Friendly fire is is more common among US soldiers than others because only the Americans in these situations were carrying weapons and equipment that works successfully on Americans.:)
Discluding Windows Update stuff, this is probably close to it:
1. NVIDIA Apps for multiple desktop, etc. 2. Opera 3. Visual Studio.NET 2003 4. Office XP 5. MySQL 6. PHP 7. Kazaa 8. DAEMON Tools (lets you mount ISO, etc. as drive) 9. MSDE (always a pain to get isntalled for some reason) 10. WinRAR
You may be right to a certain extent with some people, but I feel I have a different situation. I've been programming for 16 years now. I have read several books on programming theory, IT business, development models/cycles. I am well versed in most major modern technologies.
Unfortunately, my only WORK experience is 2 years as a jack-of-all trades administrator (doing network admin, database admin, web dev, and programming work) and about a year and a half of contracting (not too extensive, I've had other jobs as day jobs).
I have no degree. Because of my job, debt, and other factors, I also cannot afford the money or time to attain one. Yet I also cannot attain a position that would remedy this situation.
How does someone like me get a job where my skills would be utilized? I don't have the experience, nor do I have the education that job offers require for my level of work. Should I get certs? Would they actually help me find a job? I would prefer a programming/web dev job, but would fine with system admin as well. Any suggestions?
ummm... Why would the platform the app was compiled on matter? It's still gcc. It's going to compile to the same exact bytes as if you used gcc on Linux. Unless I am totally missing something. Is gcc totally rewritten for Cygwin?
Startup times are only relevent to benchmarks for certain types of apps. When testing language differences in performance, they are inconsequential. Testing between platforms with certain types of apps, on the other hand, it would be very important.
Oh, and garbage collection in all but some weird situations runs during otherwise idle time and should have a very minimal effect on app performance.
Mixing C and C# would have absolutely KILLED the performance. Not knowing that fact, I do not think you are qualified to be doing any kind of benchmarking with C#.
Boxing and Marshalling (what you would have using in this case, though boxing I think the greater of two evils) are the two major performance killers in.NET from what I can tell.
I'm not claiming either is better than the other in this case, just that you can not rely on your tests to give you any kind of accurate results.
That number is extremely close (approx 1% error) to the limit of a 32-bit integer. Being that Google almost assuredly runs their servers on 32-bit processors, it would make since that the number caps out there. The error is probably due to extra records that Google keeps for whatever reason (possibly indexes marked for deletion). Or it could, in some wacky fashion, have to do with the metric powers of ten and computer powers of two^10 difference.
Re:Why Verbatim Clones??WAS:Interesting
on
How does Google do it?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I don't know why he has numerous identical sites, but one reason is when a small company purchases several other companies that are in the exact same market. Since the companies are compatible, you merge all their operations into one. But you still want to keep brand identification with your customers so you keep two copies of the site, each branded differently.
I know there's alot of MS-world things I would love to have when I'm running on Linux (sadly enough I think Notepad would be the top of my list, I just haven't found an actualy CLONE yet) and vice-vers (cdrecord being my top choice there).
If someone relly likes KDE, then hey more power to them. In some ways WindowMaker is my favorite GUI due to its excessive simplicity. But I like Windows 2000 for most tasks. If I could hotkey and switch to WMaker interface in Windows for certain things, I think that would be great.
> No enterprise level customer "trys out new things" thats a fucking retarded thing to do when you lose millions per hour of downtime.
That's pretty much what I said. Maybe you weren't paying attention.
> I don't know where the hell you get your information but MS didnt even run on systems with more than 16 cpu's til fairly recently.
MS has supported 32-processor systems for a couple months shy of 4 years now. In tech market for most enterprise customers, this isn't a very long time, but your statement sounded as if you thought it had been around for alot less time. Just wanted to make sure you knew what you were talking about. I thank you again for reaffirming my initial statement that enterprise customers haven't had the opportunity to use MS.
MySQL is not gaining in quality on MS SQL; to think so is to be a bit deluded by the Open Source mentality. I cannot speak for PostreSQL, which may or may not be a better example to your claim.
Obviously you receive your MS security bulletins from Slashdot.;) Try learning how to admin a MS Windows system and come back when you are ready.
While I do not believe this is the case, allow me to espouse a crackpot theory.
At public universities, the government does have a say in what papers get published based on research done at a governmentally funded institution. So, maybe the great theorists submitted their paper for publication and got picked up by the powers that be....
You're on crack or incompetent if you think an MS server only goes weeks between downtime. I've seen Win2K go for more than two years without unscheduled downtime and about 6-8 months average between scheduled downtimes which lasted at most 1 hour. I would assume Win2K3 is better, but I've only had experience with the beta, which had some AD issues in my case.
Unlike you, I do not purport to know the technological background of the entire Fortune 100. But, if it is the case that few if any use MS, it could be due to the fact that before Win2K and SQL Server 2K, MS's products were definitely sub-par. Fortunately for their customers and themselves MS has done alot of work in these areas. Fortune 100 companies are very unlikely, in my opinion to be trying out new things, so it might take a couple of years for MS to penetrate certain markets. (Note, I am not saying MS SQL is comparable to Oracle, but it is not some trivial, useless DB system in the enterprise as some indicate).
You stated that misson critical enterprise apps are run on redundant 16+ processer servers. This is absolutely the area that MS's products really shine. If there is some issue with downtime, redundency takes it out of the picture. MS Windows Datacenter Server and MS SQL 2000 also both scale really well on SMP systems. So I would say to anyone testing between DB backends on a standard 2-processor high end system would only find that MS performs even better as you move into the enterprise.
As I stated before. MS SQL is not a replacement for Oracle (I have no experience with DB2, either). But it is getting there. And in the mean time it will work just as well for 90% of the Fortune 10,000.
Yes and no..NET is both a technology and a product line. In your statement you actually didn't correctly write Visual Studio.NET (it should have a space before the dot, indicating it is a product and not a technology). The technology line is pretty much based on the.NET framework. The product line is a branding to indicate software based on the XML services model.
Microsoft made the erroneous assumption that end users would have no need to hear about the technology line and tech-people/developers would be able to differentiate between the two. Together the names were designed to provide a certain amount of synergy between product and service.
In actuality, it created market confusion, and MS is trying to step back a little. Most noted is the change of Window.NET Server to Windows 2003 Server, but there have been others such as Office.NET (Office 2003).
Basically MS underestimated its end users and overestimated its developers.
I didn't think he implied that he knew anything about any of them when he started, just that Postgre took alot longer to learn to tune compared to MS (which doesn't really have or need much tuning, as it sort of auto-tunes based on schema, utilisation, and usage).
Actually they have a dumbed down version called Oracle Standard Edition One, which runs $5,000, which is much more cost-similar to MS SQL than their Database Enterprise Edition which runs $40,000. http://oraclestore.oracle.com/OA_HTML/ibeCCtpSctDs pRte.jsp?a=b
It says that it is simple to install and configure. I highly doubt it runs much better than MS SQL (Standard Edition $5,000 Enterprise Edition $20,000 from http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.asp).
MySQL gets eaten alive by either of them. ($0).
You get what you pay for. Maybe not true in alot of things, but with databases, it's pretty much the way it is in my experience.
P.S. I've never used PostgreSQL, and cannot comment on it.
Ummm... No. Slammer only affected people who didn't bother to patch in the six months or so prior. And all apps have bugs, so don't come throwing back that it is due to MS insecure software. They found the bug, they fixed it. Big deal. If it was an Open Source company, everyone would praise them, and ridicule admins who were running without the patch.
But if an application's installer is written to change the OS (as modifying certain regsitry settings can be seen as a form of), and this causes the OS to crash, it is the application's fault. I cannot assure you that this is what is happening in this case, but my point is that you can't always assume it is the OS's fault.
I could write a simple application/shell script that, when run under the root account, could totally trash a Linux OS. Doesn't mean there's a bug with Linux. Means my software is malicious and/or doesn't take care in what it is doing.
Anything that is executable in some fashion has the ability to take down a system. Of course there are extra secure ways to avoid this type of behavior, but there is no silver bullet.
I almost ran and cried when I first saw that commercial. I still can't watch it without getting the shivers. There is something deeply disturbing about those... things. They're like dead rodents with human mouths, eyes, and ears grafted on and made to float and move. And kill...
Hardware/software compatibility primarily. You do know that peopple develop new shells for Windows as well as Linux, right? LiteStep is probably the one with the most adherents, but there are others.
The purpose of actually swapping out the OS to run a Window Manager over it frankly escapes me.
The poster was not saying that none of the Blue Screens in Win95 are BSODs, just that the one for ejecting media doesn't really constitute "Of Death" since it is easily recoverable without restarting or anything.
Office XP is what? Version 11? And you want it to work seamlessly with version 1?
I might add that you can install the reader for it and it works fine. But you want to bloat the default installation (Office XP Pro is already at around 700 MB) by installing THAT?
Are you intentionally trying to sound nitpicking?
Going the other way, yeah it would be nice if Office 2007 documents opened in my current XP (2002), but do I really expect the DRMed 2k7 document with embedded http content updating to work with my current version? No, not really.
I think the last 3 versions of Office (before 2k3) were compatible in their default file format, but I could be wrong on this one. (XP saved in 2k format by default and this I believe was still read compatible with 97, though features would be lost [permanently is saved]).
See, if Slashdot supported this Trusted Computing crap, he would be able to both post anonymously AND prove that his reply was done by the original poster.
Slashdot Mirror
Friendly fire is is more common among US soldiers than others because only the Americans in these situations were carrying weapons and equipment that works successfully on Americans. :)
Discluding Windows Update stuff, this is probably close to it:
.NET 2003
1. NVIDIA Apps for multiple desktop, etc.
2. Opera
3. Visual Studio
4. Office XP
5. MySQL
6. PHP
7. Kazaa
8. DAEMON Tools (lets you mount ISO, etc. as drive)
9. MSDE (always a pain to get isntalled for some reason)
10. WinRAR
You may be right to a certain extent with some people, but I feel I have a different situation. I've been programming for 16 years now. I have read several books on programming theory, IT business, development models/cycles. I am well versed in most major modern technologies.
Unfortunately, my only WORK experience is 2 years as a jack-of-all trades administrator (doing network admin, database admin, web dev, and programming work) and about a year and a half of contracting (not too extensive, I've had other jobs as day jobs).
I have no degree. Because of my job, debt, and other factors, I also cannot afford the money or time to attain one. Yet I also cannot attain a position that would remedy this situation.
How does someone like me get a job where my skills would be utilized? I don't have the experience, nor do I have the education that job offers require for my level of work. Should I get certs? Would they actually help me find a job? I would prefer a programming/web dev job, but would fine with system admin as well. Any suggestions?
ummm... Why would the platform the app was compiled on matter? It's still gcc. It's going to compile to the same exact bytes as if you used gcc on Linux. Unless I am totally missing something. Is gcc totally rewritten for Cygwin?
Startup times are only relevent to benchmarks for certain types of apps. When testing language differences in performance, they are inconsequential. Testing between platforms with certain types of apps, on the other hand, it would be very important.
Oh, and garbage collection in all but some weird situations runs during otherwise idle time and should have a very minimal effect on app performance.
Mixing C and C# would have absolutely KILLED the performance. Not knowing that fact, I do not think you are qualified to be doing any kind of benchmarking with C#.
.NET from what I can tell.
Boxing and Marshalling (what you would have using in this case, though boxing I think the greater of two evils) are the two major performance killers in
I'm not claiming either is better than the other in this case, just that you can not rely on your tests to give you any kind of accurate results.
That number is extremely close (approx 1% error) to the limit of a 32-bit integer. Being that Google almost assuredly runs their servers on 32-bit processors, it would make since that the number caps out there. The error is probably due to extra records that Google keeps for whatever reason (possibly indexes marked for deletion). Or it could, in some wacky fashion, have to do with the metric powers of ten and computer powers of two^10 difference.
I don't know why he has numerous identical sites, but one reason is when a small company purchases several other companies that are in the exact same market. Since the companies are compatible, you merge all their operations into one. But you still want to keep brand identification with your customers so you keep two copies of the site, each branded differently.
I do not believe those companies would have a vested interest. In fact I think they would be against it.
If its what you're used to *shrug*.
I know there's alot of MS-world things I would love to have when I'm running on Linux (sadly enough I think Notepad would be the top of my list, I just haven't found an actualy CLONE yet) and vice-vers (cdrecord being my top choice there).
If someone relly likes KDE, then hey more power to them. In some ways WindowMaker is my favorite GUI due to its excessive simplicity. But I like Windows 2000 for most tasks. If I could hotkey and switch to WMaker interface in Windows for certain things, I think that would be great.
Options.
> No enterprise level customer "trys out new things" thats a fucking retarded thing to do when you lose millions per hour of downtime.
;) Try learning how to admin a MS Windows system and come back when you are ready.
That's pretty much what I said. Maybe you weren't paying attention.
> I don't know where the hell you get your information but MS didnt even run on systems with more than 16 cpu's til fairly recently.
MS has supported 32-processor systems for a couple months shy of 4 years now. In tech market for most enterprise customers, this isn't a very long time, but your statement sounded as if you thought it had been around for alot less time. Just wanted to make sure you knew what you were talking about. I thank you again for reaffirming my initial statement that enterprise customers haven't had the opportunity to use MS.
MySQL is not gaining in quality on MS SQL; to think so is to be a bit deluded by the Open Source mentality. I cannot speak for PostreSQL, which may or may not be a better example to your claim.
Obviously you receive your MS security bulletins from Slashdot.
While I do not believe this is the case, allow me to espouse a crackpot theory.
...
At public universities, the government does have a say in what papers get published based on research done at a governmentally funded institution. So, maybe the great theorists submitted their paper for publication and got picked up by the powers that be.
Just kidding.
You're on crack or incompetent if you think an MS server only goes weeks between downtime. I've seen Win2K go for more than two years without unscheduled downtime and about 6-8 months average between scheduled downtimes which lasted at most 1 hour. I would assume Win2K3 is better, but I've only had experience with the beta, which had some AD issues in my case.
Unlike you, I do not purport to know the technological background of the entire Fortune 100. But, if it is the case that few if any use MS, it could be due to the fact that before Win2K and SQL Server 2K, MS's products were definitely sub-par. Fortunately for their customers and themselves MS has done alot of work in these areas. Fortune 100 companies are very unlikely, in my opinion to be trying out new things, so it might take a couple of years for MS to penetrate certain markets. (Note, I am not saying MS SQL is comparable to Oracle, but it is not some trivial, useless DB system in the enterprise as some indicate).
You stated that misson critical enterprise apps are run on redundant 16+ processer servers. This is absolutely the area that MS's products really shine. If there is some issue with downtime, redundency takes it out of the picture. MS Windows Datacenter Server and MS SQL 2000 also both scale really well on SMP systems. So I would say to anyone testing between DB backends on a standard 2-processor high end system would only find that MS performs even better as you move into the enterprise.
As I stated before. MS SQL is not a replacement for Oracle (I have no experience with DB2, either). But it is getting there. And in the mean time it will work just as well for 90% of the Fortune 10,000.
Yes and no. .NET is both a technology and a product line. In your statement you actually didn't correctly write Visual Studio .NET (it should have a space before the dot, indicating it is a product and not a technology). The technology line is pretty much based on the .NET framework. The product line is a branding to indicate software based on the XML services model.
.NET Server to Windows 2003 Server, but there have been others such as Office .NET (Office 2003).
Microsoft made the erroneous assumption that end users would have no need to hear about the technology line and tech-people/developers would be able to differentiate between the two. Together the names were designed to provide a certain amount of synergy between product and service.
In actuality, it created market confusion, and MS is trying to step back a little. Most noted is the change of Window
Basically MS underestimated its end users and overestimated its developers.
I didn't think he implied that he knew anything about any of them when he started, just that Postgre took alot longer to learn to tune compared to MS (which doesn't really have or need much tuning, as it sort of auto-tunes based on schema, utilisation, and usage).
Actually they have a dumbed down version called Oracle Standard Edition One, which runs $5,000, which is much more cost-similar to MS SQL than their Database Enterprise Edition which runs $40,000. http://oraclestore.oracle.com/OA_HTML/ibeCCtpSctDs pRte.jsp?a=b
) .
It says that it is simple to install and configure. I highly doubt it runs much better than MS SQL (Standard Edition $5,000 Enterprise Edition $20,000 from http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/default.asp
MySQL gets eaten alive by either of them. ($0).
You get what you pay for. Maybe not true in alot of things, but with databases, it's pretty much the way it is in my experience.
P.S. I've never used PostgreSQL, and cannot comment on it.
Ummm... No. Slammer only affected people who didn't bother to patch in the six months or so prior. And all apps have bugs, so don't come throwing back that it is due to MS insecure software. They found the bug, they fixed it. Big deal. If it was an Open Source company, everyone would praise them, and ridicule admins who were running without the patch.
Compiler/Browser bugs I'll give you.
But if an application's installer is written to change the OS (as modifying certain regsitry settings can be seen as a form of), and this causes the OS to crash, it is the application's fault. I cannot assure you that this is what is happening in this case, but my point is that you can't always assume it is the OS's fault.
I could write a simple application/shell script that, when run under the root account, could totally trash a Linux OS. Doesn't mean there's a bug with Linux. Means my software is malicious and/or doesn't take care in what it is doing.
Anything that is executable in some fashion has the ability to take down a system. Of course there are extra secure ways to avoid this type of behavior, but there is no silver bullet.
... *SMACK* "You don't tell me what to do!!"
I almost ran and cried when I first saw that commercial. I still can't watch it without getting the shivers. There is something deeply disturbing about those... things. They're like dead rodents with human mouths, eyes, and ears grafted on and made to float and move. And kill...
Hardware/software compatibility primarily. You do know that peopple develop new shells for Windows as well as Linux, right? LiteStep is probably the one with the most adherents, but there are others.
The purpose of actually swapping out the OS to run a Window Manager over it frankly escapes me.
The poster was not saying that none of the Blue Screens in Win95 are BSODs, just that the one for ejecting media doesn't really constitute "Of Death" since it is easily recoverable without restarting or anything.
What's a floppy disk?
You'd piss it out quicker.
You are kidding, right?
Office XP is what? Version 11? And you want it to work seamlessly with version 1?
I might add that you can install the reader for it and it works fine. But you want to bloat the default installation (Office XP Pro is already at around 700 MB) by installing THAT?
Are you intentionally trying to sound nitpicking?
Going the other way, yeah it would be nice if Office 2007 documents opened in my current XP (2002), but do I really expect the DRMed 2k7 document with embedded http content updating to work with my current version? No, not really.
I think the last 3 versions of Office (before 2k3) were compatible in their default file format, but I could be wrong on this one. (XP saved in 2k format by default and this I believe was still read compatible with 97, though features would be lost [permanently is saved]).
See, if Slashdot supported this Trusted Computing crap, he would be able to both post anonymously AND prove that his reply was done by the original poster.
Yet another use...