Especially what means your statement about "specific setup of snapshots"?
I mean, since you ask you should be answered: We had set up a system with snapshots and rollback. If I am not mistaken, nv95. Just to try, we used ZFS volumes and ZFS partitions. So far so good. Only, at rolling back a snapshot of ZFS volumes, the system crashed and could not be rebooted, no way, no failsafe, no nothing, no data to be recovered. ZFS partitions could be rolled back without problem, however. So, another go, nv110. Same thing, same result. All data gone forever, even failsafe boot-cycling.
That actually was the moment when we decided to call it a shot and never touch ZFS again. Confirmed, we have no rollback of snapshots now; but at least our systems don't self-destroy completely.
I have been following the zfs-discuss list for years, and almost no one has lost data.
That's not good enough for the likes like me. For the rest of your post, I am simply too lazy to prove you wrong. For a beer each I could fiddle out those that were confirmed to lead to data loss, including unrecoverable data loss, as I mentioned in my post. But I won't do this (except for that beer each), because you know that best yourself: The data loss and corruption that the parent is talking about is the fault of crap hardware. In almost every case, USB is involved, or more rarely the lack of ECC ram Because this is exactly, word for word, the usual excuse given in the mailing list. And I didn't add the one in my original post, when it was 'confirmed' that you need RAID if your data are valuable to you; and now, read this in bold: irrespective of hardware failure. I for one accept the need for RAID, in case of a hard disk really and effectively dying. Not for manhandling the data. Read the postings carefully.
Of course, the other person answering your flawed arguments about 'crap hardware' is right to the point: What good is a fault tolerant file system if it isn't tolerant of faults? May I remind you, the premise and promise of ZFS was the atomic write, the always consistent state on the drive. I do think and believe this is true, and all blocks are either written and confirmed or just not. As far as I can make out, the problem has only been shifted: to the problem of metadata. Again, refer to the mailing list. Those exist in four-fold. Why? It seems the consistency of blocks on the drive being guaranteed, the layer of actually having the links to those correct data is more vulnerable. Think of a pool: if you jank the structure of a pool by janking a USB, you have 100% correct data (contrary to any other file system, I agree), but alas no more structured access to reassemble them (compared to inodes).
(The mods opting for 'informative' of your post obviously don't read the ZFS mailing list, and nobody blames them.)
Which is what I hope. Having tried forth and back over the last years, trying to convince myself, that it would fulfill its promises (and it promises a lot! and all beautiful things) one day or another. It simply didn't. Which is a shame, since if it did, ZFS would be last file system mankind would have ever needed. But even in 2009, it suffers from serious problems, just read the ZFS list in OpenSolaris. Basic things, that is. Like boot corruption; like unusable system, if you pull the power, and pull the power again while it is restarting; Like slowness under specific conditions; like rendering the file system unbootable, reproducibly, when using a specific setup of snapshots. The latter, not addressed on the mailing list, killed our interest immediately. Not to forget some arrogance of the Sun engineers when it turned out that you cannot simply unplug a USB-drive. And it won't be enough, to umount it, neither. If you want the data to be there, sure, after the removal, you have to export the drive. Now tell this to Aunt Tilly. Or me, when I stumble over a USB-cable and out it is. And my data, as confirmed on the mailing list, potentially gone forever; with, confirmed, no tool available for recovery.
My last hope for it, had been that the engineers at Apple were able to give it the life-line needed to provide reliable Time-Machines (the snapshots of ZFS are just perfect therefore), but obviously, they have given up just as well.
I bet that something like ZFS will resurrect, one day or another. It simply has to. But ZFS as of today is more like Leonardo's drawings of a copter, compared to an Apache.
True. And still a valid point he has: Some word processor on the bare OS ought not encounter page faults at 1 GB of RAM. Because it would indicate that the RAM is actually needed; not just preemptively filled with cache data.
Yeah, 100% seconded! With Linpus is ran a tad longer per battery charge. But the UI is awesome! I wonder if it could not be done in xfce? It does feel a bid heavy, compared to Linpus, a bit sluggish.
going through all your posts here, it is rather obvious that you are a fanboy of the monkey system. Now I am draining the mod points of your co-warriors by encouraging them to mod me down.
No, I don't hate your opinion. I despise your efforts to twist facts: It is neither a commercial product, but a preview. A trailer, one might say. Nor do other commercial products deliberately fail me after a year.
Hello, Mr. Ballmer! Thanks for informing us that W7 'even lets you pick a default printer based on the wireless network you're connected to'. Firstly: what happens when it is connected to a wired network? Secondly, and even more relevant: Ubuntu 9.04 does the same, on a wired as well as on a wireless network. The difference: Ubuntu 9.04 was released 12 days ago, and comes with no cost; and without any expiration date. Windows 7 has either a price tag, has yet to be released, and in its current from expires June next year. Yes, apples to apples. And then W7 fails miserably to be on par with Ubuntu.
This is what I thought when I read the post. It really smells as if the poster, narramissic, had not been around when microkernels and minix were fashionable. And neither was the person to allow for it to show on slashdot.
Let's call the minix discussion flogging a dead horse, until these chaps have come up with something real. If they manage to come up with something that is close to the beauty the idea of microkernels has on paper.
If browsers become completely sandboxed, you might see botnets living in the browser's CPU/filesystem space that are active in the background
Sure. To me that's like in those cyber-cafés where the whole machine is riddled with crapware at the end of the day; when it will be wiped and receive a clean install from an image over the network. When the browser shuts down, all those botnets are gone. Assume, that history and cache are likewise. 'Kiosk', as I wrote. Assuming sandbox is what it is supposed to be, we would see transient botnets. Which in itself would be a great improvement to the current resident ones.
As you may guess, I am aware of the consequences. Though it seems to make sense in many cases, when everything any anything that one downloads is just for rendering the site.
Would FTP come back into style? I, actually, hope not. Not FTP. But maybe a new system where users click some 'I want to download this file' button and get the content via an e-mail? Oh, wait, that's only slightly better than FTP. Still, yes, a separate channel for file transfer outside of that box, not using any http could be safer.
From the article: Around 45 percent of the bots are in the U.S., and the machines are Windows XP.
On the other hand: Nearly 80 percent run Internet Explorer; 15 percent, Firefox; 3 percent, Opera; and 1 percent Safari What else does one expect? Since it is an infection spread through trojans on legitimate sites and XP the target, what can we expect the browser to do?
In the end, we might see all browsers running completely sandboxed on demand, that is: no interaction with the rest of the system; a 'browse-only' kiosk.
I'm looking forward to get the most secure operating system worldwide onto my servers! Tonight I'll upgrade all my Windows 2003 and Windows 2008 boxen to Vista SP2, yahoo! Finally!
That was the main reason why I canned OpenSolaris after trying it out.
Uhh. Yes. No. I guess you talk about the miserable 2008.5 or so. I for one hopped on the SXDE/SXCE/Nevada; just for a try, and have been there ever since. It contains (almost) all that I need, out of the box, from Macromedia Flash to StarOffice. The most complete one I ever tried. Compiz included, and the (alas) proprietary blobs (NVIDIA). Show me a Linux that you can install, and brings up 173.14.09 NVIDIA on reboot, at the correct resolution?
Actually, it only missed on Mplayer, Dia and Gnumeric for me. Over. Now I run a few multi-boot systems, with Debian/Ubuntu and OpenSolaris as choices, and I tend to use OpenSolaris. The problem of OpenSolaris is not so much OpenSolaris as it is the SUN management's low visionary angle.
True, hardware support is better on Linux(Ubuntu), resource requirements are easily 2 GB (it consumes close to 1 GB after boot and starting GNOME), networking, and especially wireless, is far behind Ubuntu. Mounting of ext3 needs external programs to be installed the old SUN-way, and is not possible as R/W; it is limited to readonly. For the rest OpenSolaris is at par, if not superior.
That default username "Jack" does not exist in the world of Nevada. As I said above, the one that you had your hands on was 2008.5; codenamed Indiana, enforced on the project by a bunch of managers at SUN who have since long passed their expiration dates.
It is not only the DTrace and Zones that make it great(er), ZFS is truly the file-system contender for the next millennium. A file system needs to be seen as a self-contained, holistic, entity. fdisk and format are so last millennium.
The Caiman installer was the greatest piece of installation software I ever used. But it was broken half a year ago and now rumbles on as a low-priority project. Don't talk to me about bullshit: The installer is the first thing a potential user hits. And currently it is either the venerable CDE-SUN installer or console. This is how to screw up a visionary project like OpenSolaris at its best. And then, community. Make me puke. The bug reports that I file (and still file) disappear in the intestines of SUN, and I can't even see them. Not to mention modify them.
Yes, OpenSolaris might fail, in the end. But not on technical reasons, and this is where the article is erroneous. It is a badly managed hybrid of proprietary-free software.
Good shot, but wrong! The EPO is not a subsidiary of the EC, it is not EU. The signatory states are not identical to the states of the EU. The EPO has its own constitution, own salary scheme, own working regulations. Not that I'd question your general line of arguments, just to be correct on the dot.
Not that I thought it was a great patent idea (to me it isn't), kdawson got it wrong, again, as many pointed out. Just to clarify it, again:
beginning at a starting point offset from a top of the document and from a top of the first page; calculating a height of at least the first page; calculating a row offset of the starting point of the first page; calculating a vertical offset at the starting point of the first page, wherein the vertical offset is calculated according to a formula of the form {[(p-1)/c]h}+r, where p is equal to the number of pages in the document, c is equal to the number of columns of the document which are simultaneously displayed, h is equal to the height of at least the first page, and r is equal to the row offset of the starting point of the first page
I can't make out the details, but what they propose seems to be a somewhat more intelligent scrolling. I myself have at times cursed the PgUp/PgDn for straightforwardly scrolling, without considering horizontal scrolling (zoom). I for one will be grateful if in future I can read an academic paper of 2 columns by zooming in on the first column, and use PgUp/PgDn to navigate up-down on that same column, with useful steps.
"Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man: and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."
If Vista is an OS that should never have left the barn what do we expect from Windows 7, which is said to be based on Vista? If it wasn't (based on Vista), we might see a recurrence of the ME-W2K transition, which was seriously okay. But what if ME had been followed by ME-SE (Second Edition, for the youngsters in here)? We'd probably have Linux on the desktops by now. I wonder what makes Redmond think that a child of a stillborn baby is worth to bet on?
Slashdot Mirror
Especially what means your statement about "specific setup of snapshots"?
I mean, since you ask you should be answered:
We had set up a system with snapshots and rollback. If I am not mistaken, nv95.
Just to try, we used ZFS volumes and ZFS partitions.
So far so good. Only, at rolling back a snapshot of ZFS volumes, the system crashed and could not be rebooted, no way, no failsafe, no nothing, no data to be recovered. ZFS partitions could be rolled back without problem, however.
So, another go, nv110. Same thing, same result. All data gone forever, even failsafe boot-cycling.
That actually was the moment when we decided to call it a shot and never touch ZFS again. Confirmed, we have no rollback of snapshots now; but at least our systems don't self-destroy completely.
I have been following the zfs-discuss list for years, and almost no one has lost data.
That's not good enough for the likes like me.
For the rest of your post, I am simply too lazy to prove you wrong. For a beer each I could fiddle out those that were confirmed to lead to data loss, including unrecoverable data loss, as I mentioned in my post.
But I won't do this (except for that beer each), because you know that best yourself:
The data loss and corruption that the parent is talking about is the fault of crap hardware. In almost every case, USB is involved, or more rarely the lack of ECC ram
Because this is exactly, word for word, the usual excuse given in the mailing list.
And I didn't add the one in my original post, when it was 'confirmed' that you need RAID if your data are valuable to you; and now, read this in bold: irrespective of hardware failure. I for one accept the need for RAID, in case of a hard disk really and effectively dying. Not for manhandling the data. Read the postings carefully.
Of course, the other person answering your flawed arguments about 'crap hardware' is right to the point: What good is a fault tolerant file system if it isn't tolerant of faults?
May I remind you, the premise and promise of ZFS was the atomic write, the always consistent state on the drive. I do think and believe this is true, and all blocks are either written and confirmed or just not. As far as I can make out, the problem has only been shifted: to the problem of metadata. Again, refer to the mailing list. Those exist in four-fold. Why? It seems the consistency of blocks on the drive being guaranteed, the layer of actually having the links to those correct data is more vulnerable. Think of a pool: if you jank the structure of a pool by janking a USB, you have 100% correct data (contrary to any other file system, I agree), but alas no more structured access to reassemble them (compared to inodes).
(The mods opting for 'informative' of your post obviously don't read the ZFS mailing list, and nobody blames them.)
More like the last nail in the coffin . . .
Which is what I hope. Having tried forth and back over the last years, trying to convince myself, that it would fulfill its promises (and it promises a lot! and all beautiful things) one day or another.
It simply didn't. Which is a shame, since if it did, ZFS would be last file system mankind would have ever needed.
But even in 2009, it suffers from serious problems, just read the ZFS list in OpenSolaris. Basic things, that is.
Like boot corruption; like unusable system, if you pull the power, and pull the power again while it is restarting; Like slowness under specific conditions; like rendering the file system unbootable, reproducibly, when using a specific setup of snapshots.
The latter, not addressed on the mailing list, killed our interest immediately.
Not to forget some arrogance of the Sun engineers when it turned out that you cannot simply unplug a USB-drive. And it won't be enough, to umount it, neither. If you want the data to be there, sure, after the removal, you have to export the drive. Now tell this to Aunt Tilly. Or me, when I stumble over a USB-cable and out it is. And my data, as confirmed on the mailing list, potentially gone forever; with, confirmed, no tool available for recovery.
My last hope for it, had been that the engineers at Apple were able to give it the life-line needed to provide reliable Time-Machines (the snapshots of ZFS are just perfect therefore), but obviously, they have given up just as well.
I bet that something like ZFS will resurrect, one day or another. It simply has to. But ZFS as of today is more like Leonardo's drawings of a copter, compared to an Apache.
You're a nerd, yes, truly.
Thanks for reminding us of ONE of your favourite CS quotes, and citing 10.
True. And still a valid point he has: Some word processor on the bare OS ought not encounter page faults at 1 GB of RAM. Because it would indicate that the RAM is actually needed; not just preemptively filled with cache data.
Yeah, 100% seconded!
With Linpus is ran a tad longer per battery charge. But the UI is awesome! I wonder if it could not be done in xfce? It does feel a bid heavy, compared to Linpus, a bit sluggish.
spyrochaete,
going through all your posts here, it is rather obvious that you are a fanboy of the monkey system.
Now I am draining the mod points of your co-warriors by encouraging them to mod me down.
No, I don't hate your opinion. I despise your efforts to twist facts: It is neither a commercial product, but a preview. A trailer, one might say.
Nor do other commercial products deliberately fail me after a year.
+1, Insightful && 100% correct = +2
Hello, Mr. Ballmer! Thanks for informing us that W7 'even lets you pick a default printer based on the wireless network you're connected to'.
Firstly: what happens when it is connected to a wired network?
Secondly, and even more relevant: Ubuntu 9.04 does the same, on a wired as well as on a wireless network. The difference: Ubuntu 9.04 was released 12 days ago, and comes with no cost; and without any expiration date. Windows 7 has either a price tag, has yet to be released, and in its current from expires June next year.
Yes, apples to apples. And then W7 fails miserably to be on par with Ubuntu.
What was your message?
This is what I thought when I read the post. It really smells as if the poster, narramissic, had not been around when microkernels and minix were fashionable. And neither was the person to allow for it to show on slashdot.
Let's call the minix discussion flogging a dead horse, until these chaps have come up with something real. If they manage to come up with something that is close to the beauty the idea of microkernels has on paper.
Yes. Words. I fought with it for a few hours, except it doesn't. At least not here.
By the way, that's my only gripe with 9.04, which is otherwise simply beautiful and fast here.
Though I wish I could connect to our Exchange.
Hey, want a screenshot?? ;)
I have the manager here. It takes as much as
sudo apt-get install avant-window-navigator
and add some of your personal preferences. Done.
If browsers become completely sandboxed, you might see botnets living in the browser's CPU/filesystem space that are active in the background
Sure. To me that's like in those cyber-cafés where the whole machine is riddled with crapware at the end of the day; when it will be wiped and receive a clean install from an image over the network. When the browser shuts down, all those botnets are gone. Assume, that history and cache are likewise. 'Kiosk', as I wrote.
Assuming sandbox is what it is supposed to be, we would see transient botnets. Which in itself would be a great improvement to the current resident ones.
As you may guess, I am aware of the consequences. Though it seems to make sense in many cases, when everything any anything that one downloads is just for rendering the site.
Would FTP come back into style?
I, actually, hope not. Not FTP. But maybe a new system where users click some 'I want to download this file' button and get the content via an e-mail? Oh, wait, that's only slightly better than FTP.
Still, yes, a separate channel for file transfer outside of that box, not using any http could be safer.
Maybe it'll finally open the government's eyes to protecting their networks. They are generally in really bad shape.
So true. And so uncalled for here. Because surfing legitimate sites and catching a trojan is nothing that network security can do about.
From the article:
Around 45 percent of the bots are in the U.S., and the machines are Windows XP.
On the other hand:
Nearly 80 percent run Internet Explorer; 15 percent, Firefox; 3 percent, Opera; and 1 percent Safari
What else does one expect? Since it is an infection spread through trojans on legitimate sites and XP the target, what can we expect the browser to do?
In the end, we might see all browsers running completely sandboxed on demand, that is: no interaction with the rest of the system; a 'browse-only' kiosk.
I'm looking forward to get the most secure operating system worldwide onto my servers!
Tonight I'll upgrade all my Windows 2003 and Windows 2008 boxen to Vista SP2, yahoo! Finally!
TGIV: Thank God It's Vista!
Isn't it ... ? Wasn't it ... ? Wasn't it already ... ?
Oh no, nevermind!
My perfect system would be the core of Solaris, the interface of OS X, and apt-get.
Gee, corrected that for you!
That was the main reason why I canned OpenSolaris after trying it out.
Uhh. Yes. No.
I guess you talk about the miserable 2008.5 or so.
I for one hopped on the SXDE/SXCE/Nevada; just for a try, and have been there ever since. It contains (almost) all that I need, out of the box, from Macromedia Flash to StarOffice. The most complete one I ever tried. Compiz included, and the (alas) proprietary blobs (NVIDIA). Show me a Linux that you can install, and brings up 173.14.09 NVIDIA on reboot, at the correct resolution?
Actually, it only missed on Mplayer, Dia and Gnumeric for me. Over.
Now I run a few multi-boot systems, with Debian/Ubuntu and OpenSolaris as choices, and I tend to use OpenSolaris. The problem of OpenSolaris is not so much OpenSolaris as it is the SUN management's low visionary angle.
True, hardware support is better on Linux(Ubuntu), resource requirements are easily 2 GB (it consumes close to 1 GB after boot and starting GNOME), networking, and especially wireless, is far behind Ubuntu. Mounting of ext3 needs external programs to be installed the old SUN-way, and is not possible as R/W; it is limited to readonly. For the rest OpenSolaris is at par, if not superior.
That default username "Jack" does not exist in the world of Nevada. As I said above, the one that you had your hands on was 2008.5; codenamed Indiana, enforced on the project by a bunch of managers at SUN who have since long passed their expiration dates.
It is not only the DTrace and Zones that make it great(er), ZFS is truly the file-system contender for the next millennium. A file system needs to be seen as a self-contained, holistic, entity. fdisk and format are so last millennium.
The Caiman installer was the greatest piece of installation software I ever used. But it was broken half a year ago and now rumbles on as a low-priority project. Don't talk to me about bullshit: The installer is the first thing a potential user hits. And currently it is either the venerable CDE-SUN installer or console. This is how to screw up a visionary project like OpenSolaris at its best.
And then, community. Make me puke. The bug reports that I file (and still file) disappear in the intestines of SUN, and I can't even see them. Not to mention modify them.
Yes, OpenSolaris might fail, in the end. But not on technical reasons, and this is where the article is erroneous. It is a badly managed hybrid of proprietary-free software.
Good shot, but wrong! The EPO is not a subsidiary of the EC, it is not EU. The signatory states are not identical to the states of the EU.
The EPO has its own constitution, own salary scheme, own working regulations.
Not that I'd question your general line of arguments, just to be correct on the dot.
This is not exactly what you asked for, but the Linpus Linux boots mine in exactly 21 seconds. Two seconds too long, I know ...
Not that I thought it was a great patent idea (to me it isn't), kdawson got it wrong, again, as many pointed out.
Just to clarify it, again:
beginning at a starting point offset from a top of the document and from a top of the first page; calculating a height of at least the first page; calculating a row offset of the starting point of the first page; calculating a vertical offset at the starting point of the first page, wherein the vertical offset is calculated according to a formula of the form {[(p-1)/c]h}+r, where p is equal to the number of pages in the document, c is equal to the number of columns of the document which are simultaneously displayed, h is equal to the height of at least the first page, and r is equal to the row offset of the starting point of the first page
I can't make out the details, but what they propose seems to be a somewhat more intelligent scrolling. I myself have at times cursed the PgUp/PgDn for straightforwardly scrolling, without considering horizontal scrolling (zoom).
I for one will be grateful if in future I can read an academic paper of 2 columns by zooming in on the first column, and use PgUp/PgDn to navigate up-down on that same column, with useful steps.
A patent for this: God beware!
"Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man: and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."
If
Vista is an OS that should never have left the barn
what do we expect from Windows 7, which is said to be based on Vista?
If it wasn't (based on Vista), we might see a recurrence of the ME-W2K transition, which was seriously okay. But what if ME had been followed by ME-SE (Second Edition, for the youngsters in here)? We'd probably have Linux on the desktops by now.
I wonder what makes Redmond think that a child of a stillborn baby is worth to bet on?