I only compile kernels when I want. My Linux distro gives them compiled and tested for me in my upgrade stream.
Command lines are just another way to do stuff. It's a very powerful tool, indeed. Unless I want it, I seldom have to use it (yet, I know how they make life easier and really like to use it)
Its your fault to venture into the undocumented parts. If you are uncomfortable, stick to Fedora Core until you get the hang of it.
We, Unixers, usually miss the point that, while we don't have to reboot the whole computer at each and every important patch, we have to bring services down and then back up when they are significantly patched. For a database server it's not the system uptime that counts - it's the database uptime. If it goes down, I could as well have rebooted the whole server - the phone will ring just the same.
While this is a whole lot better than Windows, they are getting closer.
And... Well... The fact it was paid by Microsoft says nothing about the report. I sure would like to see the other reports paid by Microsoft that say FOSS is cheaper, more reliable, more ethical and that are tucked away somewhere in a folder marked "secret"
He made it perfectly clear that his #1 priority is to generate readership (as O'Gara did) no mather how many moral or ethical rules you are about to bend or break (just like O'Gara did).
The fact that the "Linux Community" holds its members to higher standards than John Dvorak, is, per se, a Good Thing.
That said, I think it will take a long time before it runs XP...
If you get rid of Windows, there is a huge space for low-cost non-x86 PCs running FOSS, because most programs can be ported in a very short time (if they are not ported already.
I would suggest you seeking out associations of the kind of company that stands to benefit most from it. I assume such companies do not diferentiate themselves from competition by their back-offices.
These associations may hold periodic meetings and thade shows. These events would be perfect places to seek funding from the association as a whole or to form a consortium to further develop your project.
You could even use a mixed license model, where the entities that contribute gain access to more than the entities that don't, but since I suppose that deploying the solution is a huge amount of work, support and ability to steer the feature-comitee alone may be enough an incentive.
By far, the most interesting gain in 64 bit computing (except in the x86 world, where AMD64 also introduces a couple much-needed registers that make a lot of a difference) is the extended address space. You must know a 32 bit address space (such as offered by pre PAE 32 bit x86 processors) limited processes to address 4 GB of memory at once. A 64 bit address space, OTOH, gives you 4096 times as much space.
IIRC (it seems nobody cared about it at the time enough to write it down), Windows (up to 2000) on Alpha could map at most 32 GB (a 35 bit address space) of memory to a single process. I am not sure what MIPS had available, but this falls short of a 64-bit address space.
I give you that Windows NT was conceived as a workstation and small server OS and having 4 GB of memory at that time was almost unthinkable and 16 TB of address space was almost a joke. Maybe NT on Alpha and MIPS was more than a 32-bit OS, but to call NT a 64 bit OS running on 64-bit CPUs is a bit of an exaggeration.
After laughing my way through "John Dvorak Predicts", I have come to understand that, in order to achieve true wisdom, one must learn to ignore everything John Dvorak says.
For printing, my home desktop needs new (and uncertified) drivers from Brother. My brother's computer can't share the printer hooked up to my sister's computer and I've spent a couple of hours trying to figure out why. All the sharing _seems_ to be set up correctly, it just doesn't share.
This is a bit off-topic, but there are drivers that seem deliberately crippled by the manufacturer as in number of copies and printer sharing. They must think some printers are to inexpensive to be shared and that you should buy one for each computer.
Most of the time, we are enhancing or fixing code. Yet, most programs (ar at least a huge many of them) are never enhanced after they go into production or reach a "mature" state except perhaps for minor changes or fixes.
I am sorry to tell you this, but most Microsoft software does work very well.
They may not be the coolest, fastest, more capable, more secure or more stable available, but they sure do the job.
I have seen a whole lot of MS SQL Server databases on production, without a single glitch. The user interface for managers is more than adequate. I always say it's the best product they make (after the natural keyboard and their optical mice).
If properly managed, WinXP is quite stable. I use it at one machine at home and it gives me no headaches.
As for development tools, it scares me how quickly.Net guys are at assembling simple business applications. I doubt those will be easy to maintain, but, frequently, code maintenance is not the point.
I think Microsoft software fits its niche, where you do not want to spend much training your IT staff but are willing to pay some money in order to get a brand and some support. It may not be suitable for 24x7 operations, but, for some, it's a good choice.
And true, Microsoft is not a nice company. They don't play nice and they give capitalists a bad name.
Of course, I prefer to use FOSS when possible, but I can imagine myself using proprietary solutions where they make sense.
Running an IT infrastructure is about solving a problem the best way you can, not making a point by ignoring reality.
If Hubble's big problem is with its gyros, why not dock an additional module with them inside. The gyros that keep something stable do not need to be inside it.
Smarter still would be to attach an orbit-transfer vehicle to it to allow it to be serviced at the ISS, instead of sending up someone with a shuttle. The parts needed for the job could be sent on a Progress or that other ESA cargo vehicle I am too lazy to look up now and the ISS is a cash-drain ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H solution desperately seeking a problem. If the vehicle has an ion engine, orbit-transfer could take a couple weeks but, as long as it extends the life of the telescope by more than that amount, I see no problem with that.
Slashdot Mirror
Who still actively develops for RiscOS? Isn't it pretty much dead?
It's a joke, right?
I only compile kernels when I want. My Linux distro gives them compiled and tested for me in my upgrade stream.
Command lines are just another way to do stuff. It's a very powerful tool, indeed. Unless I want it, I seldom have to use it (yet, I know how they make life easier and really like to use it)
Its your fault to venture into the undocumented parts. If you are uncomfortable, stick to Fedora Core until you get the hang of it.
What distro are you using, anyway?
We, Unixers, usually miss the point that, while we don't have to reboot the whole computer at each and every important patch, we have to bring services down and then back up when they are significantly patched. For a database server it's not the system uptime that counts - it's the database uptime. If it goes down, I could as well have rebooted the whole server - the phone will ring just the same.
While this is a whole lot better than Windows, they are getting closer.
And... Well... The fact it was paid by Microsoft says nothing about the report. I sure would like to see the other reports paid by Microsoft that say FOSS is cheaper, more reliable, more ethical and that are tucked away somewhere in a folder marked "secret"
It dates back to the time when Novell was evil and Microsoft was good.
He made it perfectly clear that his #1 priority is to generate readership (as O'Gara did) no mather how many moral or ethical rules you are about to bend or break (just like O'Gara did).
The fact that the "Linux Community" holds its members to higher standards than John Dvorak, is, per se, a Good Thing.
If and when it becomes possible, we will have long moved to stronger hashes.
;-)
Unless they patent impossibly strong hashes
They didn't feel like cooperating with the KHTML team or maybe didn't like where KHTML was headed and so they forked the KHTML code base.
So what?
If I got it right, it's ARM-based
That said, I think it will take a long time before it runs XP...
If you get rid of Windows, there is a huge space for low-cost non-x86 PCs running FOSS, because most programs can be ported in a very short time (if they are not ported already.
Isn't the Washington Times something far less than serious owned by Reverend Moon?
I would suggest you seeking out associations of the kind of company that stands to benefit most from it. I assume such companies do not diferentiate themselves from competition by their back-offices.
These associations may hold periodic meetings and thade shows. These events would be perfect places to seek funding from the association as a whole or to form a consortium to further develop your project.
You could even use a mixed license model, where the entities that contribute gain access to more than the entities that don't, but since I suppose that deploying the solution is a huge amount of work, support and ability to steer the feature-comitee alone may be enough an incentive.
Not at all... It was much better than Windows 3.11 ;-)
Since John Dvorak is always wrong, Skype must suck somehow.
I only hope he doesn't praise all VoIP solutions. This could bring dire consequencies to the whole market...
Forgot to mention you should _not_ link it from other sites
I think the wisest approach would be to host exactly the same content on both and check if they get different rankings all things being equal.
If they don't, I think the, say, Apache Foundation should sue MSN Search for damages on behalf of all its users.
By far, the most interesting gain in 64 bit computing (except in the x86 world, where AMD64 also introduces a couple much-needed registers that make a lot of a difference) is the extended address space. You must know a 32 bit address space (such as offered by pre PAE 32 bit x86 processors) limited processes to address 4 GB of memory at once. A 64 bit address space, OTOH, gives you 4096 times as much space.
IIRC (it seems nobody cared about it at the time enough to write it down), Windows (up to 2000) on Alpha could map at most 32 GB (a 35 bit address space) of memory to a single process. I am not sure what MIPS had available, but this falls short of a 64-bit address space.
I give you that Windows NT was conceived as a workstation and small server OS and having 4 GB of memory at that time was almost unthinkable and 16 TB of address space was almost a joke. Maybe NT on Alpha and MIPS was more than a 32-bit OS, but to call NT a 64 bit OS running on 64-bit CPUs is a bit of an exaggeration.
IIRC, SGI had it in 1992
After laughing my way through "John Dvorak Predicts", I have come to understand that, in order to achieve true wisdom, one must learn to ignore everything John Dvorak says.
Macrobe, please
This is a bit off-topic, but there are drivers that seem deliberately crippled by the manufacturer as in number of copies and printer sharing. They must think some printers are to inexpensive to be shared and that you should buy one for each computer.
Most of the time, we are enhancing or fixing code. Yet, most programs (ar at least a huge many of them) are never enhanced after they go into production or reach a "mature" state except perhaps for minor changes or fixes.
I am sorry to tell you this, but most Microsoft software does work very well.
.Net guys are at assembling simple business applications. I doubt those will be easy to maintain, but, frequently, code maintenance is not the point.
They may not be the coolest, fastest, more capable, more secure or more stable available, but they sure do the job.
I have seen a whole lot of MS SQL Server databases on production, without a single glitch. The user interface for managers is more than adequate. I always say it's the best product they make (after the natural keyboard and their optical mice).
If properly managed, WinXP is quite stable. I use it at one machine at home and it gives me no headaches.
As for development tools, it scares me how quickly
I think Microsoft software fits its niche, where you do not want to spend much training your IT staff but are willing to pay some money in order to get a brand and some support. It may not be suitable for 24x7 operations, but, for some, it's a good choice.
And true, Microsoft is not a nice company. They don't play nice and they give capitalists a bad name.
Of course, I prefer to use FOSS when possible, but I can imagine myself using proprietary solutions where they make sense.
Running an IT infrastructure is about solving a problem the best way you can, not making a point by ignoring reality.
Unless Apple makes holographic disks standard with all G6 Macintoshes ;-)
When they do it, P2P may well use a stronger hash or combine more attributes.
:-)
If they generate a file that has the same SHA1, MD5 and file length, that will be impressive.
Chances are that, after spending thousands of processor-years on the problem, they will have generated a bit-by-bit copy of the original file.
If you could generate a file based on that, could you claim copyright over it and share it freely?
I do strongly oppose using taxpayer dollars to add a service (filtering) to what is already being paid for.
Show me how it would cut costs and I may support the idea.
What it brings is the opportunity to build an ad-supported network of hotspots that is 100% filter free. Investors, anyone?
If Hubble's big problem is with its gyros, why not dock an additional module with them inside. The gyros that keep something stable do not need to be inside it.
Smarter still would be to attach an orbit-transfer vehicle to it to allow it to be serviced at the ISS, instead of sending up someone with a shuttle. The parts needed for the job could be sent on a Progress or that other ESA cargo vehicle I am too lazy to look up now and the ISS is a cash-drain ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H solution desperately seeking a problem. If the vehicle has an ion engine, orbit-transfer could take a couple weeks but, as long as it extends the life of the telescope by more than that amount, I see no problem with that.