>> Always corrupted NTFS after more than ten 2GB or larger files were copied.
Yes, works fine in DOS and via GUI in XP
I seriously doubt the former. I doubt that you have even tried to ever copy > 16.000 files, respectively more than 10 files larger than 2 GB in DOS. I doubt that my DOS 5 or 6 support such drives. But I might be wrong.
That's funny, as my experience is the exact opposite.
Maybe not that funny ? But rather the result of a difference ? You developed something useful, and attracted the vistors. The other whiner duplicated an existing software, and did it badly. Now he is crying aloud about the lack of interest. The World Is Flat, and just putting up GPL-ed software doesn't entitle anyone to plenty of visitors automatically.
Luckily, I saw the movie before the meltdown of the server. It always pays to be on time.;)
For those unlucky and late, actually, you missed a competition of peeing coloured snowflakes from the right versus doing the same from the left. Only, the sources on the left are much better at aiming. Plus, you have some 'Login...' scrolling top to bottom; like the cast of a movie.
Heads up, Fudgie, it is truely the most amazing display of log files ever creeping across my eyes. Keep the good work up, and please post again when you have something actually useful for the sysadmin.
Still no mod points, so take this as my virtual mod-up. You added the most insightful comment until here, thanks !
One minor disagreement, though. Even the 49.00 power conditioner makes zero difference - if the amp was engineered properly. The power supply needs to filter out RF, and convert any crappy 50/60 Hz into DC. Except of EMI, the DC could not be bothered less about the 'quality' of the mains. Except, of course, the lines were so weak that some 100 watts of consumption resulted in serious losses of voltage. Meaning, you could not run a washer or tumbler.
Okay, to add one more stupidity, usually amps need 'burn-in' and 'warm-up' in the range of 1 week / 24 hours before producing full quality signals. Electrically, there is zero-nilch-nada of difference of all parameters before and after, but those chaps profess to even hear them. What renders them 100% unbelievable though is, that a power amp is nothing but a processor of electrical signals. Pure electrical engineering with specific parameters. When the electrical parameters (measurable) don't change, the output signal (voltage) can't neither.
Lamp cords are really cheap, and may have more 'impurities'
which is, alas, not a term in electrical engineering. And the signals sent are purely, 100%, electrical signals. And what does 'may have' mean ? Then offer lamp cords for 2*0.49 per meter, without impurities !
When asked by a customer, I generally suggest a certain brand of speaker cable that sells in the $300 range. IBHEAE - I build hi-end audio electronics
Good to know. I'll never get closer than 10 feet to the door of your shop.
20 years ago, it was the gold-plated phono plug that made all the difference, when US$100 was nothing to get a better brilliance. And the cable from the record player to the (pre-)amp, it could be had at US$100/foot. Before I disgress, I was also in the business, 30 years ago, and absolutely enjoyed to see the cables within the record player as well as in the amp / pre-amp. You'd easily hit a meter of 30-sen shielded cable here and there, with another meter of 100-$ cable inbetween. Now make the calculations, if you still want to: How did the one meter 100-$ cable improve the sound ?! Compared to just another meter at 30 sen, that is. In case you don't happen to be an electrical engineer, these are just serial black boxes. In order to disgress further, 20 years ago I was acceptance engineer of classical recording equipment for millions. I used to walk around the places and stages, seeing the drums of 1-$ cables, of easily 100 m in length, standing about, through which those very signals travelled before being recorded. And then, speaking engineering-wise, adding maybe a meter of gold-plated cable for some astronomic price, will make all the difference ?! From, instead, adding another one meter to the already existing 100 m ? Holy crap !
RTFA, this magician puts 4 feet of that super-super-cable between power amp and speakers. Through how many more feet will that signal run in the interior of both power amp and speaker until it reaches the coils (which are also made from cheapo solid copper) ? And often being sent through meters of more cheapo solid copper as crossover ? And none of those internal cables have any special quality.
Second, if the cable between power amp and speakers was that important, or, better, was any important, we'd much better do away with it altogether, and assemble the power amp within the speakers ! Pah, there you have it ! Even less loss than the one on the 4 feet of 7200 $ cable ! Meaning, no expenses at all for cable, no interferences at all; and you save 7200 $ ! Oh, sorry, not you in particular. Because you are manufacturer of such stuff, and if everyone had a good common sense, you wouldn't be able to put food on your family (R), at least not from cable sales.
These days, I think a small provider could gain enough in the 'niche' market of FOSS by co-operating with the developers.
Slightly OT, but whenever I can, I yell to world and sundry that NOBODY WANTS YOUR SECRETS, NEITHER YOUR (usually shoddy - voilà, back on topic) CODE. WE ONLY NEED TO KNOW THE COMMUNICATION DETAILS !
don't use an open source one, 'cause it's encumbered with GPL, just write your own b-tree library. Of course, it's not as pretty and bug free as the other implimentations, but it's OURS
If I had mod points, I'd give you a +6. This is most insightful and true. On my side, I found my tiny efforts of writing simple applications very much helped out with referring back to existing FOSS code, calls, utilities, libraries. Usually, the only thing needed was the glue and some I/O.
While those wanna-get-rich-quick parties either steal FOSS-code, or gobble together their own crufty, barely-working libraries.
Lastly, as supervisor of mostly undergraduate students, somehow fitting to the topic in general, I tend to feel embarrassed when comparing the amount of code my students write for their Final Year projects, compared to those others who usually start by firing up VC++. In average, they have to write (much) less than their friends. Because about everything exists, and the only thing they have to do, is to find out where; retrieve and integrate it. I can't exclude that this applies to the shiny world of Windows just as well, but
- I have never bothered
- I don't see this happening with the others students (except those downloading a complete existing solution and subsequently fail for plagiarism)
It is my conviction that code in general would become better, could our students only understand the beauty of modularised functions. Shell-scripts are very powerful, perl offers about any function, python is written easily, php connects splendidly with MySQL (though I do have reservations about the latter). Unfortunately, at least the students in this country, tend to resist learning anything new to them.
I had an employer many moons ago who manufactures PC-add-on boards such as RAID controllers [...] because a bigger competitors could take that knowledge and turn it into a less expensive product [...] there were features designed into the hardware ASIC's that should have worked, but didn't. [...] the company was unwilling to disclose that there were embarrassing design flaws in their hardware, a perception that could have ruined them
Sounds like your bigger competitor could have been Adaptec. I guess they used the same ASICs. Was the 'race' about circumventing non-functional parts of RAID-controllers ?
Good one. Are you sure, though, that you can install and activate it, whenever you need; after June 30th, 2008 ? Or re-activate it, once you have bought your hexadeci-core board in 2011 ?
To write an app that takes a frame from a video and saves it in a *.BMP file [...]
Allow me a little cheat here. As long as I don't want to select a specific one from the stream, I download 10M of mplayer and extract all frames. And then some other imaging software that is already on my PC if it really needs to be BMP, for the conversion.
Print Screen is slightly above my level of cheating, though.
With mod points, I wonder if you strive for 'funny', 'redundant' or 'astroturf'
Nobody with a sane mind will follow and upgrade to a costly system that "has problems but it is quite stable and performs reasonable on modern hardware [...], but nothing that can't be fixed in the next year, I suspect.", when a more reasonable system is available (XP). Your Vista also experienced some unexplainable power-downs. And you suspect the fault on your side. How nice ! You paid (I suspect, or did you steal ?) for Vista, and you are 'quite satisfied'. Am I correct to suspect that you paid a tiny little bit for your 'modern hardware' as well ? I knew it.
I for one suspect that you are a very much liked customer.
Others in that highly partisan crowd have suggested that I wanted SCO to win, and even that I was paid off by SCO or Microsoft.
Mr. Lyons, as much as I appreciated your apology "I got it wrong" in the first moment, the sentence above wipes it out again, big time. You simply brush aside the suggestion of having been paid off. You might think in monetary terms, but I am pretty sure that you have been paid off, yes, in all other respects. Have you not had contacts to Microsoft and SCO managers? You had no calls and messages from them? You didn't meet anyone and made jokes about the nerds? Maybe a drink or a bite was offered to you, while getting the(ir) message across? All this bombardment of 'insightful information' did not prevent you from studying Groklaw with an open mind? I bet it did.
An apology is most welcome when it is the result of enlightenment, and a change of one's wrong ways. You apologise, but the phrase above is proof that you don't see your errors. Not having received brown envelopes clears you of all wrong-doings, you assume. It doesn't. You might be a nice chap, but as an independent journalist you are a failure.
The last version of their Word knockoff I used was TERRIBLE for layout
Thanks for confirming my suspicion. It has actually, always, been terrible for layout. Makes one wonder, why someone spends US$300 for a layout-program on the dark side.
Oh, wait, you mean it is fantastic ?? Then I don't post any reply. Because neither OpenOffice nor MSOffice come any close to a layout program. You disqualified yourself, dear. Sorry.
Yep. Except of one item: I personally have always preferred gnumeric compared to Excel as well as OO-Calc. One way or another, I found it more intuitive and surely preferred its charts. This is how Miguel made me his admirer. That stopped, definitively, the day when the interoperability with Exchange, in his next project, Evolution, to which I contributed very little, was made payable software by him. Then I hoped, someone punched his face and gave him a good shave. But nobody did. Since then, he's a complete write-off to me personally.
I'm confused now by two conflicting insightfully modded anecdotal evidence
Not actually conflicting, even. IMHO. On top of what others pointed out, I am brave enough to state that the only conflict arose if anyone wrote that a bombardment with multimedia gadgets, PowerPoints, movies - in short: a deafening flood of one-way so-called delivery - had an effect on him / her, aside of encouraging passivity and inducing a half-concious state of mind. Of course, it can be study material, it can be discussion, it can be the enthusiasm of the teacher, it can be imitation of a parent or a (positive) idol. All this can work. I know that some quarters perceive the mere questioning of the 'modern' means in the classroom as sacrilege, but I dare to stand up.
A recent experience of mine: teaching Computer Science, for the last years I have been wandering through the rows of my students to give them a helping hand at demonstrating some 'arcane' items. Never too happy (can't do it for all), in this semester I brought my Knoppix-on-USB and projected all things nicely, on a large screen in the lab, steps by steps, repeatedly, more slowly than on the terminals. In the end, almost nobody had grasped the matter. Doing is learning; not watching some convincing demonstration. I'll never bring that USB-stick again.
Streetlights are WORTHLESS for road safety due to the areas of darkness and light they create, and the way they destroy your night vision.
Someone else mentioned it here: Belgium has always lit all its highways. When I was twenty, I made jokes about that, and found no difference to unlit highways. When I was fifty, I really appreciated the light. Gives me a very different and much better experience at driving, and makes me feel safer. Safer driving, I mean, not w.r.t. mugging or raping. Much less stress driving on a lit highway now. The physiology of the eye changes with age, we all know.
Not that I was a friend of lit nights. I still remember one of the greatest night-skies I ever saw, in the desert, close to Alice Springs, lying in my sleeping bag on the ground (sand). Was as good as any smoking stuff, and I didn't want to sleep, just watch. (Ah, finally back on topic:) I want light on the highway, and absolutely none at night. Since there are a few billions of us around, we will have to compromise. And the compromise will see our night skies being lit, I am afraid.
The SCO cases have consumed years of the court's time and have cost the other parties many millions of dollars in lawyer's fees. Their cases have zero merit. The lawyers should have know the cases had no merit
True, but the actual winner is Microsoft. They ought to be punished. They brought home tens of billions of business through the uncertainties surrounding the case. And I am positive they knew it. And I bet they encouraged it on purpose, on this purpose. Of course, McBride must have his gooleys cut off, as well as his lawyers. But justice this is not. Justice would be served only once Microsoft is called to duty and replenish all the funds, and stand in for the mess their lackeys have created. Otherwise this case serves as an invitation to you to have someone else dragging your competitor through the mud, for years, without any case, sue him for hilarious damages. Without any chance for recourse, since that someone else keeps on dragging until your competitor is out of funds. All the business floating to you is your income, and in the end you wash your hands by distancing yourself from all the thunder created by that someone else.
I don't really believe all those stories painting McBride as stupid enough to gamble away SCO, his reputuation, eventually his own assests, his gooleys, until the last sen is gone. I think he was bride enough to do that based on some moral support from a place like Redmond. You don't take IBM head-on like he did, if you have some grams of brain left and don't enjoy high-level support.
Okay, then it is clear that you are talking out of something different from me. I am talking out of experience, though very limited one. But I ran Linux in a Solaris zone, I could allocate resources to them and I could halt and reboot them.
Feel free to think and understand what you want, then. Even your link contradicts you by showing CPU quota and memory limits for zones, but not for jails.
I think Solaris zones seem to be the equivalent of OpenVZ or FreeBSD's jails - they provide a way off isolating applications so that they appear to be running on their own machine, whilst running them all under the same kernel
I am not very familiar with FreeBSD jails, but dare to ask:
- Have you ever run an OS in a jail ? Like, Linux ?
- Is a jail an instance of the OS ?
- Can you configure an interface for a jail ? Like, NIC ?
- Is a jail a virtual machine that you can (re)boot ?
- Can you allocate / define / change resources per jail ?
If the answer is 5 times 'yes', you have convinced me.
Worse than that, GPL has problems coexisting with itself - v3 is not compatible with v2,
which is on purpose...
so GPLv3 Solaris code would be no more compatible with Linux (GPLv2) than CDDL Solaris code.
Huh, that doesn't make any sense here. Why would Solaris code want to be / need to be compatible with Linux ? Whichever Solaris I was ever running, Solaris, Nevada, Nexenta, it never had a single line of Linux in it.
Slashdot Mirror
ZDNet is reporting that not only does it run out of memory after copying 16,400+ files [...]
...
Okay, here is the solution that should work:
sh -c "ulimit -v 500000; explorer.exe"
Oh, wait
>> Always corrupted NTFS after more than ten 2GB or larger files were copied.
Yes, works fine in DOS and via GUI in XP
I seriously doubt the former. I doubt that you have even tried to ever copy > 16.000 files, respectively more than 10 files larger than 2 GB in DOS.
I doubt that my DOS 5 or 6 support such drives. But I might be wrong.
....
"But it's my only line !!"
That's funny, as my experience is the exact opposite.
Maybe not that funny ?
But rather the result of a difference ?
You developed something useful, and attracted the vistors.
The other whiner duplicated an existing software, and did it badly. Now he is crying aloud about the lack of interest. The World Is Flat, and just putting up GPL-ed software doesn't entitle anyone to plenty of visitors automatically.
Luckily, I saw the movie before the meltdown of the server. It always pays to be on time. ;)
...' scrolling top to bottom; like the cast of a movie.
For those unlucky and late, actually, you missed a competition of peeing coloured snowflakes from the right versus doing the same from the left.
Only, the sources on the left are much better at aiming.
Plus, you have some 'Login
Heads up, Fudgie, it is truely the most amazing display of log files ever creeping across my eyes.
Keep the good work up, and please post again when you have something actually useful for the sysadmin.
I declare you 'King of Log Candy' !
Still no mod points, so take this as my virtual mod-up.
You added the most insightful comment until here, thanks !
One minor disagreement, though. Even the 49.00 power conditioner makes zero difference - if the amp was engineered properly. The power supply needs to filter out RF, and convert any crappy 50/60 Hz into DC. Except of EMI, the DC could not be bothered less about the 'quality' of the mains. Except, of course, the lines were so weak that some 100 watts of consumption resulted in serious losses of voltage. Meaning, you could not run a washer or tumbler.
Okay, to add one more stupidity, usually amps need 'burn-in' and 'warm-up' in the range of 1 week / 24 hours before producing full quality signals. Electrically, there is zero-nilch-nada of difference of all parameters before and after, but those chaps profess to even hear them.
What renders them 100% unbelievable though is, that a power amp is nothing but a processor of electrical signals. Pure electrical engineering with specific parameters. When the electrical parameters (measurable) don't change, the output signal (voltage) can't neither.
Lamp cords are really cheap, and may have more 'impurities'
which is, alas, not a term in electrical engineering. And the signals sent are purely, 100%, electrical signals.
And what does 'may have' mean ? Then offer lamp cords for 2*0.49 per meter, without impurities !
When asked by a customer, I generally suggest a certain brand of speaker cable that sells in the $300 range. IBHEAE - I build hi-end audio electronics
Good to know. I'll never get closer than 10 feet to the door of your shop.
20 years ago, it was the gold-plated phono plug that made all the difference, when US$100 was nothing to get a better brilliance. And the cable from the record player to the (pre-)amp, it could be had at US$100/foot. Before I disgress, I was also in the business, 30 years ago, and absolutely enjoyed to see the cables within the record player as well as in the amp / pre-amp. You'd easily hit a meter of 30-sen shielded cable here and there, with another meter of 100-$ cable inbetween. Now make the calculations, if you still want to: How did the one meter 100-$ cable improve the sound ?! Compared to just another meter at 30 sen, that is. In case you don't happen to be an electrical engineer, these are just serial black boxes.
In order to disgress further, 20 years ago I was acceptance engineer of classical recording equipment for millions. I used to walk around the places and stages, seeing the drums of 1-$ cables, of easily 100 m in length, standing about, through which those very signals travelled before being recorded. And then, speaking engineering-wise, adding maybe a meter of gold-plated cable for some astronomic price, will make all the difference ?! From, instead, adding another one meter to the already existing 100 m ? Holy crap !
RTFA, this magician puts 4 feet of that super-super-cable between power amp and speakers. Through how many more feet will that signal run in the interior of both power amp and speaker until it reaches the coils (which are also made from cheapo solid copper) ? And often being sent through meters of more cheapo solid copper as crossover ? And none of those internal cables have any special quality.
Second, if the cable between power amp and speakers was that important, or, better, was any important, we'd much better do away with it altogether, and assemble the power amp within the speakers ! Pah, there you have it ! Even less loss than the one on the 4 feet of 7200 $ cable ! Meaning, no expenses at all for cable, no interferences at all; and you save 7200 $ !
Oh, sorry, not you in particular. Because you are manufacturer of such stuff, and if everyone had a good common sense, you wouldn't be able to put food on your family (R), at least not from cable sales.
Good Lord Have Mercy.
Thanks for giving me a good laugh at the end of a long, dreary day ! - Had I had mod points, you'd be funny
"The times, they are a-changing ..."
These days, I think a small provider could gain enough in the 'niche' market of FOSS by co-operating with the developers.
Slightly OT, but whenever I can, I yell to world and sundry that NOBODY WANTS YOUR SECRETS, NEITHER YOUR (usually shoddy - voilà, back on topic) CODE. WE ONLY NEED TO KNOW THE COMMUNICATION DETAILS !
don't use an open source one, 'cause it's encumbered with GPL, just write your own b-tree library. Of course, it's not as pretty and bug free as the other implimentations, but it's OURS
If I had mod points, I'd give you a +6. This is most insightful and true. On my side, I found my tiny efforts of writing simple applications very much helped out with referring back to existing FOSS code, calls, utilities, libraries. Usually, the only thing needed was the glue and some I/O.
While those wanna-get-rich-quick parties either steal FOSS-code, or gobble together their own crufty, barely-working libraries.
Lastly, as supervisor of mostly undergraduate students, somehow fitting to the topic in general, I tend to feel embarrassed when comparing the amount of code my students write for their Final Year projects, compared to those others who usually start by firing up VC++. In average, they have to write (much) less than their friends. Because about everything exists, and the only thing they have to do, is to find out where; retrieve and integrate it.
I can't exclude that this applies to the shiny world of Windows just as well, but
- I have never bothered
- I don't see this happening with the others students (except those downloading a complete existing solution and subsequently fail for plagiarism)
It is my conviction that code in general would become better, could our students only understand the beauty of modularised functions. Shell-scripts are very powerful, perl offers about any function, python is written easily, php connects splendidly with MySQL (though I do have reservations about the latter).
Unfortunately, at least the students in this country, tend to resist learning anything new to them.
I had an employer many moons ago who manufactures PC-add-on boards such as RAID controllers
[...]
because a bigger competitors could take that knowledge and turn it into a less expensive product
[...]
there were features designed into the hardware ASIC's that should have worked, but didn't.
[...]
the company was unwilling to disclose that there were embarrassing design flaws in their hardware, a perception that could have ruined them
Sounds like your bigger competitor could have been Adaptec. I guess they used the same ASICs. Was the 'race' about circumventing non-functional parts of RAID-controllers ?
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/20/1944233
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=111118558813932
http://www.sigmasoft.com/~openbsd/archives/html/openbsd-misc/2005-03/msg01362.html
Yesterday I bought a copy of XP.
Good one. Are you sure, though, that you can install and activate it, whenever you need; after June 30th, 2008 ?
Or re-activate it, once you have bought your hexadeci-core board in 2011 ?
Maybe you wasted your money ?
To write an app that takes a frame from a video and saves it in a *.BMP file [...]
Allow me a little cheat here. As long as I don't want to select a specific one from the stream, I download 10M of mplayer and extract all frames. And then some other imaging software that is already on my PC if it really needs to be BMP, for the conversion.
Print Screen is slightly above my level of cheating, though.
With mod points, I wonder if you strive for 'funny', 'redundant' or 'astroturf'
Nobody with a sane mind will follow and upgrade to a costly system that "has problems but it is quite stable and performs reasonable on modern hardware [...], but nothing that can't be fixed in the next year, I suspect.", when a more reasonable system is available (XP).
Your Vista also experienced some unexplainable power-downs. And you suspect the fault on your side. How nice !
You paid (I suspect, or did you steal ?) for Vista, and you are 'quite satisfied'. Am I correct to suspect that you paid a tiny little bit for your 'modern hardware' as well ? I knew it.
I for one suspect that you are a very much liked customer.
I downloaded the 200+ MB looking forward to test it on Debian Etch.
It doesn't install !!
Actually, it seems to fail the install except on the SLED 10, RHEL 5, Redhat5 mentioned in the FAQ.
This behaviour is known:
http://symphony.lotus.com/software/lotus/symphony/supportThread.jspa?messageID=4437ᅕ
Others in that highly partisan crowd have suggested that I wanted SCO to win, and even that I was paid off by SCO or Microsoft.
Mr. Lyons, as much as I appreciated your apology "I got it wrong" in the first moment, the sentence above wipes it out again, big time.
You simply brush aside the suggestion of having been paid off. You might think in monetary terms, but I am pretty sure that you have been paid off, yes, in all other respects. Have you not had contacts to Microsoft and SCO managers? You had no calls and messages from them? You didn't meet anyone and made jokes about the nerds? Maybe a drink or a bite was offered to you, while getting the(ir) message across?
All this bombardment of 'insightful information' did not prevent you from studying Groklaw with an open mind? I bet it did.
An apology is most welcome when it is the result of enlightenment, and a change of one's wrong ways. You apologise, but the phrase above is proof that you don't see your errors. Not having received brown envelopes clears you of all wrong-doings, you assume. It doesn't.
You might be a nice chap, but as an independent journalist you are a failure.
The last version of their Word knockoff I used was TERRIBLE for layout
Thanks for confirming my suspicion. It has actually, always, been terrible for layout.
Makes one wonder, why someone spends US$300 for a layout-program on the dark side.
Oh, wait, you mean it is fantastic ?? Then I don't post any reply. Because neither OpenOffice nor MSOffice come any close to a layout program. You disqualified yourself, dear. Sorry.
Yep. Except of one item: I personally have always preferred gnumeric compared to Excel as well as OO-Calc. One way or another, I found it more intuitive and surely preferred its charts. This is how Miguel made me his admirer. That stopped, definitively, the day when the interoperability with Exchange, in his next project, Evolution, to which I contributed very little, was made payable software by him. Then I hoped, someone punched his face and gave him a good shave. But nobody did. Since then, he's a complete write-off to me personally.
I'm confused now by two conflicting insightfully modded anecdotal evidence
Not actually conflicting, even. IMHO. On top of what others pointed out, I am brave enough to state that the only conflict arose if anyone wrote that a bombardment with multimedia gadgets, PowerPoints, movies - in short: a deafening flood of one-way so-called delivery - had an effect on him / her, aside of encouraging passivity and inducing a half-concious state of mind.
Of course, it can be study material, it can be discussion, it can be the enthusiasm of the teacher, it can be imitation of a parent or a (positive) idol. All this can work.
I know that some quarters perceive the mere questioning of the 'modern' means in the classroom as sacrilege, but I dare to stand up.
A recent experience of mine: teaching Computer Science, for the last years I have been wandering through the rows of my students to give them a helping hand at demonstrating some 'arcane' items. Never too happy (can't do it for all), in this semester I brought my Knoppix-on-USB and projected all things nicely, on a large screen in the lab, steps by steps, repeatedly, more slowly than on the terminals. In the end, almost nobody had grasped the matter. Doing is learning; not watching some convincing demonstration. I'll never bring that USB-stick again.
Streetlights are WORTHLESS for road safety due to the areas of darkness and light they create, and the way they destroy your night vision.
Someone else mentioned it here: Belgium has always lit all its highways.
When I was twenty, I made jokes about that, and found no difference to unlit highways. When I was fifty, I really appreciated the light. Gives me a very different and much better experience at driving, and makes me feel safer. Safer driving, I mean, not w.r.t. mugging or raping. Much less stress driving on a lit highway now.
The physiology of the eye changes with age, we all know.
Not that I was a friend of lit nights. I still remember one of the greatest night-skies I ever saw, in the desert, close to Alice Springs, lying in my sleeping bag on the ground (sand). Was as good as any smoking stuff, and I didn't want to sleep, just watch.
(Ah, finally back on topic:) I want light on the highway, and absolutely none at night. Since there are a few billions of us around, we will have to compromise. And the compromise will see our night skies being lit, I am afraid.
The SCO cases have consumed years of the court's time and have cost the other parties many millions of dollars in lawyer's fees. Their cases have zero merit. The lawyers should have know the cases had no merit
True, but the actual winner is Microsoft. They ought to be punished. They brought home tens of billions of business through the uncertainties surrounding the case. And I am positive they knew it. And I bet they encouraged it on purpose, on this purpose.
Of course, McBride must have his gooleys cut off, as well as his lawyers.
But justice this is not. Justice would be served only once Microsoft is called to duty and replenish all the funds, and stand in for the mess their lackeys have created.
Otherwise this case serves as an invitation to you to have someone else dragging your competitor through the mud, for years, without any case, sue him for hilarious damages. Without any chance for recourse, since that someone else keeps on dragging until your competitor is out of funds. All the business floating to you is your income, and in the end you wash your hands by distancing yourself from all the thunder created by that someone else.
I don't really believe all those stories painting McBride as stupid enough to gamble away SCO, his reputuation, eventually his own assests, his gooleys, until the last sen is gone. I think he was bride enough to do that based on some moral support from a place like Redmond. You don't take IBM head-on like he did, if you have some grams of brain left and don't enjoy high-level support.
Yes, cut off their gooleys !
Okay, then it is clear that you are talking out of something different from me. I am talking out of experience, though very limited one.
But I ran Linux in a Solaris zone, I could allocate resources to them and I could halt and reboot them.
Feel free to think and understand what you want, then. Even your link contradicts you by showing CPU quota and memory limits for zones, but not for jails.
I think Solaris zones seem to be the equivalent of OpenVZ or FreeBSD's jails - they provide a way off isolating applications so that they appear to be running on their own machine, whilst running them all under the same kernel
I am not very familiar with FreeBSD jails, but dare to ask:
- Have you ever run an OS in a jail ? Like, Linux ?
- Is a jail an instance of the OS ?
- Can you configure an interface for a jail ? Like, NIC ?
- Is a jail a virtual machine that you can (re)boot ?
- Can you allocate / define / change resources per jail ?
If the answer is 5 times 'yes', you have convinced me.
Worse than that, GPL has problems coexisting with itself - v3 is not compatible with v2,
...
which is on purpose
so GPLv3 Solaris code would be no more compatible with Linux (GPLv2) than CDDL Solaris code.
Huh, that doesn't make any sense here. Why would Solaris code want to be / need to be compatible with Linux ?
Whichever Solaris I was ever running, Solaris, Nevada, Nexenta, it never had a single line of Linux in it.