSF. Pass the bowl."
I guess this guys' general idea is that it doesn't matter WHAT the controller is - if the system RAM is read at the split-microsecond before turning off completely, there's a chance that it will take garbage from that RAM read, and commit it to the SCSI controller.
While yes - you can get data corruption from a power failure - it's becoming increasingly more rare. There's a lot of different levels of protection:
It's funny, really. Modern database systems aren't all that difficult to understand. The SQL language is very straight forward, and the surrounding concepts (Stored Procedures, etc) are not rocket science.
But, it's one of those things that just remains a mystery to some people, and there's always the same perpetual misconceptions and misunderstandings about how they work.
Again, it's completely besides the point. You can get SSL certs for whatever domain, and use it to scam or not scam and Verisign doesn't have enough controls to prevent it.
So again, you're no safer with a special "verified" certificate then one which will simply provide encryption. Some scammer isn't going to care about future lawsuits from a company, either, and even if it's online for only one week it's enough to do damage.
The fact is that SSL certs give people (like you, apparently) a false sense of security - that the site is not only encrypted but guaranteed legit. It should only provide the encryption and let people keep their guard up like they do with any other (non-SSL) site.
I guess it's all your point of view.. but I'm looking at the numbers - 35 replies that are bitching because I didn't cite all sorts of examples and how I must be some sort of anti-Mac person because of it..
I'm going to go with my point of view on this one. It's popular to be a Mac nerd on nerd sites, so that's what more and more people are.
Yea but you can say the same about ANY connection, to anywhere. Using encryption will prevent any man-in-the-middle packet sniffing to get your login/password.
Site verification is one thing, and encryption is a different thing. They should be able to be used independently of each other.
Part of the point I've made is that Verisign is such a huge company with millions of customers and simply doesn't offer enough verification to be useful. If encryption and site verification were separate things, perhaps the verification devision would be more effective.
I guarantee that if I go and try to get a cert for "citibanksystems.com" or something of that nature, I'd be given the cert no questions.
Never said I had a laundry list of problems with OSX. But it's not problem-free by any stretch.
I've also not had a laundry list of problems with Vista, or Ubuntu either. But they've got problems too.
It's been MY experience (admittedly anecdotal) here on Slashdot that there's a hardcore group of Mac users that claim the software is perfect and jump all over anyone that disagrees. Case in point, my original post. I didn't say it sucked, I didn't say I didn't like it - I simply said it's got it's share of problems and I got a whole bunch of people jumping on my ass - almost as if I claimed that GWB was the best president we've ever had.
Ahh, but Verisign certs aren't that expensive, and usually you can get a cert by faxing a form with letterhead or providing a phone number that they might not call.
The problem with SSL over HTTP is that the certificates attempt to do two different (and not necessarily related) things. They provide a way to verify that a web site is run by the company that own it - and they provide an encryption system.
You should be able to do these two things independently of each other. If I want to provide a web site that won't send clear-text passwords over the internet, I shouldn't necessarily have to pay for the extra part of verifying the web address.
It has nothing to do with securing my network, and everything to do with using up my bandwidth, dumbass. Comprehend much?
Besides, you can't just provide free wireless Internet unless your ISP tells you that you can. Providing Internet access to your home has a cost involved, you know. It's not just "providing a service" - it's breaking the rules. So, even if nobody ever got you in trouble by doing illegal things online, on your connection, or if you were immune to such charges - you can still get sued by your ISP.
ISP's work on an economy of scale. The only way they can stay in business is by getting as many customers in an area as possible. By giving away free Internet from your connection, you undermine the market and can hurt your chances of ever seeing affordable 100Mbit or faster connections in the future.
Free WiFi being provided by some municipalities (or being considered by some) isn't free either. It's paid for by your tax dollars and an ISP to connect the network to the Internet. So don't you go try and compare you having a public AP and municipal WiFi.
Verisign and friends aren't much better. They have given SSL certs to all kinds of scammer or ridicuous domain names in the past, and continue to do so.
Trusting that companies like Verisign are doing the right thing is no better than doing nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm with you on that. I really loved working with OS/2 way back when. My first NAT gateway ran on OS/2 before most people never even heard of it.
Not to mention, OS/2 was a pretty darned good DOS multitasker, and a good number of DOS games ran well under OS/2 as well.
It was a pretty good Operating System, low footprint, and it took quite a few years before Linux distributions got as good as OS/2.
Just go to pricewatch.com, and find the parts you want. They have a seller rating, and I've never had a bad experience buying anything from vendors that submit prices to Pricewatch.com.
Your experience may vary, but just buy some stuff and find a vendor you like. It's not rocket surgery.
Yea they were. Dell and HP were initially pushing Itanium servers running Windows hard. This was Intel's answer to the 64-bit question.
Who knows, maybe if AMD didn't create AMD64 Itanium would have been more accepted and eventually the prices may have dropped some. But we'll never know, and I'm glad for that. I much prefer x86/x64 running the show, as it's accessible to everyone, including the enthusiast, for running server operating systems.
HP has had some success with Itanium on their HP/UX machines, but pretty much all hope of Itanium as a common CPU in the Enterprise is lost by now.
The same can be said about Itanium. The original Itanium (and even the current ones) were so DAMNED expensive and they didn't offer any real performance increase.
What really killed Itanium was AMD's x64 extensions.
Itanium will be around for awhile but it will never become commonplace outside of high end, massively SMP UNIX servers.
Yea, but think about it: A good GPU from 2006 is still PRETTY DAMNED GOOD!
I'm still using an AGP 6800GT in one of my machines, and it's still trucking. I can't run everything at high quality but it's usable.
Yesterday, Intel made a GPU as good as a GPU from 2002. Today it's 2006. Tomorrow they might be competitive. And honestly, with Intel GPU specs being FAR more open than nVidia or ATI, I welcome it. We might actually be able to get GOOD graphics, completely open sourced drivers, on Linux.
The closest I can get is a Cox cablemodem with a 20/2 for $60/mo. It's not bad. 20Mbit is as much as I need (for awhile) and the 2Mbit is as fast as DOCSIS2 can do.
Cox doesn't throttle or limit you in any way (at least in Rhode Island.) I sometimes download many, many gigabytes (sometimes over 100) in a month and never had a problem.
Well, it IS traffic shaping, but I understand what you're telling him: He's not LOSING anything by their system, he's actually GAINing a big boost for the first few moments.
Yes - behind New Jersey, Rhode Island is the second most densely populated state in the country.
But it also has basically ONE ISP serving the state - Cox Communications. DSL is available to only a very small number of communities, and while Verizon is supposedly rolling out FIOS, they started with a town far from the main city areas and haven't expanded the service at all.
So, because most people can only choose Cox, and their "normal" speed is 5Mbit, it makes sense that RI would rank high. There's no cheapo cheap cheap DSL available everywhere with only 1Mbit service.
Unless they have a fiber optic connection or DOCSIS3 (doubtful) then the maximum upstream is 2Mbit, not 5.
Unless they're using DOCSIS3, which I doubt, then the maximum a cable modem can do is 45MBit downstream.
The 1Mbit up is what kills you. Don't ever pay $80/mo for that garbage.
Comcast is not a bad ISP. My friend has had it for some time (Seekonk, MA) and while it's not as fast as my Cox cable connection, Comcast has always been extremely resistant to blocking any network ports for their subscribers.
Even when Code Red was the big thing (and when most ISP's started blocking incoming ports for their subscribers) Comcast wrote a script to check for the vulnerability themselves, and would only block 80 on those subscribers with unpatched IIS. Once you fixed your IIS server, you could call them, and they'd run the check and then unblock the port. That went way above and beyond what any other ISP did for their subscribers.
He still has 80, 443, 21, 53, 23, 25 open, while Cox requires that you spend twice as much on their business service for the same service.
In Rhode Island I have a Cox connection too, 20/2, for $50/mo.
I often see 2.3MB/s downloads and 250KB/s uploads. I with the upload was faster, but that's the limit of DOCSIS2 so there's nothing that can be done about that until FIOS is available or Cox upgrades their system to DOCSIS3.
I mean, FIOS is fast and all from what the numbers say, but I don't look forward to being a Verizon customer..
1) Make another comparison of IT to another profession
2) Believe you've come up with something new and whitty
Most jobs tend to have the same basic principals, if you break it down enough.
"IT is like flipping burgers. The burgers represent data, and the customers are the users. You have to find the best way to provide burders (data) to the customers (users) for the lowest cost!"
I'd love to see your security documentation.
"i am a it security professional w/10 yrs exp and i recommend bgr passwds."
I'm guessing you're either full of shit, or have the worst security documentation EVER because you can't use capital letters and you can't write decent English.
Security is more than downloading and installing anti-virus software, you know.
Why should the FSF apologize for anything? They're not the ones trying to get everyone locked in to proprietary formats, closed software, and violating rules that say (in the US) that you are legally entitled to use your phone with any carrier?
Sure, this is a dumb little exercise and I think their efforts would be better served elsewhere, the FSF itself does and has done really important work. Without them, we'd have NOBODY truly looking out for consumer rights with technology.
If you want to let one little tiny thing like a few posts on some website make you turn your back on the entire FSF, then you're obviously not a real believer in technology freedom and you only care about what sounds cool. "yea man. I support the FSF. Pass the bowl."
I guess this guys' general idea is that it doesn't matter WHAT the controller is - if the system RAM is read at the split-microsecond before turning off completely, there's a chance that it will take garbage from that RAM read, and commit it to the SCSI controller.
While yes - you can get data corruption from a power failure - it's becoming increasingly more rare. There's a lot of different levels of protection:
- UPS systems
- Battery backed RAID RAM
- Journaling filesystems
- Transactional/Journaling databases
- Backups
- Sometimes: Real-time backups
It's been a looooooong time since I've had to repair an Exchange database or a MySQL database because of a power failure.
I wouldn't worry about it too much, honestly. Much more important things to worry about.
It's funny, really. Modern database systems aren't all that difficult to understand. The SQL language is very straight forward, and the surrounding concepts (Stored Procedures, etc) are not rocket science.
But, it's one of those things that just remains a mystery to some people, and there's always the same perpetual misconceptions and misunderstandings about how they work.
Oh well.
Again, it's completely besides the point. You can get SSL certs for whatever domain, and use it to scam or not scam and Verisign doesn't have enough controls to prevent it.
So again, you're no safer with a special "verified" certificate then one which will simply provide encryption. Some scammer isn't going to care about future lawsuits from a company, either, and even if it's online for only one week it's enough to do damage.
The fact is that SSL certs give people (like you, apparently) a false sense of security - that the site is not only encrypted but guaranteed legit. It should only provide the encryption and let people keep their guard up like they do with any other (non-SSL) site.
I guess it's all your point of view.. but I'm looking at the numbers - 35 replies that are bitching because I didn't cite all sorts of examples and how I must be some sort of anti-Mac person because of it..
I'm going to go with my point of view on this one. It's popular to be a Mac nerd on nerd sites, so that's what more and more people are.
Yea but you can say the same about ANY connection, to anywhere. Using encryption will prevent any man-in-the-middle packet sniffing to get your login/password.
Site verification is one thing, and encryption is a different thing. They should be able to be used independently of each other.
Part of the point I've made is that Verisign is such a huge company with millions of customers and simply doesn't offer enough verification to be useful. If encryption and site verification were separate things, perhaps the verification devision would be more effective.
I guarantee that if I go and try to get a cert for "citibanksystems.com" or something of that nature, I'd be given the cert no questions.
Never said I had a laundry list of problems with OSX. But it's not problem-free by any stretch.
I've also not had a laundry list of problems with Vista, or Ubuntu either. But they've got problems too.
It's been MY experience (admittedly anecdotal) here on Slashdot that there's a hardcore group of Mac users that claim the software is perfect and jump all over anyone that disagrees. Case in point, my original post. I didn't say it sucked, I didn't say I didn't like it - I simply said it's got it's share of problems and I got a whole bunch of people jumping on my ass - almost as if I claimed that GWB was the best president we've ever had.
Ahh, but Verisign certs aren't that expensive, and usually you can get a cert by faxing a form with letterhead or providing a phone number that they might not call.
The problem with SSL over HTTP is that the certificates attempt to do two different (and not necessarily related) things. They provide a way to verify that a web site is run by the company that own it - and they provide an encryption system.
You should be able to do these two things independently of each other. If I want to provide a web site that won't send clear-text passwords over the internet, I shouldn't necessarily have to pay for the extra part of verifying the web address.
That's my opinion, anyways..
It has nothing to do with securing my network, and everything to do with using up my bandwidth, dumbass. Comprehend much?
Besides, you can't just provide free wireless Internet unless your ISP tells you that you can. Providing Internet access to your home has a cost involved, you know. It's not just "providing a service" - it's breaking the rules. So, even if nobody ever got you in trouble by doing illegal things online, on your connection, or if you were immune to such charges - you can still get sued by your ISP.
ISP's work on an economy of scale. The only way they can stay in business is by getting as many customers in an area as possible. By giving away free Internet from your connection, you undermine the market and can hurt your chances of ever seeing affordable 100Mbit or faster connections in the future.
Free WiFi being provided by some municipalities (or being considered by some) isn't free either. It's paid for by your tax dollars and an ISP to connect the network to the Internet. So don't you go try and compare you having a public AP and municipal WiFi.
Verisign and friends aren't much better. They have given SSL certs to all kinds of scammer or ridicuous domain names in the past, and continue to do so.
Trusting that companies like Verisign are doing the right thing is no better than doing nothing.
PS. It's not easier to re-install from scratch. It's always easier to fix. Just because you don't know HOW to fix anything doesn't mean it's easier.