Sorry, I failed to parse your post using English-compliant spellchecker.
I read it in Firefox and it looks just fine. And as some have said, the first page might look a bit overcrowded, but the tech page is cleaner than Google's. See for yourself: http://uk.newsbot.msn.com/s/?id=4
> however Virus writers apparently don't think ahead very well.
I would disagree - they thought it out very well - leverage the power of great search engines.
It's the search engines that failed.
==== Forbidden Your client does not have permission to get URL/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=account%40gmail.com&btnG= Google+Search from this server. (Client IP address: 41.22.75.21)
Please see Google's Terms of Service posted at http://www.google.com/terms_of_service.html
If you believe that you have received this response in error, please send email to forbidden@google.com. Before sending this email, however, please make sure to take a look at our Terms of Service (http://www.google.com/terms_of_service.html). In your email, please send us the entire code displayed below. Please also send us any information you may know about how you are performing your Google searches-- for example, "I'm using the Opera browser on Linux to do searches from home. My Internet access is through a dial-up account I have with the FooCorp ISP." or "I'm using the Konqueror browser on Linux to search from my job at myFoo.com. My machine's IP address is 10.20.30.40, but all of myFoo's web traffic goes through some kind of proxy server whose IP address is 10.11.12.13." (If you don't know any information like this, that's OK. But this kind of information can help us track down problems, so please tell us what you can.)
We will use all this information to diagnose the problem, and we'll hopefully have you back up and searching with Google again quickly!
Please note that although we read all the email we receive, we are not always able to send a personal response to each and every email. So don't despair if you don't hear back from us!
Also note that if you do not send us the entire code below, we will not be able to help you.
Best wishes, The Google Team
Re:What would I do with this much bandwidth?
on
Ethernet at 10 Gbps
·
· Score: 1
That's a valid idea - backbone networks use high(er) speed network to connect two or more "normal" speed networks. But except big enterprises and telcos, very few users have that much data (or can afford the cost).
For example: the simplest 10GbE network needs two 10GbE switches with at least 2 ports, one cable and at least two 10GbE cards.
Now hold onto something and read this: "Starting at a base price of $5,495 and expandable to include up to two 10-GbE ports at $3,250 per port..." Source: http://www.gridtoday.com/04/032 2/102902.html
So you'd need some $7,000 dollars for a minimum configuration..
Who else except those desperados at Real Networks would develop a player for an appliance that already has a competing player coming from the appliance maker (and which I guess is free)?
> prices of popcorn Since when have fscking popcorns become a cost issue? Do you people have jobs? Or are you posting from a 3rd world country? Geezuz!
(Even if you stay at home, you'll probably have your deflated popcorns and a sandwidch and a bottle of - probably more enjoybable but not cheaper).
Personally I both rent DVDs and go to the theather - big moves are always better at the threatre.
Re:What would I do with this much bandwidth?
on
Ethernet at 10 Gbps
·
· Score: 1
>Oh, do we all know that? That's funny, I think that these people seem to know something different.
No, _your_ comment is funny because you are ignorant about high end storage and you don't know it.
NetApp's high end filers write at about 250MB/sec - even in this scenario 4 GbE links are enough (stil, few companies can afford those models) - and SANs get up to 1.5 GB/sec per controller but any single server host connected to it cannot saturate that bandwidth, which means you usually get about 150MB/sec per host as I said in my earlier post.
Find a URL that shows a single commodity file server capable of over 200MB/sec in I/O (even if there are such servers, 200MB/sec does not justify GbE since it can be filled with three GbE links).
They're also working on forwarding to other accounts so one could forward to their home DSL box for IMAP access and keep messages on GMail for Web access.
I don't know - I use email a lot (since early nineties) but the more I use it the less I care. I used to keep burn CDs to keep my email thinking I'd want to look at some of it later - now I just keep last year's email until mid-year and then I delete all last year's email - it's sooo much simpler and once you're done there's nothing to lose and nothing to recover.
>It is not a problem at all if most of your clients use the same, relatively small (and thus cacheable) set of files.
Then you don't need 10GbE.
>Besides, the disk I/O is not that frequent these days, once you have your app loaded.
Exactly - more RAM and you don't need 10GbE.
And finally it is cheaper and more reliable to have the server connected to four GbE switches (and 1/4 of the clients connected to each of those switches) than implementing a redundant 10GbE.
Re:What would I do with this much bandwidth?
on
Ethernet at 10 Gbps
·
· Score: 1
> especially databases that stay partially in RAM.
Come on, 10GbE still suffers from latency the same way GbE does and unpredictable nature of database queries renders the idea of holding selected tables in RAM useless for most practical purposes.
They have to write data to something after it comes out on the other end - they can't write to the goddamn void - and as we all know, a server host can write about 150MB/sec which can be saturated with two GbE links - there's no need for 10GbE.
As the linked article concluded, it's very clear 10GbE is currently useful only for core networks and not for the server room (shiiit, big news...).
>he's just agreeing with both the US justice dept and the european union, both of which have convicted microsoft of being a monopoly, and abusing those powers
The legal thing was about the browser, media player and the OS, not all of their products such as Office, Exchange, SQL Server, etc. The EU is just jelaous they have no native major OS vendor (especially after SuSE was snapped by Novell - ouch!). The US - well the land of many lawsuits - do I need to elaborate? The whole thing was/is laughable - a bunch of bitter losers wanting to hang the winner. The shitty competing player (Real Media), the shitty browser (Netscape) and the shitty platform competitor (Sun) - THANK GOD they managed to keep those deadbeats away from Windows OS.
And after the lawsuits, has anything changed?
NONE of the alleged problems, except predatory pricing, were solved by the lawsuits. (And as far as predatory pricing is concerned - OF COURSE they did it, I'd do it too if I could).
Just look at the situation now - people are en masse installing Firefox because it's good, NOT because MS IE can be uninstalled. People prefer Windows Media Player beacuse it's not any worse than Real or SlowTime. Java didn't get any more popular because it was shit and is shit - developers are developing for.NET and Mono. And finally more and more people use Linux because it is there and it is a choice that has existed for a while.
All the lawsuits did was big noise and burned a shitload of public money - but then again, being socialist wasters that the Clinton and the EU goverments were/are - they don't know any better, do they?
> microsoft reinventing every single protocol and standard and then closing it up
Every. Single. Standard... Riiight. Read your statement again, I'm sure you'll get a good laugh out of it.
As a result they put inside their logo and Java and people can't figure out how to copy although they should be able to.
Same shit like these embedded guys - obscure and confuse.
Someone else commented with a link to WhiteBox Linux - I know about it and about Lineox as well. These are nice workarounds but I'm mostly interested in the fact why someone can make non-distributable ISOs of GPL software. --- Ok, you have a home rolled RHEL. But you can't redistribute RHEL without incurring the wrath of Red Hat's trademark lawyers so now begins the fun part. The EULA only says you must change the redhat-logos and anaconda-images packages. Yea, right. I know I didn't want to put up ISO images with RedHat's name all over it on a server in the reach of US law.
So I pretty much pulled RedHat's name off of just about everything that might imply that White Box was a relative of RHEL or anyway connected with Red Hat, Inc. I did leave their name on individual packages created by them. There is a difference between creating an impression of being connected with RedHat and stealing credit for their copyrighted works. So I left all copyright notices intact and left their name in where it would be appropriate to leave anyone else's name in place. So you do get the option to install Red Hat's server configuration tools but nowhere will Red Hat Linux or Red Hat Enterprise Linux appear to an end user. (At least in theory.... I probably missed a few.) ---- Source: http://www.whiteboxlinux.org/howto.html
See this is what I'm talking about - you build RPMs and ISOs from _GPL source_ and you still can't redistribute them. That's fxxxed up. I'm sure one day someone will put end to such stuff.
Of course you didn't - most people didn't give a damn except those bozos who decorated their Web sites with those little stupid anti-GIF icons.
Sure, there are some situations where not using GIFs was/is appropriate or desirable (for example where other formats do a better job), but not using it just because it was patented is silly.
I havan't seen anyone redistributing Enterprise Linux 3.0 ISOs. What use is a GPL if you're unable to... copy (OK, that's not exactly what Agent Smith said but close enough).
No, that is the right response to a dumb ass comment. If someone doesn't understand something, that's fine - it probably can be learned - but the assertive attitude combined with utmost stupidity and ignorance goes on most people nerves.
The only "problem" is that he cares and can't take it any more. In the old times most comments (and stories) used to be fairly intelligent. In case you haven't noticed, it's been getting real bad - now about 20% of content is useful/informative/worthwile and 80% is indistinguishable from any other forum.
> Well, these rules are obviously not written in stone. "likely" is speculative
Well in the first place this Slashdot article is just another speculative PoS - the issue was discussed here before several times without any conclusion - I guess that is FUD the OSS way.
>From the NWFusion article: "At issue is that software vendors such as Oracle and Microsoft that license software on a per-CPU basis are likely to consider each processor a separate CPU"
WTF? Each processor IS a "separate CPU". Each _core_ may be or not be.
Several ISVs that my company works with decided to stick with the physical licensing (with HT) and have indicated they will stick with it with multicore CPUs as well.
It is foolish to consider IBM or any company pro-open source (the grandparent post). The truth is they don't give a shit and why should they? Their mission is to rip the last penny out of the customer's vallet. Those who don't like it can download, install and support their own Linux or whatever. And for the neediest there's Red Cross (and Crescent) too.
Slashdot Mirror
As I write this I have several Newsbot tabs open on Firefox which works fine and the layout looks fine.
:-)
Don't assume your browser or OS are superior just because they're not MS-made
>complient
Sorry, I failed to parse your post using English-compliant spellchecker.
I read it in Firefox and it looks just fine.
And as some have said, the first page might look a bit overcrowded, but the tech page is cleaner than Google's. See for yourself:
http://uk.newsbot.msn.com/s/?id=4
He's (as well as the bozos who modded him Insightful) is obviously not kidding.
What has this world come to?
>I bet Microsoft would love to point to a programmer saying "open source reduced my money making opportunities," just to imagine one example.
Maybe - but as we haven't seen much proof to the contrary - why not believe him?
> however Virus writers apparently don't think ahead very well.
/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=account%40gmail.com&btnG= Google+Search from this server. (Client IP address: 41.22.75.21)
I would disagree - they thought it out very well - leverage the power of great search engines.
It's the search engines that failed.
====
Forbidden
Your client does not have permission to get URL
Please see Google's Terms of Service posted at http://www.google.com/terms_of_service.html
If you believe that you have received this response in error, please send email to forbidden@google.com. Before sending this email, however, please make sure to take a look at our Terms of Service (http://www.google.com/terms_of_service.html). In your email, please send us the entire code displayed below. Please also send us any information you may know about how you are performing your Google searches-- for example, "I'm using the Opera browser on Linux to do searches from home. My Internet access is through a dial-up account I have with the FooCorp ISP." or "I'm using the Konqueror browser on Linux to search from my job at myFoo.com. My machine's IP address is 10.20.30.40, but all of myFoo's web traffic goes through some kind of proxy server whose IP address is 10.11.12.13." (If you don't know any information like this, that's OK. But this kind of information can help us track down problems, so please tell us what you can.)
We will use all this information to diagnose the problem, and we'll hopefully have you back up and searching with Google again quickly!
Please note that although we read all the email we receive, we are not always able to send a personal response to each and every email. So don't despair if you don't hear back from us!
Also note that if you do not send us the entire code below, we will not be able to help you.
Best wishes,
The Google Team
That's a valid idea - backbone networks use high(er) speed network to connect two or more "normal" speed networks.
2 2/102902.html
But except big enterprises and telcos, very few users have that much data (or can afford the cost).
For example: the simplest 10GbE network needs two 10GbE switches with at least 2 ports, one cable and at least two 10GbE cards.
Now hold onto something and read this: "Starting at a base price of $5,495 and expandable to include up to two 10-GbE ports at $3,250 per port..."
Source:
http://www.gridtoday.com/04/03
So you'd need some $7,000 dollars for a minimum configuration..
Why is the parent modded Flamebait?
Who else except those desperados at Real Networks would develop a player for an appliance that already has a competing player coming from the appliance maker (and which I guess is free)?
> prices of popcorn
Since when have fscking popcorns become a cost issue? Do you people have jobs? Or are you posting from a 3rd world country?
Geezuz!
(Even if you stay at home, you'll probably have your deflated popcorns and a sandwidch and a bottle of - probably more enjoybable but not cheaper).
Personally I both rent DVDs and go to the theather - big moves are always better at the threatre.
>Oh, do we all know that? That's funny, I think that these people seem to know something different.
No, _your_ comment is funny because you are ignorant about high end storage and you don't know it.
NetApp's high end filers write at about 250MB/sec - even in this scenario 4 GbE links are enough (stil, few companies can afford those models) - and SANs get up to 1.5 GB/sec per controller but any single server host connected to it cannot saturate that bandwidth, which means you usually get about 150MB/sec per host as I said in my earlier post.
Find a URL that shows a single commodity file server capable of over 200MB/sec in I/O (even if there are such servers, 200MB/sec does not justify GbE since it can be filled with three GbE links).
They're working on a HTML-only version.
They're also working on forwarding to other accounts so one could forward to their home DSL box for IMAP access and keep messages on GMail for Web access.
I don't know - I use email a lot (since early nineties) but the more I use it the less I care. I used to keep burn CDs to keep my email thinking I'd want to look at some of it later - now I just keep last year's email until mid-year and then I delete all last year's email - it's sooo much simpler and once you're done there's nothing to lose and nothing to recover.
>It is not a problem at all if most of your clients use the same, relatively small (and thus cacheable) set of files.
Then you don't need 10GbE.
>Besides, the disk I/O is not that frequent these days, once you have your app loaded.
Exactly - more RAM and you don't need 10GbE.
And finally it is cheaper and more reliable to have the server connected to four GbE switches (and 1/4 of the clients connected to each of those switches) than implementing a redundant 10GbE.
> especially databases that stay partially in RAM.
Come on, 10GbE still suffers from latency the same way GbE does and unpredictable nature of database queries renders the idea of holding selected tables in RAM useless for most practical purposes.
The original article sez:
> bandwidth-expensive operations (e.g., database replication)
Bullshit.
They have to write data to something after it comes out on the other end - they can't write to the goddamn void - and as we all know, a server host can write about 150MB/sec which can be saturated with two GbE links - there's no need for 10GbE.
As the linked article concluded, it's very clear 10GbE is currently useful only for core networks and not for the server room (shiiit, big news...).
Yet another useless and speculative article....
>he's just agreeing with both the US justice dept and the european union, both of which have convicted microsoft of being a monopoly, and abusing those powers
.NET and Mono. And finally more and more people use Linux because it is there and it is a choice that has existed for a while.
The legal thing was about the browser, media player and the OS, not all of their products such as Office, Exchange, SQL Server, etc.
The EU is just jelaous they have no native major OS vendor (especially after SuSE was snapped by Novell - ouch!). The US - well the land of many lawsuits - do I need to elaborate?
The whole thing was/is laughable - a bunch of bitter losers wanting to hang the winner.
The shitty competing player (Real Media), the shitty browser (Netscape) and the shitty platform competitor (Sun) - THANK GOD they managed to keep those deadbeats away from Windows OS.
And after the lawsuits, has anything changed?
NONE of the alleged problems, except predatory pricing, were solved by the lawsuits. (And as far as predatory pricing is concerned - OF COURSE they did it, I'd do it too if I could).
Just look at the situation now - people are en masse installing Firefox because it's good, NOT because MS IE can be uninstalled. People prefer Windows Media Player beacuse it's not any worse than Real or SlowTime. Java didn't get any more popular because it was shit and is shit - developers are developing for
All the lawsuits did was big noise and burned a shitload of public money - but then again, being socialist wasters that the Clinton and the EU goverments were/are - they don't know any better, do they?
> microsoft reinventing every single protocol and standard and then closing it up
Every. Single. Standard... Riiight.
Read your statement again, I'm sure you'll get a good laugh out of it.
> the last thing that will sway my decision is whether a piece of free proprietary software will work well with it.
t m
I pity you.
You worship idol of cave* and are creating paradoxical situation whereby you are _limit your freedom of choice_ while professing _free_ software.
*
http://www.comnet.ca/~pballan/Bacon(idols).h
The file is a fake, oops!
While you were thinking up the conspiracy theory you could have downloaded the album.
5 77 AE20995628BE34603ADC7E39|/
ed2k://|file|U2.-.Vertigo.-03.mp3|4077454|C3F4C
ed2k://|file|U2.-.Vertigo.-03.mp3|4077454|C3F4C577 AE20995628BE34603ADC7E39|/
As a result they put inside their logo and Java and people can't figure out how to copy although they should be able to.
Same shit like these embedded guys - obscure and confuse.
Someone else commented with a link to WhiteBox Linux - I know about it and about Lineox as well.
These are nice workarounds but I'm mostly interested in the fact why someone can make non-distributable ISOs of GPL software.
---
Ok, you have a home rolled RHEL. But you can't redistribute RHEL without incurring the wrath of Red Hat's trademark lawyers so now begins the fun part. The EULA only says you must change the redhat-logos and anaconda-images packages. Yea, right. I know I didn't want to put up ISO images with RedHat's name all over it on a server in the reach of US law.
So I pretty much pulled RedHat's name off of just about everything that might imply that White Box was a relative of RHEL or anyway connected with Red Hat, Inc. I did leave their name on individual packages created by them. There is a difference between creating an impression of being connected with RedHat and stealing credit for their copyrighted works. So I left all copyright notices intact and left their name in where it would be appropriate to leave anyone else's name in place. So you do get the option to install Red Hat's server configuration tools but nowhere will Red Hat Linux or Red Hat Enterprise Linux appear to an end user. (At least in theory.... I probably missed a few.)
----
Source: http://www.whiteboxlinux.org/howto.html
See this is what I'm talking about - you build RPMs and ISOs from _GPL source_ and you still can't redistribute them. That's fxxxed up. I'm sure one day someone will put end to such stuff.
Of course you didn't - most people didn't give a damn except those bozos who decorated their Web sites with those little stupid anti-GIF icons.
Sure, there are some situations where not using GIFs was/is appropriate or desirable (for example where other formats do a better job), but not using it just because it was patented is silly.
How is that different from what Red Hat does?
I havan't seen anyone redistributing Enterprise Linux 3.0 ISOs.
What use is a GPL if you're unable to... copy (OK, that's not exactly what Agent Smith said but close enough).
>Who would get sued for copyright infringements?
.
Corporate users - first the big ones then small fish
In the meantime GNU would come up with a replacement and most people would switch.
>Perhaps simply modifying mail protocols (migrating away from SMTP, POP3, IMAP etc.)
SQUID proxy + AntiVirus software?
> Outbreak of mental illness: Anger problem
No, that is the right response to a dumb ass comment. If someone doesn't understand something, that's fine - it probably can be learned - but the assertive attitude combined with utmost stupidity and ignorance goes on most people nerves.
The only "problem" is that he cares and can't take it any more. In the old times most comments (and stories) used to be fairly intelligent. In case you haven't noticed, it's been getting real bad - now about 20% of content is useful/informative/worthwile and 80% is indistinguishable from any other forum.
> Well, these rules are obviously not written in stone. "likely" is speculative
Well in the first place this Slashdot article is just another speculative PoS - the issue was discussed here before several times without any conclusion - I guess that is FUD the OSS way.
>From the NWFusion article: "At issue is that software vendors such as Oracle and Microsoft that license software on a per-CPU basis are likely to consider each processor a separate CPU"
WTF? Each processor IS a "separate CPU".
Each _core_ may be or not be.
Several ISVs that my company works with decided to stick with the physical licensing (with HT) and have indicated they will stick with it with multicore CPUs as well.
>It is a vehicle to sell their hardware.
:-)
and services of course
It is foolish to consider IBM or any company pro-open source (the grandparent post). The truth is they don't give a shit and why should they? Their mission is to rip the last penny out of the customer's vallet.
Those who don't like it can download, install and support their own Linux or whatever.
And for the neediest there's Red Cross (and Crescent) too.