It's a nice idea, and if anyone is going to do it first I'd bet on Airbus - they seem to like removing manual overrides and such on their planes from the pilot.
The other thing is: if there's a failed MFD I hope the pilots know the prompt is going to show in a different place and that they'll spot it in all the confusion, then there's the failure mode where all the MFDs are unavailable and they're flying the plane from the tiny battery powered backup instruments, etc.
You cannot say science cannot be practiced under the theory that the universe was created (by a creator)- it's a plausible theory, much like many of the others.
Indeed, most science can be practiced without fear of contradicting or confronting the "christian way" under that theory, however making arbitrary statements that contradict existing scientific evidence such as "the earth is around 6000 years old, it says so right here" (BTW I'd like to see where it does) is NOT scientific.
I would actually argue that the core philosophy of "science" is that a statement must be derived from evidence and logic; if that evidence and "logic" (aka doctrine) becomes complicated and contradicts other arbitrary and complicated doctrine from different sources (like other religions), then you really cannot say it is "science".
Saying that the earth is x years old because of an obscure reference in an abritrary 3rd-hand translation of genesis is about as scientific as saying Allah created man from the void...
And if you must know, the greece incident highlighted concerns with crew training and procedures.
Most pilots are presented with rapid decompression scenarios on the simulator; the greece incident was gradual (to the extent that it failed to pressurise during the climb to cruise altitude).
The crew didn't recognise the situation that was developing as pressurisation failure, they thought there was a problem with the "incorrect takeoff configuration" alarm horn which has the same sound as the alarm used for cabin altitude problem.
The captain had left his seat to speak with ground crew about finding a circuit breaker to turn the annoying alarm off; so between the german captain, the greek FO, and the company's ground crew - they all failed to consider the possibility that they weren't pressurising.
If we had an automated system that began an emergency descent like what is being proposed, who is to say that this incident wouldn't be repeated by yet another captain trying to find the CB to disable the "annoying autopilot" preventing him from getting to cruise altitude?
Absolutely incorrect. There are many decompression events in aviation history. Pilots are trained to deal with it every year in their ATP simulator checkrides.
Whether it's a feasible idea that will actually improve safety or not is one thing, but most people here are grossly simplifying things, due to perhaps not knowing what they're talking about (and no, I don't work in aviation engineering either).
It's nothing like adding grammar check to OpenOffice, for example.
_ALL_ features must endure full engineering analysis in its effectivness, usage, cost, failure modes, complexity, and maintenence. For this idea to be considered, all these factors must offset the expected increase in safety (preventing the very rare occurance of decompression resulting in death), and it must be a demonstrable INCREASE in safety (are the potential failure modes and their frequency likely to result in MORE deaths than it will prevent?).
Just the mere fact that most aircraft are designed with 25 year life-cycles in mind makes the entire process almost unrecognisable to other industries.
The people in charge of deciding what features go in to the avionics are engineers as well, not just the implementors that they assign the work to.
There hasn't been an airliner with an "engineer's station" since the 1970s, IIRC...
But to put it bluntly, you're adding a lot of complexity, reducing reliability and introducing even more premutations of different failure modes than they already have, with VERY little gain.
Not to mention the safety-critical decisions you have now entrusted to the system: maintaining safe terrain clearance, announcing its unplanned departure from its allocated flight level to warn other traffic to avoid collision, not to mention the complexities involved if there are other problems apart from depressurisation (for instance, many autopilots disconnect and depend on manual control if there is an engine failure - is your decompression going to override that behaviour?).
There is a way of looking at this that might shed some light on why this hasn't been done: the simple fact that decompression resulting in flight crew incapacitation is extremely rare.
Therefore, we have to look at the benefits (would the proposed idea have helped these rare cases?) and the disadvantages (will failures of this system reduce overall safety more than it improves it?).
If the pilot has the presence of mind to read, understand and respond appropriately to the y/n question, they might as well dial 10,000 feet on the altitude-hold autopilot controls or just click off the autopilot completely and do the descent themselves, the way they are continuously trained every year in their ATP simulator checkrides.
The people designing these things are incredibly smart and I'm not sure people out there really appreciate the level of detail and thoroughness any new feature must be considered with in aerospace engineering... even the simple fact that most aircraft are designed with 25 year life-cycles makes the engineering effort totally unrecognisable to most other industries.
The moral of the story is, automated aircraft systems make day-to-day operations much smoother, more efficient, and less tiring for the human pilot. When it comes to emergency scenarios, it really does take a human to make the best decisions - autopilots don't have situational awareness of the surrounding scenario, and are unable to correctly prioritise aspects of the flight and consider everything in the full context of the emergency which requires human reasoning.
I'm not saying it's "wrong" as such (I guess it was a pretty negative statement though), I'm just pointing out facts which happen to be amusing (to me:-).
Heh. Seriously, though, they're welcome to create their own.
Are you implying that all the non-third-world countries would prefer it to be controlled directly by the US as opposed to the UN?
Seems to me like a strange opinion for Americans, considering the UN would be a more democratic alternative...
Given that they pretty much had no other option (and that it was politically convenient for the great firewall of China), what with the pathetic number of IPv4 addresses allocated to them (amusing considering the amount that IBM and GE etc. own with having entire blocks of class A), China's done a pretty good job of "creating their own" Internet.
I do agree that the UN bureacracy would not be any more "efficient", however:
Ever heard of the great fire wall? Imagine giving china, saudi arabia, egypt, Libya, Zimbabwe and Cuba a say in running ICANN (or it's replacement)..XXX would be a joke, we'd be fighting over whether ISPs have to be registered with their state government, whether you have to be registered with the censors to have an IP address, etc.
... all of this has either already happend and/or is not stopped from doing so under the current system.
If anything, the UN bureacracy is where a fat lot of nothing occurs very very slowly. If you want a system where nothing overly drastic can happen, I think the UN would be a great administrator.
Just think about the fact that slashdot would be illegal in a number of the countries clammering for control. Too much anti-government content.
I'd like to know what it is about having the US in direct control (vs indirect control it would still have under the UN) that stops these things you mention from occuring.
Now imagine what those some people will do when they control the root DNS servers.
Personally, I think your fears are misplaced and stem from a misunderstanding of both the current system and the proposed changes, not to mention this bizarre notion you have that the UN as a body of United Nations might be suddenly influenced by some rogue country and make some outrageous decision overnight on behalf of the entire assembly without anyone noticing (and with everyone allowing)...
Just as a small factual correction, the DNS root servers are located in several parts of the world - only 7 of the 13 root nameservers are located in the USA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_nameserver
just wondering really how many companies really give a shit about auditing the code of these really peripheral tools.
I realise now you weren't attacking FLOSS, so for what it's worth, I've found the ability to run apps in gdb with debugging symbols compiled-in quite useful. But then I've still missed your point about the "audit"... I guess I don't have any experience that has led to a situation where a code audit of any kind was required (I've audited PBX configurations to ensure emergency number dial-outs work but that's not the same).
The point is you have the option to "audit" the software... not to mention that due to its very nature the likelihood of there being backdoors in open source is quite low whereas with proprietry software it's almost impossible to know for sure.
How is this unlike FLOSS? If you paid money for your Linux distro, you can get support there. Additionally, there are plenty of alternative FLOSS software consultants out there.
On the other hand, if I had a dollar for every time a small/mid-size company client at my old shop was left out in the cold with zero options even if they wanted to sponsor a solution, by a proprietry software vendor - well, I'd be almost a hundred dollars richer...
Granted, these vendors (despite calling themselves as such) are probably not the same "enterprise-class" that you're discussing: but I fail to see how FLOSS has any less support options. If anything, it has more.
This is a highly subjective and personal taste thing.
I will agree that the manner in which new FLOSS apps are initially developed leaves something to be desired.
However, this style of development is far more effective than typical proprietry methods in my (worthless) humble opinion once a product matures and is mostly in "maintenence" mode, which is the case with OpenSSH.
More to the point, after providing low-level hardware, networking and OS support for companies running proprietry ERP/CRM/Accounting apps I'm thinking of starting my own company to provide my own software.
Propreitry vendors don't magically have "proper QA and release procdures", have you even seen the typical level of quality of proprietry software that isn't MS/IBM/Peoplesoft? It's pathetic! Medical software running hospitals and surgeries that no longer print invoices after a patch release (I actually stood there while a support tech instructed the user how to do a screen-cap, paste to mspaint.exe and print that!), accounting/stock managment packages with worse-than-useless reporting (to the point that they hire someone specifically to manually transcribe data by hand into MYOB!), CRM apps that take up to 30 seconds to bring up client details, ERP apps that are impossible to back up...
The vast majority of software companies suck. It's hard for FLOSS to suck worse compared to these guys...
2. GUI configuration in X/QT/GTK...ect... http://www.webmin.com/standard.html webmin - has all the pretty check-boxes and drop-down combo lists you need. There are probably other solutions besides webmin that you can use.
3. Performance monitoring tools Erm... top? I don't know what performance parameter you need to monitor. The OpenSSH scp client already gives you a transfer rate.
Moral of the story: Like many other unix things that are Good (tm), OpenSSH doesn't have to be all things to all people... one app that does one thing and does something well is the "unix" way. It's quite trivial in most cases to expand functionality by taking advantage of the modularity of these things.
Having said that, OpenSSH really does quite a lot of stuff.
I was able to get around a restriction on a university machine's SSH server policy of "only allow the client to forward ports to server's localhost" by running another ssh client on the server and forwarding the localhost port via another box on the outside... and all so I could get around the stupid firewall not allowing CVS:-(
Re:Nope- no companies hiring that can afford to ca
on
Pay vs. Happiness
·
· Score: 1
But if our debt to income ratio (currently 50%! Nationwide we spend $150 for every $100 we earn!)
Source? That seems implausibly high. The median income is something like $35k, I find it difficult to believe that the median spending is $50k.
True. I found a site saying expicitly that said the average american citizen spent $1.22 for eavery $1 earned (2001 IIRC), but I couldn't find a worldbank or.gov page that stated this explicitly. There's lots of numbers provided but you'd have to calc it on your own, based on the figures for total personal debt, the adult (or working?) population, and average incomes... and are they for households? Individuals? It's hard to get the right set of numbers that all line up and mean the same thing in order to get a meaningful result.
I suspect the "$150 for every $100" figure would have to be an overall figure on the American economy (which includes government and corporations and trade - everything).
Re:Nope- no companies hiring that can afford to ca
on
Pay vs. Happiness
·
· Score: 2, Informative
we do work harder -- more hours per week, more weeks per year.
That's a bit of a simplistic analysis of any massively complex stastistic. All the countries have their own methods of reporting, classification, etc...
For instance, I can see three countries (using 1994 data) on page 6 of this document: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/51/2080270.pdf which exceeded the USA in the category of percentage of workers working more than 45 hours per week; Australia, Japan, and the United Kingdom. This is of OECD countries - I'd like to see figures for non-OECD too; I had a discussion about this with a Chinese guy at Uni and he said 7 day work weeks were not uncommon over there. If it comes to that, I've worked a 7 day week two or three times, too.
No, I think you'll find the "clipped sine" is just half-wave rectified AC. That's what you get with just a single diode, nothing else, no capacitor involved. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectifier.
The worst switch-mode PSU we have built at university (2nd year) had the most embarassing efficiency... of around 60%. I made various improvements and got the efficiency to around 75%, IIRC.
From memory, if the inductor coil (gauge of the copper, turn radius, etc) and its core can be chosen carefully with a high-frequency switching design (250KHz and beyond) then efficiencies greater than 95% can be achieved.
I'm with NoseBag on this one... something is completely screwy to get a 40% efficiency. I'm not the most experienced SMPS designer in the world, but the DC-DC converter's I've built usually collapse way before you load them down hard enough to end up with 40% efficiency - the feedback loop in the switching circuit just can't do its thing any more.
Of course, the designs I did are probably quite different to what we find in an ATX PSU...
I'll just mention that firstly, I think it's good you pointed out the hyperbole in the grandparent poster. I also think there have been more "fuckworthy" governments than GW Bush, but the thing is - not in any of our lifetimes, right? And that's where you've missed the point completely. You're focusing on the hyperbole but the real message was that it is disturbing to see these traits of oppression and totalitarianism (and an open disregard for your constitution, E.G. forcible disarming of the citizens of New Orleans) [hmm, I guess that was my turn for hyperbole]. [3]
So, anyway.. am I mis-reading the theme of your post here? That to expect responsible adults (and countries) to make ethical, rational decisions is too much to ask?
As screwed up as it sounds, these are the sole reasons I voted for Bush--screw Iraq, screw Afghanistan.
But to what extent? In these countries since the conflict began, they're accumulating deaths equivilent to a "911" attack every 3 months [2]. If the USA was getting 12,000 deaths a year [1] would they be happy about it?
Conversely, the Middle Eastern people created Bush and the administration. You reap what you sow doesn't care what side you're on.
It sounds like you're saying, "It isn't our fault we're arrogant bastards, it's everyone else's for not standing up and trying to fuck us back!".
It's my understanding that this is the type of attitude that lables America with the term "arrogant"; that they think if there's no conflict and confrontation, everybody must be happy with it.
People are still ultimately responsible for their choices and actions.
Incredible...
[1] pp2, http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/47081. pdf [2] 2,749 (WTO) + 184 (Pentagon) + 40 (Flight 93) - pp552, http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf [3] I think tightly regulated gun control is a good thing. Is America's culture and society ready for it? Probably not in all places. But if you're going to ignore the fucking constitution, exactly how does a citizen actually know what their rights are and what rules their government is playing by?
I can't imagine how I didn't manage to research this earlier... I did ask several OS X fans/users but got no useful response!
Thanks! (but still posting this within a Gnome/X11 desktop;-)
Reasons for using KDE/Gnome on OS X w/Finder
on
KDE Running on Mac OS X
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I'm running a mish-mash of Gnome components ranging from 2.6 - 2.12 with fink.
Darwinports also has a gnome and KDE distribution for X11 on Mac OS X.
The Gnome stuff has been a bit crazy recently, what with the menu files changing file formats and everything.
Why do I run Gnome? Simple: consistent keyboard shortcuts. On my iBook, I have too many different inconsistent ways to get home, end, pg up and pg dn - some use Fn+arrow, others use the command (apple) key. In Apple's terminal app, it's all backwards - you have to press shift+apple+arrow to get home/end, but for pg up/dn you just use apple+arrow, whereas on Linux/Solaris you use shift+pg up (which would be shift+Fn+pg up on this iBook). WTF?
Don't even get me started on the Finder's utterly, utterly useless "alt-tab" - what a pointless piece of crap. You simply _CANNOT_ switch windows with it, only applications! Great, you can switch focus to the most recently used window in one app or the most recently used window in another, but there is NO FUCKING WAY you can change amongst those app's windows without using the mouse and going to the "window" menu or using "expose" (all involve several distracted seconds on that bastard touch-pad mouse thing).
More frustratingly, apple+arrow in Apple's terminal switches between terminal windows - which is great - but I am either expecting this behaviour to get me home/end (like using apple+pg up/pg dn does), or trying to use apple + left/right arrows to switch windows in some other application that does not mimic this behaviour!
NeoOffice/J uses Fn+arrow for home/end, but Mozilla etc. use apple+arrow. Then apple's terminal uses shift+apple+arrow...
I still don't even know how to skip over words in a line of text (in Linux/windows it's ctrl+arrow, but this does nothing in most mac apps).
Sigh... I never thought I'd see the day... resorting to a gnome desktop instead of Finder. Finder has some great aspects to it; its network shares are reliable and good, and after I've installed the virtual desktops 3rd party app I feel mostly at home... except for the bloody retarded keyboard shortcuts and lack of a usable alt-tab.
It's a bloody nightmare for keyboard users. Please stop trying to make me use the touchpad... argh
Haha, I'm so glad I don't do tech support any more.
So, I'll tell you something for nothing -
Actually, more often than not, the "32bit subsystem error" is caused by a missing autoexec.nt and config.nt in the windows\system32 directory.
No joke... check out MS KB 305521 (yes, I have a few favourite KB articles memorised...)
You can recreate these as zero-length files or just copy them from the restore\ directory (created during initial XP install - may not exist on OEM images).
Unfortunately, a certain number of systems will still insist on deleting these files again for you after a random period of time; I hadn't associated this with any Symantec products but it sure as well wouldn't surprise me...
Imagine us, as an authorised Symantec reseller, trying to get support for several OEM discs coming with invalid prodcut keys and being told that "there is no such thing as OEM NAV" (with me holding the phone in one hand in disbelief and a disc with the big fat honking black letters on yellow background, "OEM - To be sold only with a new PC" in the other).
Christwagons, that Symantec shit is the worst fucking experience of my life. I'm working on erasing that crap from my memory.
"Oh your email isn't working? No, our servers are fine... do you happen to be running a symantec product with firewall features? You did liveupdate recently... okay now just follow this 6 page registry hack procedure, it appears they released a faulty LiveUpdate... again..."
AHAAAAHGHGHGHHGHGHHGH
I spoke to one of the techs that still work at that shop, he said that they've switched to kaspersky and haven't looked back (at least Kaspersky doesn't depend on a 100% healthy windows system - symantec needs 1001 windows components to be working properly or it just breaks in a hilarious way. ActiveX, Javascript, Internet Exploder, proper trusted zone settings, etc etc...).
One of the best features is that Kaspersky resellers get to manage their customer's product and activation keys!! Which was a huge source of frustration for them, I can't believe they stuck with Symantec for so long after being Symantec resellers ever since they opened up in the mid-90s... gotta love the "kbfix.exe" that corrected the random de-activation of OEM NAV (which doesn't exist, by the way) on Laptop machines running XP Home... Why laptops? Who knows... it boggles the mind to think how software could possibly be written, such that it could possibly even know it was running on a laptop, let alone come up with a reason as to why it would like to do something so utterly arbitrary as de-activate because it was running on one.
Slashdot Mirror
There's two number 4s ;-)
It's a nice idea, and if anyone is going to do it first I'd bet on Airbus - they seem to like removing manual overrides and such on their planes from the pilot.
The other thing is: if there's a failed MFD I hope the pilots know the prompt is going to show in a different place and that they'll spot it in all the confusion, then there's the failure mode where all the MFDs are unavailable and they're flying the plane from the tiny battery powered backup instruments, etc.
You cannot say science cannot be practiced under the theory that the universe was created (by a creator)- it's a plausible theory, much like many of the others.
Indeed, most science can be practiced without fear of contradicting or confronting the "christian way" under that theory, however making arbitrary statements that contradict existing scientific evidence such as "the earth is around 6000 years old, it says so right here" (BTW I'd like to see where it does) is NOT scientific.
I would actually argue that the core philosophy of "science" is that a statement must be derived from evidence and logic; if that evidence and "logic" (aka doctrine) becomes complicated and contradicts other arbitrary and complicated doctrine from different sources (like other religions), then you really cannot say it is "science".
Saying that the earth is x years old because of an obscure reference in an abritrary 3rd-hand translation of genesis is about as scientific as saying Allah created man from the void...
And if you must know, the greece incident highlighted concerns with crew training and procedures.
Most pilots are presented with rapid decompression scenarios on the simulator; the greece incident was gradual (to the extent that it failed to pressurise during the climb to cruise altitude).
The crew didn't recognise the situation that was developing as pressurisation failure, they thought there was a problem with the "incorrect takeoff configuration" alarm horn which has the same sound as the alarm used for cabin altitude problem.
The captain had left his seat to speak with ground crew about finding a circuit breaker to turn the annoying alarm off; so between the german captain, the greek FO, and the company's ground crew - they all failed to consider the possibility that they weren't pressurising.
If we had an automated system that began an emergency descent like what is being proposed, who is to say that this incident wouldn't be repeated by yet another captain trying to find the CB to disable the "annoying autopilot" preventing him from getting to cruise altitude?
But it has 100% mortality rate
Absolutely incorrect. There are many decompression events in aviation history. Pilots are trained to deal with it every year in their ATP simulator checkrides.
Whether it's a feasible idea that will actually improve safety or not is one thing, but most people here are grossly simplifying things, due to perhaps not knowing what they're talking about (and no, I don't work in aviation engineering either).
It's nothing like adding grammar check to OpenOffice, for example.
_ALL_ features must endure full engineering analysis in its effectivness, usage, cost, failure modes, complexity, and maintenence. For this idea to be considered, all these factors must offset the expected increase in safety (preventing the very rare occurance of decompression resulting in death), and it must be a demonstrable INCREASE in safety (are the potential failure modes and their frequency likely to result in MORE deaths than it will prevent?).
Just the mere fact that most aircraft are designed with 25 year life-cycles in mind makes the entire process almost unrecognisable to other industries.
The people in charge of deciding what features go in to the avionics are engineers as well, not just the implementors that they assign the work to.
There hasn't been an airliner with an "engineer's station" since the 1970s, IIRC...
But to put it bluntly, you're adding a lot of complexity, reducing reliability and introducing even more premutations of different failure modes than they already have, with VERY little gain.
Not to mention the safety-critical decisions you have now entrusted to the system: maintaining safe terrain clearance, announcing its unplanned departure from its allocated flight level to warn other traffic to avoid collision, not to mention the complexities involved if there are other problems apart from depressurisation (for instance, many autopilots disconnect and depend on manual control if there is an engine failure - is your decompression going to override that behaviour?).
There is a way of looking at this that might shed some light on why this hasn't been done: the simple fact that decompression resulting in flight crew incapacitation is extremely rare.
Therefore, we have to look at the benefits (would the proposed idea have helped these rare cases?) and the disadvantages (will failures of this system reduce overall safety more than it improves it?).
If the pilot has the presence of mind to read, understand and respond appropriately to the y/n question, they might as well dial 10,000 feet on the altitude-hold autopilot controls or just click off the autopilot completely and do the descent themselves, the way they are continuously trained every year in their ATP simulator checkrides.
The people designing these things are incredibly smart and I'm not sure people out there really appreciate the level of detail and thoroughness any new feature must be considered with in aerospace engineering... even the simple fact that most aircraft are designed with 25 year life-cycles makes the engineering effort totally unrecognisable to most other industries.
The moral of the story is, automated aircraft systems make day-to-day operations much smoother, more efficient, and less tiring for the human pilot. When it comes to emergency scenarios, it really does take a human to make the best decisions - autopilots don't have situational awareness of the surrounding scenario, and are unable to correctly prioritise aspects of the flight and consider everything in the full context of the emergency which requires human reasoning.
I'm not saying it's "wrong" as such (I guess it was a pretty negative statement though), I'm just pointing out facts which happen to be amusing (to me :-).
TFA has nothing to do with FLOSS licensing, you idiot.
This has nothing to do with FLOSS licenses though.
I don't see anywhere in the IE6.0SP1 license where it says they will gladly compensate you for these things should they occur...
Are you implying that all the non-third-world countries would prefer it to be controlled directly by the US as opposed to the UN?
Seems to me like a strange opinion for Americans, considering the UN would be a more democratic alternative...
Given that they pretty much had no other option (and that it was politically convenient for the great firewall of China), what with the pathetic number of IPv4 addresses allocated to them (amusing considering the amount that IBM and GE etc. own with having entire blocks of class A), China's done a pretty good job of "creating their own" Internet.
If anything, the UN bureacracy is where a fat lot of nothing occurs very very slowly. If you want a system where nothing overly drastic can happen, I think the UN would be a great administrator.
I'd like to know what it is about having the US in direct control (vs indirect control it would still have under the UN) that stops these things you mention from occuring.
Personally, I think your fears are misplaced and stem from a misunderstanding of both the current system and the proposed changes, not to mention this bizarre notion you have that the UN as a body of United Nations might be suddenly influenced by some rogue country and make some outrageous decision overnight on behalf of the entire assembly without anyone noticing (and with everyone allowing)...
Just as a small factual correction, the DNS root servers are located in several parts of the world - only 7 of the 13 root nameservers are located in the USA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_nameserver
Can you specify which source files you were looking at?
I'm curious.
just wondering really how many companies really give a shit about auditing the code of these really peripheral tools.
I realise now you weren't attacking FLOSS, so for what it's worth, I've found the ability to run apps in gdb with debugging symbols compiled-in quite useful. But then I've still missed your point about the "audit"... I guess I don't have any experience that has led to a situation where a code audit of any kind was required (I've audited PBX configurations to ensure emergency number dial-outs work but that's not the same).
The point is you have the option to "audit" the software... not to mention that due to its very nature the likelihood of there being backdoors in open source is quite low whereas with proprietry software it's almost impossible to know for sure.
How is this unlike FLOSS? If you paid money for your Linux distro, you can get support there. Additionally, there are plenty of alternative FLOSS software consultants out there.
On the other hand, if I had a dollar for every time a small/mid-size company client at my old shop was left out in the cold with zero options even if they wanted to sponsor a solution, by a proprietry software vendor - well, I'd be almost a hundred dollars richer...
Granted, these vendors (despite calling themselves as such) are probably not the same "enterprise-class" that you're discussing: but I fail to see how FLOSS has any less support options. If anything, it has more.
There are several "GUI" OpenSSH configurators. One of them is http://www.webmin.com/.
This is a highly subjective and personal taste thing.
I will agree that the manner in which new FLOSS apps are initially developed leaves something to be desired.
However, this style of development is far more effective than typical proprietry methods in my (worthless) humble opinion once a product matures and is mostly in "maintenence" mode, which is the case with OpenSSH.
More to the point, after providing low-level hardware, networking and OS support for companies running proprietry ERP/CRM/Accounting apps I'm thinking of starting my own company to provide my own software.
Propreitry vendors don't magically have "proper QA and release procdures", have you even seen the typical level of quality of proprietry software that isn't MS/IBM/Peoplesoft? It's pathetic! Medical software running hospitals and surgeries that no longer print invoices after a patch release (I actually stood there while a support tech instructed the user how to do a screen-cap, paste to mspaint.exe and print that!), accounting/stock managment packages with worse-than-useless reporting (to the point that they hire someone specifically to manually transcribe data by hand into MYOB!), CRM apps that take up to 30 seconds to bring up client details, ERP apps that are impossible to back up...
The vast majority of software companies suck. It's hard for FLOSS to suck worse compared to these guys...
Ideas... :-)
c &sektion=4 (as far as I know, hardware crypto accelerators are automatically taken advantage of for OpenSSH/OpenSSL applications)
Ahh, well, they're already one step ahead of you on these things
1. How bout a hardware based SSH accelerator for fast SFTP/SCP transfers?
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=ubse
2. GUI configuration in X/QT/GTK...ect...
http://www.webmin.com/standard.html webmin - has all the pretty check-boxes and drop-down combo lists you need. There are probably other solutions besides webmin that you can use.
3. Performance monitoring tools
Erm... top? I don't know what performance parameter you need to monitor. The OpenSSH scp client already gives you a transfer rate.
Moral of the story: Like many other unix things that are Good (tm), OpenSSH doesn't have to be all things to all people... one app that does one thing and does something well is the "unix" way. It's quite trivial in most cases to expand functionality by taking advantage of the modularity of these things.
Having said that, OpenSSH really does quite a lot of stuff.
Indeed.
:-(
I was able to get around a restriction on a university machine's SSH server policy of "only allow the client to forward ports to server's localhost" by running another ssh client on the server and forwarding the localhost port via another box on the outside... and all so I could get around the stupid firewall not allowing CVS
True. I found a site saying expicitly that said the average american citizen spent $1.22 for eavery $1 earned (2001 IIRC), but I couldn't find a worldbank or
Interesting tidbits:
o 0.7% of adult Americans file for bankruptcy http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=2421&sequenc
o In 2003, 1.6 million Americans filed for bankruptcy, the highest amount in history. (Amer. Bankruptcy Inst.)
o 43% of American families spend more than they earn. (Federal Reserve)
o Americans carry an average credit card debt of more than $8,500. (Motley Fool)
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Georgecg_123281
I suspect the "$150 for every $100" figure would have to be an overall figure on the American economy (which includes government and corporations and trade - everything).
we do work harder -- more hours per week, more weeks per year.
That's a bit of a simplistic analysis of any massively complex stastistic. All the countries have their own methods of reporting, classification, etc...
For instance, I can see three countries (using 1994 data) on page 6 of this document: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/51/2080270.pdf which exceeded the USA in the category of percentage of workers working more than 45 hours per week; Australia, Japan, and the United Kingdom. This is of OECD countries - I'd like to see figures for non-OECD too; I had a discussion about this with a Chinese guy at Uni and he said 7 day work weeks were not uncommon over there. If it comes to that, I've worked a 7 day week two or three times, too.
I think you're confused or you woke up to early.
... of around 60%. I made various improvements and got the efficiency to around 75%, IIRC.
Pumped into a capacitor from a diode looks like a clipped sine. Like (drawn from memory) http://www.mauve.plus.com/sine.gif
You've got it backwards, parent poster was right.
No, I think you'll find the "clipped sine" is just half-wave rectified AC. That's what you get with just a single diode, nothing else, no capacitor involved. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectifier.
Your second diagram resembles the half-wave rectifier with a "smoothing capacitor" (or as Wikipedia calls it, a "Resevoir capacitor"). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservoir_capacitor.
The worst switch-mode PSU we have built at university (2nd year) had the most embarassing efficiency
From memory, if the inductor coil (gauge of the copper, turn radius, etc) and its core can be chosen carefully with a high-frequency switching design (250KHz and beyond) then efficiencies greater than 95% can be achieved.
I'm with NoseBag on this one... something is completely screwy to get a 40% efficiency. I'm not the most experienced SMPS designer in the world, but the DC-DC converter's I've built usually collapse way before you load them down hard enough to end up with 40% efficiency - the feedback loop in the switching circuit just can't do its thing any more.
Of course, the designs I did are probably quite different to what we find in an ATX PSU...
I'll just mention that firstly, I think it's good you pointed out the hyperbole in the grandparent poster. I also think there have been more "fuckworthy" governments than GW Bush, but the thing is - not in any of our lifetimes, right? And that's where you've missed the point completely. You're focusing on the hyperbole but the real message was that it is disturbing to see these traits of oppression and totalitarianism (and an open disregard for your constitution, E.G. forcible disarming of the citizens of New Orleans) [hmm, I guess that was my turn for hyperbole]. [3]
. pdff
So, anyway.. am I mis-reading the theme of your post here? That to expect responsible adults (and countries) to make ethical, rational decisions is too much to ask?
As screwed up as it sounds, these are the sole reasons I voted for Bush--screw Iraq, screw Afghanistan.
But to what extent? In these countries since the conflict began, they're accumulating deaths equivilent to a "911" attack every 3 months [2]. If the USA was getting 12,000 deaths a year [1] would they be happy about it?
Conversely, the Middle Eastern people created Bush and the administration. You reap what you sow doesn't care what side you're on.
It sounds like you're saying, "It isn't our fault we're arrogant bastards, it's everyone else's for not standing up and trying to fuck us back!".
It's my understanding that this is the type of attitude that lables America with the term "arrogant"; that they think if there's no conflict and confrontation, everybody must be happy with it.
People are still ultimately responsible for their choices and actions.
Incredible...
[1] pp2, http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/47081
[2] 2,749 (WTO) + 184 (Pentagon) + 40 (Flight 93) - pp552, http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pd
[3] I think tightly regulated gun control is a good thing. Is America's culture and society ready for it? Probably not in all places. But if you're going to ignore the fucking constitution, exactly how does a citizen actually know what their rights are and what rules their government is playing by?
they've had others to fight their wars for them if necessary.
Question Mark?
I can't imagine how I didn't manage to research this earlier... I did ask several OS X fans/users but got no useful response!
;-)
Thanks!
(but still posting this within a Gnome/X11 desktop
I'm running a mish-mash of Gnome components ranging from 2.6 - 2.12 with fink.
... except for the bloody retarded keyboard shortcuts and lack of a usable alt-tab.
Darwinports also has a gnome and KDE distribution for X11 on Mac OS X.
The Gnome stuff has been a bit crazy recently, what with the menu files changing file formats and everything.
Why do I run Gnome? Simple: consistent keyboard shortcuts. On my iBook, I have too many different inconsistent ways to get home, end, pg up and pg dn - some use Fn+arrow, others use the command (apple) key. In Apple's terminal app, it's all backwards - you have to press shift+apple+arrow to get home/end, but for pg up/dn you just use apple+arrow, whereas on Linux/Solaris you use shift+pg up (which would be shift+Fn+pg up on this iBook). WTF?
Don't even get me started on the Finder's utterly, utterly useless "alt-tab" - what a pointless piece of crap. You simply _CANNOT_ switch windows with it, only applications! Great, you can switch focus to the most recently used window in one app or the most recently used window in another, but there is NO FUCKING WAY you can change amongst those app's windows without using the mouse and going to the "window" menu or using "expose" (all involve several distracted seconds on that bastard touch-pad mouse thing).
More frustratingly, apple+arrow in Apple's terminal switches between terminal windows - which is great - but I am either expecting this behaviour to get me home/end (like using apple+pg up/pg dn does), or trying to use apple + left/right arrows to switch windows in some other application that does not mimic this behaviour!
NeoOffice/J uses Fn+arrow for home/end, but Mozilla etc. use apple+arrow. Then apple's terminal uses shift+apple+arrow...
I still don't even know how to skip over words in a line of text (in Linux/windows it's ctrl+arrow, but this does nothing in most mac apps).
Sigh... I never thought I'd see the day... resorting to a gnome desktop instead of Finder. Finder has some great aspects to it; its network shares are reliable and good, and after I've installed the virtual desktops 3rd party app I feel mostly at home
It's a bloody nightmare for keyboard users. Please stop trying to make me use the touchpad... argh
Haha, I'm so glad I don't do tech support any more.
So, I'll tell you something for nothing -
Actually, more often than not, the "32bit subsystem error" is caused by a missing autoexec.nt and config.nt in the windows\system32 directory.
No joke... check out MS KB 305521 (yes, I have a few favourite KB articles memorised...)
You can recreate these as zero-length files or just copy them from the restore\ directory (created during initial XP install - may not exist on OEM images).
Unfortunately, a certain number of systems will still insist on deleting these files again for you after a random period of time; I hadn't associated this with any Symantec products but it sure as well wouldn't surprise me...
Imagine us, as an authorised Symantec reseller, trying to get support for several OEM discs coming with invalid prodcut keys and being told that "there is no such thing as OEM NAV" (with me holding the phone in one hand in disbelief and a disc with the big fat honking black letters on yellow background, "OEM - To be sold only with a new PC" in the other).
Christwagons, that Symantec shit is the worst fucking experience of my life. I'm working on erasing that crap from my memory.
"Oh your email isn't working? No, our servers are fine... do you happen to be running a symantec product with firewall features? You did liveupdate recently... okay now just follow this 6 page registry hack procedure, it appears they released a faulty LiveUpdate... again..."
AHAAAAHGHGHGHHGHGHHGH
I spoke to one of the techs that still work at that shop, he said that they've switched to kaspersky and haven't looked back (at least Kaspersky doesn't depend on a 100% healthy windows system - symantec needs 1001 windows components to be working properly or it just breaks in a hilarious way. ActiveX, Javascript, Internet Exploder, proper trusted zone settings, etc etc...).
One of the best features is that Kaspersky resellers get to manage their customer's product and activation keys!! Which was a huge source of frustration for them, I can't believe they stuck with Symantec for so long after being Symantec resellers ever since they opened up in the mid-90s... gotta love the "kbfix.exe" that corrected the random de-activation of OEM NAV (which doesn't exist, by the way) on Laptop machines running XP Home... Why laptops? Who knows... it boggles the mind to think how software could possibly be written, such that it could possibly even know it was running on a laptop, let alone come up with a reason as to why it would like to do something so utterly arbitrary as de-activate because it was running on one.