Guess that's one advantage to knowing your h/w environ and not having to always be bloating out your kernel due to an ever increasing variety of devices. If users ask for monolithic kernels that will reconize the controller from "Elmo's SCSI-Shack" out of the box- then that's what you get. : )
I'm agnostic- I was a TRS-Dos Z-80 developer in my teens. I spent my twenties as a registered Apple developer in love with my Quadra. I even had a short affair with a 300 lb Microvax. Now I support Windows on the desktops, manage Linux in the fishbowl and run various ixish distros at home.
Maybe its been previously apparent to the rest of the community here, but I just noticed a particular trend for the first time.
1. Each new version of Windows has always made given h/w seem slower
2. Each new version of Mac OS has made given h/w seem slower
3. I'm moving from Redhat to Gentoo because RH has become more like Windows as far as h/w utilization
Mandrake 9, 10 & FC1, FC2 test2 (but not test1) detected Audigy and integrated intel sound chips with no problems. When I do have problems I don't think its hardware related, I think its packaging problems with competing sound architectures.
"Flight MSFT0009, this is the tower speaking. You are instructed to land the plane at Terminal G, have your passengers deplane and allow them to transfer to an alternate flight. The FAA has deemed your aircraft a threat to public safety and grounded till futher notice. Tower out."
I've had a dual Xeon HT system for about a year (2.8 ghz / 533 mhz fsb) that registers 25k bogomips running a 2.6 kernel. I would feel comfortable comparing its performance, especially its performance/cost against most other systems/architectures even today.
I don't see these as functionally any different than viruses and think that the a/v s/w vendors are ignoring their responsibilities. Like I need yet another f*cking piece of defensive s/w.
Re:Root certificates? Unfortunately not quite.
on
Gates on Spam
·
· Score: 1
Spam generated with a sender certificate that doesn't come from the senders machine would be invalid and blocked (and I really like the idea of blocking it at the router level).
If the spammer has control of the senders servers than there are bigger problems.
Re:I have a better idea
on
Gates on Spam
·
· Score: 1
I know. The onus is on us but it's a bit of chicken/egg. Maybe a good starting point would be for the tier 1 webmail/ISP's to just start doing it.
Wouldn't it be better instead, if users had to pay for their slashdot submissions, you know... to cut down on duplicates?
Re:Spam solution
on
Gates on Spam
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Should we remove all services likely to be abused from the operating systems? Or should we just not allow people to setup their own operating systems? Maybe we shouldn't allow people access to compilers. Alot of bad things are done with compilers.
somebody should patent certificate signed emails as a way of verifying sender so M$ can't
Re:I have a better idea
on
Gates on Spam
·
· Score: 1
you're the third person to suggest this in response to this article
Re:My system for spam.
on
Gates on Spam
·
· Score: 1
see my certificate based solution below- we're on the same page
Isn't Certificates A Better Way?
on
Gates on Spam
·
· Score: 1
Why hasn't anybody come up with a certificate based anti-spam solution? Ie, the sender has to be registered with Verisign (or some other registrar) who issues a certificate that the sender includes with each email. If the certificate doesn't match certain parms (ie. IP address, domain name, etc...) then the email's invalid and blocked. I realize this doesn't actually prevent spam but it certainly goes a long way to making it a managable problem.
Is it time to bring back the term "Luggable?". This trend is reminiscent of the original portable PC's, ie. the 35 lb monsters from Kaypro & Compaq usually depicted being lugged by a sumo. Course we've progressed from the 9" bw screen to 17" and all the colors of the rainbow.
Slashdot Mirror
Guess that's one advantage to knowing your h/w environ and not having to always be bloating out your kernel due to an ever increasing variety of devices. If users ask for monolithic kernels that will reconize the controller from "Elmo's SCSI-Shack" out of the box- then that's what you get. : )
correction:
2. Each new version of Mac OS has made given h/w seem FASTER
I'm agnostic- I was a TRS-Dos Z-80 developer in my teens. I spent my twenties as a registered Apple developer in love with my Quadra. I even had a short affair with a 300 lb Microvax. Now I support Windows on the desktops, manage Linux in the fishbowl and run various ixish distros at home. Maybe its been previously apparent to the rest of the community here, but I just noticed a particular trend for the first time. 1. Each new version of Windows has always made given h/w seem slower 2. Each new version of Mac OS has made given h/w seem slower 3. I'm moving from Redhat to Gentoo because RH has become more like Windows as far as h/w utilization
There are many liquids that don't conduct electricity or corrode conductors.
Mandrake 9, 10 & FC1, FC2 test2 (but not test1) detected Audigy and integrated intel sound chips with no problems. When I do have problems I don't think its hardware related, I think its packaging problems with competing sound architectures.
"Flight MSFT0009, this is the tower speaking. You are instructed to land the plane at Terminal G, have your passengers deplane and allow them to transfer to an alternate flight. The FAA has deemed your aircraft a threat to public safety and grounded till futher notice. Tower out."
I've had good luck at www.happypenguin.org
I've had a dual Xeon HT system for about a year (2.8 ghz / 533 mhz fsb) that registers 25k bogomips running a 2.6 kernel. I would feel comfortable comparing its performance, especially its performance/cost against most other systems/architectures even today.
Correction: Intel has had 800 Mhz *FSB* cpu's / chipsets since 6/2003.
Intel has had 800 mhz CPU's / chipsets since 6/2003.
I don't see these as functionally any different than viruses and think that the a/v s/w vendors are ignoring their responsibilities. Like I need yet another f*cking piece of defensive s/w.
Spam generated with a sender certificate that doesn't come from the senders machine would be invalid and blocked (and I really like the idea of blocking it at the router level). If the spammer has control of the senders servers than there are bigger problems.
I know. The onus is on us but it's a bit of chicken/egg. Maybe a good starting point would be for the tier 1 webmail/ISP's to just start doing it.
I was 1/2 being sarcastic but also 1/2 unsure if any patents for PGP include using it as a filtering or bouncing mechanism.
Wouldn't it be better instead, if users had to pay for their slashdot submissions, you know ... to cut down on duplicates?
Should we remove all services likely to be abused from the operating systems? Or should we just not allow people to setup their own operating systems? Maybe we shouldn't allow people access to compilers. Alot of bad things are done with compilers.
somebody should patent certificate signed emails as a way of verifying sender so M$ can't
you're the third person to suggest this in response to this article
see my certificate based solution below- we're on the same page
Why hasn't anybody come up with a certificate based anti-spam solution? Ie, the sender has to be registered with Verisign (or some other registrar) who issues a certificate that the sender includes with each email. If the certificate doesn't match certain parms (ie. IP address, domain name, etc...) then the email's invalid and blocked. I realize this doesn't actually prevent spam but it certainly goes a long way to making it a managable problem.
Is it time to bring back the term "Luggable?". This trend is reminiscent of the original portable PC's, ie. the 35 lb monsters from Kaypro & Compaq usually depicted being lugged by a sumo. Course we've progressed from the 9" bw screen to 17" and all the colors of the rainbow.