Chances are you're just a rabid anti-Notes troll, but I'll bite anyway.
Lotus Domino and Microsoft Exchange are different products: the first is a "groupware" platform that happens to do mail, the other is a mail server that might be linked to some other Microsoft platforms (notably: sharepoint). The Notes client can be used for accessing "databases" (which are actually a container with semi-structured data and application logic in one), for which IBM provides a "mail database" that is kinda capable of handling mail. Outlook is a superb mail client that does nothing else unless you've got someone willing to create "outlook foms" that link to other MS technologies.
The good about Domino/Notes:
Domino is multiplatform, Notes kinda (current Linux client is barely usable)
Security is a design fundamental in Notes/Domino. Notes has been doing private key crypto and signed code before Exchange was even conceived.
Domino/Notes is way better when integration company processes/workflows in your mail environment.
Restoring backed up mails/documents/databases can be done relatively easy, and has been like that for at least 12 years.
The bad:
The Notes UI is infamous because it is so different from Windows and counter-intuitive to some people. This is for the major part historical (i.e.: Notes has been developed as a multiplatform client, and it includes a lot of legacy). If you want you can easily update the design of your mail database and replace it with an open source one (try that with Outlook;-) -- see openntf.org for that. If you really want, you can just use outlook with Lotus Domino natively with the DAMO plugin.
The learning curve for Domino administration is steeper than that of MS Exchange. The impact of a good administrator versus a not-so-good one will be much more visible in a Domino environment than in an Exchange/outlook environment. Getting both to go further than a couple of machines requires good admins regardless of the technology
The actual cost per user won't differ that much between either platform, and the featureset is different. If you're a Microsoft shop and have an all-windows datacenter, SQL Server, Sharepoint portal and whatnot you'll be installing Exchange. If you're not already linked as much to Microsoft technologies chances are that Domino/Notes is a better choice. If you're sensitive regarding security (or having to abide to certain security regulations), Domino/Notes is probably your best shot (a lot of banks think so, anyway).
So, it's not a black and white issue, and there are very good reasons why Notes and Domino can be a better choice for a particular situation.
Disclaimer: I know a thing or two about IBM/Lotus technologies (and of Microsoft and Linux, so don't hold that against me;-)
A client side certificate can be copied without you knowing it, so it does not belong in the "something you have" category. The only way this can work is when the certificate is on a smart card/USB key that does not allow exporting it.
When security is implemented properly, compromising the machine does not compromise end-to-end security.
And how exactly are patents involved in the SCO case? (And I'm not talking about IBM patents)...
IIRC, the whole SCO case is based on contract issues w.r.t. "IP" (as superfluous as that term is) and possibly a copyright issue. The Microsoft deal is so different it's not even funny -- especially when you know they actually have a bloody case under the current US legislation.
Not having the Microsoft-Novell deal would change absolutely nothing about the legal status of Linux and the kernel w.r.t. Microsoft's patents. If you think that killing the deal would be better for Linux, you're sticking your head in the sand.
Microsoft can sue any Linux distributor and end user at any given time for patent infringement and have a case of substance, regardless of the "obviousness" of the patent... Look how the RIM/NTP case went: all patent claims were stricken as bogus and NTP still hit the jackpot.
The only reason Microsoft is not suing is because of the impact of such a move on the anti-monopoly suits that Microsoft is currently dealing with.
Software patents should be abolished. That is the only way this can be resolved. Not by hammering on this deal.
What does the Novell deal has got to do with this?
If Microsoft has any valid US patents on SMB/CIFS (assuming for a moment that software patents are valid anyhow), they're free to sue anyone using them in the US -- whether it is the Samba programmers, Linux distribution companies or individual users. That's the way patents work in the US (and also why software patents are horrendously broken).
Like it or not: with the current patent legislation in the US, any open source software that uses a patented method without being licenced somehow is at best in a gray area and at risk of being sued by the patent owner.
Novell seems to think that this not-really-a-cross-licence-thing is the best way to mitigate (some of) the risk inherent in Linux / open source software. It does not change the situation for (users of) other distributions, nor does it make Linux any closer.
If there's anything to blame for this whole situation it is software patents, not two companies making a deal of some kind.
It all depends on what you consider to be "one pass"... My first idea would be to use a simple gnome sort -- kinda like a single pass with backtracking;-)
Assumptions:
function fval(char) returns 0 for uppercase characters, 1 for spaces and 2 for lowercase characters (pretty trivial to write)
function swap(s, i1, i2) swaps the characters at positions i1 and i2 in your string
s is your null-terminated string, starting index is 0
Pseudo code: // Special case: empty string
if (s[0]==0) then exit
index i=1
while (s[i]!=0)
{
if (fval(s[i-1]) <= fval(s[i])) then // Pair is in order
i++
else // Pair not in order swap(s, i-1, i) // Re-test previous pair
i-- // Don't go back beyond start of string!
if (i==0) then i=1
end if
}
There are a lot of swap operations involved -- run time O(n^2), but the sort can run in-place and is stable. Don't know if it fits the "one pass" requirement though;-)
Actually, the glyphs (nowadays its a keyring, btw) are linked to both the password and the private key stored in the ID file, giving each user a specific sequence. Basically you get visual feedback on the keypair that is being decrypted while you are typing the password. Once you get accustomed to "your" sequence of glyphs, you should be able to easily detect a spoofed password prompt as it is displaying the wrong glyphs -- this all happens subconciously so its kinda spooky
So it has its uses, although a lot of users are oblivious about them because they're simply not educated about them...
2) I might be "basically stuck" with Outlook, but at least the default configuration in Outlook *works* about 50 times better than the default. I'd rather be stuck with something that works well than have to spend 5 minutes per machine going through some arcane process to get something that (frankly) probably is still worse than Outlook.
It's a five minute job to do this, not just for one user (although that's equally possible) but for all users. Most big implementations of Lotus Notes that I'm aware of have some kind of customization of the mail/scheduling functionality. This is not something that needs to be done 'per machine' or 'per user'.
Well, then, shouldn't they FIX that bug? You're basically arguing that they don't support a long-standing OS feature because their product is buggy... not a very compelling argument.
This is not just "fixing a bug", it is a very big design decision with equally big impact. These kinds of updates are reserved for major updates. Installing a patch or bugfix should not drastically alter the way a program is working.
Although, frankly, I was unaware Notes supported roaming users at all considering that I have to keep track of the stupid little ID files every time I install a new Notes user. How do you tell Domino to automatically transfer the ID file to each computer the user roams to? Usually Domino deletes the ID file from the server the first time you install the user.
The ID files contain the public/private key pair for the user, and are the basis of Notes security. In a roaming setup, these ID files are not stored locally, but managed via the Domino Server (i.e.: log in on a Notes client, and the roaming server provides the ID file for you). Since you have access to Lotus Notes, you can read up on roaming in the administration help file.
They also have a web client that works with... IE (Windows-only), but seems to freeze every few minutes if you use any other browser. And yet one of the big features supporters of Notes always bring up is how cross-platform it is!
There are two "web clients": one is Web Access for Domino (formerly iNotes), which has all the bells and whistles and is running on a limited number of platforms (Including Mozilla and Firefox on Windows/Linux); the other is a dumbed down version that works on nearly every browser that supports frames. The screenshots for the IBM marketing brochures even show Firefox, not IE.
The next release will include a native Linux client, and the goal is to move the whole client platform onto Eclipse. I don't see Outlook moving anywhere close to that.
The more I read from you, the more I come to think that you have been forced into supporting or administering Lotus Notes/Domino without having proper training for doing so. Lotus Domino and Notes are pretty complex beasts, and getting your environment right requires a good deal of experience. A lot of your peeves with the system can probably be easily dealt with if you would just know how to do it.
Unlike what Microsoft wants to have you belief an Exchange environment can be equally daunting, and yet is still years behind the Domino server in features, stability, security and scalability -- I've worked with both. Upgrading Exchange 5.5 to a newer release is that hard and disruptive that a big part of the Exchange installations out there are still using software that pre-dates the dotcom boom (!).
But even if you're using 7, you have to think to yourself: "It took them until version 7 before Notes could sort by subject line? One of the MOST BASIC FUNCTIONS of a list box, and Notes couldn't manage it without 6 revisions?"
Well... If it is that important to you, you can either spend 5 minutes customising the mail template or use a whole different template (see http://www.openntf.org/) that mimics Outlook. You can even use Outlook as a client if you're so inclined.
The point is that there are a lot of ways that you can actually do something about it, while with Exchange you are basically stuck. Almost every design template that is included with Lotus Domino and Notes contains the full code, including the mail template.
It only took until Notes version 6 for it to cleanly support multi-user OSes also. Windows NT had only been out, what, a DECADE, before Notes decided to support it? Oh, but it still puts its own data in Local Settings, so if you want to use Roaming Profiles and Notes, you're SOL.
Lotus Notes R5 (the predecessor of Notes 6) was released in 1998. Your argument holds for almost all Windows software that was released at that time (including a lot of Microsoft's own stuff).
Lotus Notes implements roaming via the Domino server (just tick the "Roaming User" checkbox in the directory entry). Roaming using the standard windows roaming os a recipy for disaster since it will corrupt local settings once you log on on two locations simultaneously.
But my major gripe is that F5 doesn't refresh. Not only does it not refresh, but pressing the key (expecting it to refresh) actually locks you out of the product and you have to re-enter the password to get back in. It's not just a bad user interface, it's actually user-hostile.
Have you considered that Lotus Notes has existed way longer than 'F5=Refresh' on Windows? And that they're not Windows only? (even though they're limited to MacOS X at this point, a Linux client is well underway -- you should read up on 'Hannover'). In Lotus Notes, F9 has been the 'refresh key' for ages, so there's at least some consistency in their UI;-).
I definitely know and acknowledge that the Lotus Notes client leaves a lot to be desired for, but the platform as a whole is pretty damn strong. When was the last time you heard about a virus/worm targetted at Lotus Notes/Domino? Its security is pretty good by design, it runs on a gazillion platforms and it can actually scale up.
(Disclaimer: I don't work for IBM or Lotus, but I know a thing or two about Lotus Notes)
The fact that someone thinks 'making love' and pornography are the same thing is evidence of how screwed up society has become from overexposure to images of gratuitous sex.
... or more likely: how screwed up society has become from underexposure to anything that is slightly related to good sexual education.
Here is a tip: when you ensure that young people are educated properly on sexuality and human relationships instead of blocking anything that even closely relates to sex (remember nipplegate?) then chances will be far slimmer that they use "pornography" as a role model w.r.t. their own sexuality. They're able enough to distinguish fantasy from reality, once they have some kind of reference of what is real.
It's the total lack of balance in some societies that lets youngsters base their sexual beliefs on whatever porn is available to them rather than even a half-decent attempt on sex-ed just because most people are too prude to give their own kids a chance on getting to know what real sexuality is.
The very first time I miss an emergency call because of this paint, I will be suing both the building and the company that made the paint. I might even sue the guy who applied the paint on the walls..
I'm just guessing that you are an American (i.e.: US)...
What is it with you people that you have this urge to sue everything and everybody whenever something isn't quite going the way you want it? It's just not productive for anybody but lawyers...
(apologies to any US citizen that isn't as trigger-happy as most US people seem to be when it comes to assigning blame...)
I mean, gee, it's not like they have to test it on a huge number of platforms or anything right? Much better to rapidly fix the bug and then break a bunch of running code, bringing large businesses down to their knees.
If you would have read the fine article, you would have known that flaws in this particular piece of code have been discovered over the past few years, with each patch being inadequate in actually fixing it securely. You should think that 4 years would be enough for some regression testing.
Yes, the bug puts their customers at risk, but detailing the exploit for everyone to see REALLY DOES HELP THE BAD GUYS. Otherwise they have to figure it out for themselves, which is quite a bit harder.
The author of the report detailing the exploit also includes a workaround, which enables administrators to have some kind of protection. The bad guys as you call them were already all over this due to the history of security issues in that piece of code. In this case, I see more value in letting the customers know that their machines are at risk than telling something that the bad guys most probably already knew.
RAID 5 has great READ performance, since it is effectively an n-1 stripe on read. However, WRITE performance can be abysmal, especially in random I/O situations like the one the article is proposing. In order to change a one byte on a disk, n-1 disks must be read and new parity data calculated, then two disks (data + parity) must be written to. A simple RAID 1 only requires two writes.
Assuming that the RAID5 array is in sync (which should be), only two extra reads are required in stead of (n-1): the old value of the byte that is being replaced and the old value of the parity that should be updated. XORing the old byte, new byte and old parity should then give you the new parity byte.
Of course that doesn't help you much in a three drive array, but it will perform better in arrays with more devices.
You should also look at it a bit differently: writes of a single byte (as outlined above) are not occurring that often. With bigger writes where the data is spanned over all the drives, those read operations are no longer required; just the calculation of parity (which can be done really fast).
Comparing a RAID5 array of 6 drives (4+1, 1 hotspare) with a RAID10 array of 6 (3 stripes of mirrored drives, no hotspare) an write of 3072 bytes of data could result in the following disk operations:
RAID5: 4 x 768 bytes data + 1 x 768 bytes parity = 5 x 768 bytes in parallel.
RAID10: 3 x 1024 bytes + 3 x 1024 bytes mirror = 6 x 1024 bytes in parallel.
In this case, RAID5 requires less writes on less disks while offering more capacity and having the advantage of a hotspare. Parity calculations are not an issue on good raid controllers and have a negligible impact. With a good controller, using the right filesystem and configuration RAID5 is actually pretty good.
The most important downside of RAID5 is that while adding disks to an array makes it more economical and more performant, it also increases your risk of catastrophic failures (read: two disks fail at once == array is toast). Once it grows above a certain number of drives, it is often wiser to go for a RAID6 setup where you use two parity disks instead of one. The writes required to disk remain more or less the same but the parity calculations are more complex (still not an issue on good controllers). It is far less common though, and not all vendors call it RAID6.
So yeah, some customers can really screw things up.
In the end though, they're still your customers, and in the case of a screwup like the submitter described you either kick 'm off your service or try to help and (hopefully) educate them.
I don't see why the hosting company involved (which isn't named, btw) isn't dealing with this properly. Either they should tell Tim that they unilaterally break their contract according to whatever terms both parties have agreed to or work with Tim as a customer to get him back on-line in a safe way. In neither case his files should be kept hostage.
ID should be covered VERY briefly (bare with me on this).
While I agree that we shouldn't stigmatise ID and thereby empower its proponents, it just does not belong in science class. Period.
Pick any other course, be it religion (christian), philosophy, history, global geopolitics (ID seems to be nearly exclusively a US topic) or even literature (there are books on ID, even though I would hardly qualify them as literature). It just doesn't belong in science class...
If you read the link you posted you'll notice that you are stretching it a bit. USPTO rejected 1 of 8 patents they are reviewing. The battle is far from over.
Actually, the USPTO rejected the last one, the other seven were already rejected in June. See here for one article about it. Although these are "preliminary" rejections from the USPTO, they're more than likely to be invalidated.
NTP has a case as long as at least one claim of one patent is infringed upon. The moment that the USPTO strikes them down definitively, their case ceases to be. Therefore, NTP wants to force a judgement/settlement as soon as possible, while RIM obviously wants to await the final verdict from the USPTO.
I agree with you that "IP firms" such as NTP are absolutely bollocks, as is the system that allows this to happen (over and over again).
IIRC, hibernate is a wee bit smarter than that nowadays. (At least this is the case on Windows, don't know about the mechanism that is used on Linux or MacOS X).
Instead of just dumping the contents of the whole RAM to disk, it will only deal with the part of RAM that is actually allocated (not the part that is used as HD cache). For the actual memory that has been allocated, everything that can be paged to swap will be paged to the swap file. Due to the swapping mechanism, a great deal of the memory in use is probably already in the swap file. All the other bits are stored in a hibernation file.
When booting, all that has to be done is dump the contents of the hibernation file to RAM (which is probably way smaller than the actual size of the RAM). From that point on, the OS starts running again and pages the stuff you actually need back out of swap (a much more gradual process than dumping back a snapshot of the full RAM contents).
You can't attach an external antenna to your centrino laptop for the same reason laptop manufacturers hardcode the PCI ID of their mini-PCI wifi cards in the BIOS: FCC Certification.
Any WiFi hardware must be FCC certified, and certification is always performed on the radio (WiFi card) and the antenna as a whole. An (external) antenna that is not explicitly FCC certified for a particular card is verboten.
Antennae in laptops (just open the LCD bezel to see for yourself) are relatively big -- most of the time bigger than what you'd be willing to take with you in your laptop bag:-).
Using a directional antenna will mostly buy your radio more output, but it would require you to point it in the proper direction (which may not be that easy). Unless the other side (i.e.: the access point) is also using a directional antenna, it won't buy you much though.
That's where you went wrong. Level 3 doesn't perceive them as benefitting equally. My connection to my ISP is a two-way connection, and yet they charge me money, rather than recognizing that we benefit equally. Because we don't. They're big, with connections to many. I am small, with only a server or two. In this case, presumably Level-3 decided that they were benefitting less from this arrangement than Cogent.
AFAIK, the peering was simply in place for traffic with a destination within the peered AS. That is (network-wise) a win-win situation: direct traffic between the two AS get routed over the direct connection instead of over other (more expensive) connections. Neither party was pushing any packets down that line that weren't directly addressed to the other party.
The reason for L3 cutting the connection may well be more commercial (Cogent is still a competitor), where L3 is trying to impact Cogents pricing and business to bully them into a different agreement.
Assuming for a while that L3 is pushing more internet traffic than Cogent and therefore the traffic ratio for Cogent to L3 (amount of traffic to the peering partner/total amount of traffic) is higher for Cogent than for L3, the monetary impact of disconnecting this peering is way bigger for Cogent than for L3.
L3 doesn't have any financial gains in the short term: they'll have to route the Cogent traffic via more expensive lines. What they do gain is simple: they can inflict extra costs on a competitor and use that as an argument.
Basically L3 is telling Cogent: "Please start paying $AMOUNT for the peering, or we'll cut the connection which will cost you $BIGGERAMOUNT if you have to route traffic towards us indirectly -- even if that would also cost us more". (note this is a pure anti-competitive move)
Cogent's reply is: "We'd rather not pay $BIGGERAMOUNT but we also don't want to pay $AMOUNT since this would impact our customer pricing too much. So we'll just forget that you exist, tell everybody that you cut us off for no reason and offer all your customers free connections for their Cogent-destined traffic." (which is a brilliant move from Cogent's side)
Cogent is not going to just roll over to L3's bullying, and prefers to duke it out in a game of chicken -- wait for the other party to move first, will customer pressure is rising for both camps. This can get interesting.
Of course, this being slashdot, above post is highly speculative.
Slashdot Mirror
Lotus Domino and Microsoft Exchange are different products: the first is a "groupware" platform that happens to do mail, the other is a mail server that might be linked to some other Microsoft platforms (notably: sharepoint). The Notes client can be used for accessing "databases" (which are actually a container with semi-structured data and application logic in one), for which IBM provides a "mail database" that is kinda capable of handling mail. Outlook is a superb mail client that does nothing else unless you've got someone willing to create "outlook foms" that link to other MS technologies.
The good about Domino/Notes:
- Domino is multiplatform, Notes kinda (current Linux client is barely usable)
- Security is a design fundamental in Notes/Domino. Notes has been doing private key crypto and signed code before Exchange was even conceived.
- Domino/Notes is way better when integration company processes/workflows in your mail environment.
- Restoring backed up mails/documents/databases can be done relatively easy, and has been like that for at least 12 years.
The bad:- The Notes UI is infamous because it is so different from Windows and counter-intuitive to some people. This is for the major part historical (i.e.: Notes has been developed as a multiplatform client, and it includes a lot of legacy). If you want you can easily update the design of your mail database and replace it with an open source one (try that with Outlook
;-) -- see openntf.org for that. If you really want, you can just use outlook with Lotus Domino natively with the DAMO plugin.
- The learning curve for Domino administration is steeper than that of MS Exchange. The impact of a good administrator versus a not-so-good one will be much more visible in a Domino environment than in an Exchange/outlook environment. Getting both to go further than a couple of machines requires good admins regardless of the technology
The actual cost per user won't differ that much between either platform, and the featureset is different. If you're a Microsoft shop and have an all-windows datacenter, SQL Server, Sharepoint portal and whatnot you'll be installing Exchange. If you're not already linked as much to Microsoft technologies chances are that Domino/Notes is a better choice. If you're sensitive regarding security (or having to abide to certain security regulations), Domino/Notes is probably your best shot (a lot of banks think so, anyway).So, it's not a black and white issue, and there are very good reasons why Notes and Domino can be a better choice for a particular situation.
Disclaimer: I know a thing or two about IBM/Lotus technologies (and of Microsoft and Linux, so don't hold that against me ;-)
EMI has already announced that they're dropping copy-protection from CDs earlier this year (I think it was January).
A client side certificate can be copied without you knowing it, so it does not belong in the "something you have" category. The only way this can work is when the certificate is on a smart card/USB key that does not allow exporting it.
When security is implemented properly, compromising the machine does not compromise end-to-end security.
IIRC, the whole SCO case is based on contract issues w.r.t. "IP" (as superfluous as that term is) and possibly a copyright issue. The Microsoft deal is so different it's not even funny -- especially when you know they actually have a bloody case under the current US legislation.
Not having the Microsoft-Novell deal would change absolutely nothing about the legal status of Linux and the kernel w.r.t. Microsoft's patents. If you think that killing the deal would be better for Linux, you're sticking your head in the sand.
Microsoft can sue any Linux distributor and end user at any given time for patent infringement and have a case of substance, regardless of the "obviousness" of the patent... Look how the RIM/NTP case went: all patent claims were stricken as bogus and NTP still hit the jackpot.
The only reason Microsoft is not suing is because of the impact of such a move on the anti-monopoly suits that Microsoft is currently dealing with.
Software patents should be abolished. That is the only way this can be resolved. Not by hammering on this deal.
If Microsoft has any valid US patents on SMB/CIFS (assuming for a moment that software patents are valid anyhow), they're free to sue anyone using them in the US -- whether it is the Samba programmers, Linux distribution companies or individual users. That's the way patents work in the US (and also why software patents are horrendously broken).
Like it or not: with the current patent legislation in the US, any open source software that uses a patented method without being licenced somehow is at best in a gray area and at risk of being sued by the patent owner.
Novell seems to think that this not-really-a-cross-licence-thing is the best way to mitigate (some of) the risk inherent in Linux / open source software. It does not change the situation for (users of) other distributions, nor does it make Linux any closer.
If there's anything to blame for this whole situation it is software patents, not two companies making a deal of some kind.
Bragging about experience landing you a job and yet leaving a blatant newbie error in your code is not exactly what I call a good first impression ;-)
Assumptions:
- function fval(char) returns 0 for uppercase characters, 1 for spaces and 2 for lowercase characters (pretty trivial to write)
- function swap(s, i1, i2) swaps the characters at positions i1 and i2 in your string
- s is your null-terminated string, starting index is 0
Pseudo code:if (s[0]==0) then exit
index i=1
while (s[i]!=0)
{
if (fval(s[i-1]) <= fval(s[i])) then
i++
else
swap(s, i-1, i)
i--
if (i==0) then i=1
end if
}
There are a lot of swap operations involved -- run time O(n^2), but the sort can run in-place and is stable. Don't know if it fits the "one pass" requirement though
Actually, the glyphs (nowadays its a keyring, btw) are linked to both the password and the private key stored in the ID file, giving each user a specific sequence. Basically you get visual feedback on the keypair that is being decrypted while you are typing the password. Once you get accustomed to "your" sequence of glyphs, you should be able to easily detect a spoofed password prompt as it is displaying the wrong glyphs -- this all happens subconciously so its kinda spooky
So it has its uses, although a lot of users are oblivious about them because they're simply not educated about them...
The next release will include a native Linux client, and the goal is to move the whole client platform onto Eclipse. I don't see Outlook moving anywhere close to that.
The more I read from you, the more I come to think that you have been forced into supporting or administering Lotus Notes/Domino without having proper training for doing so. Lotus Domino and Notes are pretty complex beasts, and getting your environment right requires a good deal of experience. A lot of your peeves with the system can probably be easily dealt with if you would just know how to do it.
Unlike what Microsoft wants to have you belief an Exchange environment can be equally daunting, and yet is still years behind the Domino server in features, stability, security and scalability -- I've worked with both. Upgrading Exchange 5.5 to a newer release is that hard and disruptive that a big part of the Exchange installations out there are still using software that pre-dates the dotcom boom (!).
The point is that there are a lot of ways that you can actually do something about it, while with Exchange you are basically stuck. Almost every design template that is included with Lotus Domino and Notes contains the full code, including the mail template. Lotus Notes R5 (the predecessor of Notes 6) was released in 1998. Your argument holds for almost all Windows software that was released at that time (including a lot of Microsoft's own stuff).
Lotus Notes implements roaming via the Domino server (just tick the "Roaming User" checkbox in the directory entry). Roaming using the standard windows roaming os a recipy for disaster since it will corrupt local settings once you log on on two locations simultaneously. Have you considered that Lotus Notes has existed way longer than 'F5=Refresh' on Windows? And that they're not Windows only? (even though they're limited to MacOS X at this point, a Linux client is well underway -- you should read up on 'Hannover'). In Lotus Notes, F9 has been the 'refresh key' for ages, so there's at least some consistency in their UI
I definitely know and acknowledge that the Lotus Notes client leaves a lot to be desired for, but the platform as a whole is pretty damn strong. When was the last time you heard about a virus/worm targetted at Lotus Notes/Domino? Its security is pretty good by design, it runs on a gazillion platforms and it can actually scale up.
(Disclaimer: I don't work for IBM or Lotus, but I know a thing or two about Lotus Notes)
They're called "Monster Cables"
Aw... Missed the part where it said "inexpensive"... Dang :-)
Here is a tip: when you ensure that young people are educated properly on sexuality and human relationships instead of blocking anything that even closely relates to sex (remember nipplegate?) then chances will be far slimmer that they use "pornography" as a role model w.r.t. their own sexuality. They're able enough to distinguish fantasy from reality, once they have some kind of reference of what is real.
It's the total lack of balance in some societies that lets youngsters base their sexual beliefs on whatever porn is available to them rather than even a half-decent attempt on sex-ed just because most people are too prude to give their own kids a chance on getting to know what real sexuality is.
I do appreciate your respect for others in the way that you deal with these calls, something a lot of people seem to lack.
What is it with you people that you have this urge to sue everything and everybody whenever something isn't quite going the way you want it? It's just not productive for anybody but lawyers...
(apologies to any US citizen that isn't as trigger-happy as most US people seem to be when it comes to assigning blame...)
I know you're trying to be funny but it is explicitly stated in the article that the software used in a "verification" is open source. Seems ok to me.
Of course that doesn't help you much in a three drive array, but it will perform better in arrays with more devices.
You should also look at it a bit differently: writes of a single byte (as outlined above) are not occurring that often. With bigger writes where the data is spanned over all the drives, those read operations are no longer required; just the calculation of parity (which can be done really fast).
Comparing a RAID5 array of 6 drives (4+1, 1 hotspare) with a RAID10 array of 6 (3 stripes of mirrored drives, no hotspare) an write of 3072 bytes of data could result in the following disk operations:
In this case, RAID5 requires less writes on less disks while offering more capacity and having the advantage of a hotspare. Parity calculations are not an issue on good raid controllers and have a negligible impact. With a good controller, using the right filesystem and configuration RAID5 is actually pretty good.
The most important downside of RAID5 is that while adding disks to an array makes it more economical and more performant, it also increases your risk of catastrophic failures (read: two disks fail at once == array is toast). Once it grows above a certain number of drives, it is often wiser to go for a RAID6 setup where you use two parity disks instead of one. The writes required to disk remain more or less the same but the parity calculations are more complex (still not an issue on good controllers). It is far less common though, and not all vendors call it RAID6.
In the end though, they're still your customers, and in the case of a screwup like the submitter described you either kick 'm off your service or try to help and (hopefully) educate them.
I don't see why the hosting company involved (which isn't named, btw) isn't dealing with this properly. Either they should tell Tim that they unilaterally break their contract according to whatever terms both parties have agreed to or work with Tim as a customer to get him back on-line in a safe way. In neither case his files should be kept hostage.
Pick any other course, be it religion (christian), philosophy, history, global geopolitics (ID seems to be nearly exclusively a US topic) or even literature (there are books on ID, even though I would hardly qualify them as literature). It just doesn't belong in science class...
NTP has a case as long as at least one claim of one patent is infringed upon. The moment that the USPTO strikes them down definitively, their case ceases to be. Therefore, NTP wants to force a judgement/settlement as soon as possible, while RIM obviously wants to await the final verdict from the USPTO.
I agree with you that "IP firms" such as NTP are absolutely bollocks, as is the system that allows this to happen (over and over again).
Instead of just dumping the contents of the whole RAM to disk, it will only deal with the part of RAM that is actually allocated (not the part that is used as HD cache). For the actual memory that has been allocated, everything that can be paged to swap will be paged to the swap file. Due to the swapping mechanism, a great deal of the memory in use is probably already in the swap file. All the other bits are stored in a hibernation file.
When booting, all that has to be done is dump the contents of the hibernation file to RAM (which is probably way smaller than the actual size of the RAM). From that point on, the OS starts running again and pages the stuff you actually need back out of swap (a much more gradual process than dumping back a snapshot of the full RAM contents).
Any WiFi hardware must be FCC certified, and certification is always performed on the radio (WiFi card) and the antenna as a whole. An (external) antenna that is not explicitly FCC certified for a particular card is verboten.
Antennae in laptops (just open the LCD bezel to see for yourself) are relatively big -- most of the time bigger than what you'd be willing to take with you in your laptop bag :-).
Using a directional antenna will mostly buy your radio more output, but it would require you to point it in the proper direction (which may not be that easy). Unless the other side (i.e.: the access point) is also using a directional antenna, it won't buy you much though.
The reason for L3 cutting the connection may well be more commercial (Cogent is still a competitor), where L3 is trying to impact Cogents pricing and business to bully them into a different agreement.
Assuming for a while that L3 is pushing more internet traffic than Cogent and therefore the traffic ratio for Cogent to L3 (amount of traffic to the peering partner/total amount of traffic) is higher for Cogent than for L3, the monetary impact of disconnecting this peering is way bigger for Cogent than for L3.
L3 doesn't have any financial gains in the short term: they'll have to route the Cogent traffic via more expensive lines. What they do gain is simple: they can inflict extra costs on a competitor and use that as an argument.
Basically L3 is telling Cogent: "Please start paying $AMOUNT for the peering, or we'll cut the connection which will cost you $BIGGERAMOUNT if you have to route traffic towards us indirectly -- even if that would also cost us more". (note this is a pure anti-competitive move)
Cogent's reply is: "We'd rather not pay $BIGGERAMOUNT but we also don't want to pay $AMOUNT since this would impact our customer pricing too much. So we'll just forget that you exist, tell everybody that you cut us off for no reason and offer all your customers free connections for their Cogent-destined traffic." (which is a brilliant move from Cogent's side)
Cogent is not going to just roll over to L3's bullying, and prefers to duke it out in a game of chicken -- wait for the other party to move first, will customer pressure is rising for both camps. This can get interesting.
Of course, this being slashdot, above post is highly speculative.
At least junkmailers have a real cost per junkmail sent to me that they have to pay upfront.