they wanted to be able to backup the filesystems (byte-by-byte copy) to the external drive, but be able to access it from ANY machine (not just linux boxes).
Helican scan/8mm is unacceptable. If you're using a reliable linear tape tech (like SDLT or LTO) you're spending 75 to 90 cents per gig again.
Whaddya gonna do... I recommend a tiered scheme using backup to swappable hard drives or NAS for near term, and optical media (small data sets) and tapes (large data sets) for long term.
The tears of the overconfident/arrogant sales clerk are the sweetest of all.
Oh don't kid yourself. There's tons of MS zealots.
on
Security FUD On Linux
·
· Score: 1
They don't get paid either (although they go to trade shows and are rewarded with free MSDN subscriptions).
Mostly they appear ranting in defense of encroachment by other OSs into their ego zone: previously they had to fend off Amiga users, now Apples (which aren't "hardcore") and BSD/Linux (which is "too difficult, and thus for nerds").
The vulnerable part of Office is not Word. Word is (well historically, I don't know about 2003) a GIGANTIC set of controls/objects that are linked together by Office itself.
Rather, it's the fact that Office at it's core is based heavily on VBscript and other realtime automation tech. It is this component that is exploitable (and quite easily). Because Office exposes so many controls to the scripting environment, it is very easy to write Macros that can use these features to propogate themselves into all your Office work.
You can do really cool stuff with Macros, and you can also do really nasty stuff (how are you to encode checking for "purpose"?)
This is why managed/signed code is a good feature. Office2003 should be less susceptible to this sort of thing: set to only run macros signed by people you trust.
Oh, and what about viruses? Most viruses now if they aren't trying to help spammers, are creating zombies to launch DDoSs (creating artificial scarecity of a website, possibly to promote a competitor) or to crack IRC channels (again, competing for other's attention)
It may be, however, that IBM wants "the whole package". That is, Novell and SCO, and all their combined trademarks and patents. They'd have the whole Unix kit and kaboodle, in addition to some nice file system, network protocols, directory, client management etc. tech. to add to their portfolio.
IBM would be duplicating a lot of software effort if they were to purchase Novell and it's tech portfolio. For example NDS and ZenWorks would compete directly with Tivoli. SuSE might be useful as they have global acceptance which may help to sell more Linux products and solutions to the global marketplace vs. RHES.
HP probably won't buy it (yet). If they do it will be to take SuSE for use as their Linux solution provider, and to put down Novell to garner further favor from Microsoft- who also power their midrange backoffice offerings. But HP is still cooling down from the Compaq merger. It's too soon to look at Novell while simultaneously keeping it's current investors happy (they should be focusing on ops as is).
Maybe it'll be Oracle, to use as another pawn in their game to beat everybody else (read: Microsoft) no matter what the cost.
...so that they can cram as many little east-meets-west philosophical treats like so many marshmellows in your Lucky Charms- and idiots can "discover" them and feel real good about themselves because they're not wasting away 2 hours and 8 dollars in a theater, they're getting a nutritional part of your balanced spiritual breakfast.
I'm sorry. That's just wrong.
You know, those hidden little lessons would be about ten times more effective if you could actually follow the plot and believe that those ideas "make sense" in the Matrix world, or any world for that matter. Or not be turned off by the whispering-as-acting, in any case.
The writers are idiots (or maybe their really smart). They just dreamt up something that looked kinda cool for conveying the fact that Neo + Smith = both die. Only dramatically and with religious overtones.
That's it. They expect loser audience members to do the hard work of figuring out HOW within the confines of their pathetic excuses for dialog. Then they go to the bank and take out huge credit lines to buy Hummers.
Suckers.
You could tell that after the success first movie, no one who actually liked the idea of the story and Matrix universe got in on it. The stink of fresh cash attracted hacks like flies to meat. It was strictly a business venture.
On a completely different subject, whenever I heard "The Source" mentioned, I kept thinking about Open Source software, and every time I heard the Oracle's name mentioned, I thought of the database provider.
1) those jacks are the absolute worst possible excuse for an antennta
2) This isn't interesting, or even funny. Mod down.
Do yourself a favor and continue not seeing the two movies unless you're going with friends during a matinee (and sneaking in food) for the purpose of ridiculing it.
(dual link, see http://www.intechlabs.com/ourfaqs/tv/dvi.htm) DVI -A even supports 1920x1080 at 60Hz, and 1600*1200 1920*1080 so I don't see how that's relevant anyway. And remember, it didn't work at 800x600 either. (!) DVI-D explicitly supports 2048x1536, etc. etc.
Also, I returned this product 3 times so far, and each new one has had exactly the same problem. It's definitely a systemic defect.
a) Their specs say support up to 1600x1200x24bit@60Hz. It's DVI-B compliant (>350MHz bitclock) b) The monitors and video cards support it. c) 3 of the 4 connectors work perfectly. But without fail, the first one causes weird image ghosting (it's hard to describe, it looks like what Hollywood would show you when a "satellite link gets broken up")
Also, the first one doesn't work even at 800x600. It doesn't ghost as much, but if the screen is full of bright pixels it still does it. So it doesn't matter.
Slashdot Mirror
they'd be utilitzing their four IDE channels with SW RAID 0 striping and then the 5400 RPM doesn't really become a bottleneck anymore.
Dumbasses.
they wanted to be able to backup the filesystems (byte-by-byte copy) to the external drive, but be able to access it from ANY machine (not just linux boxes).
Doesn't really make much sense to me.
Helican scan/8mm is unacceptable.
If you're using a reliable linear tape tech (like SDLT or LTO) you're spending 75 to 90 cents per gig again.
Whaddya gonna do... I recommend a tiered scheme using backup to swappable hard drives or NAS for near term, and optical media (small data sets) and tapes (large data sets) for long term.
The tears of the overconfident/arrogant sales clerk are the sweetest of all.
They don't get paid either (although they go to trade shows and are rewarded with free MSDN subscriptions).
Mostly they appear ranting in defense of encroachment by other OSs into their ego zone: previously they had to fend off Amiga users, now Apples (which aren't "hardcore") and BSD/Linux (which is "too difficult, and thus for nerds").
Bleh.
n/t
make it >>> than the disk cache size, and you're flying.
The vulnerable part of Office is not Word. Word is (well historically, I don't know about 2003) a GIGANTIC set of controls/objects that are linked together by Office itself.
Rather, it's the fact that Office at it's core is based heavily on VBscript and other realtime automation tech. It is this component that is exploitable (and quite easily). Because Office exposes so many controls to the scripting environment, it is very easy to write Macros that can use these features to propogate themselves into all your Office work.
You can do really cool stuff with Macros, and you can also do really nasty stuff (how are you to encode checking for "purpose"?)
This is why managed/signed code is a good feature. Office2003 should be less susceptible to this sort of thing: set to only run macros signed by people you trust.
about how the XBox was a test platform for Microsoft's Paladium DRM tech? (oh, I meant "TCPA", sorry).
Oh, and what about viruses?
Most viruses now if they aren't trying to help spammers, are creating zombies to launch DDoSs (creating artificial scarecity of a website, possibly to promote a competitor) or to crack IRC channels (again, competing for other's attention)
The end-user. {attention, credit card, identity}
Everything else is superfluous.
Isn't it obvious? (blogs with trackbacks, webcams, spam, 419s, personalized mailing lists, portal pages, etc.)
No, I didn't deserve to get modded down at all. I have accounts that I troll with for just that purpose. If people would read before they click...
Have to ram into their fucking skulls... grumble grumble.
I'm wondering if they are trying to posture themselves as an infrastructure company, a solutions brand, not a hardware company.
Novell and it's assets (particularly app servers, resource management and clustering stuff) would make that a possibility.
to beat SCO. That's a done deal.
It may be, however, that IBM wants "the whole package". That is, Novell and SCO, and all their combined trademarks and patents. They'd have the whole Unix kit and kaboodle, in addition to some nice file system, network protocols, directory, client management etc. tech. to add to their portfolio.
IBM would be duplicating a lot of software effort if they were to purchase Novell and it's tech portfolio. For example NDS and ZenWorks would compete directly with Tivoli.
SuSE might be useful as they have global acceptance which may help to sell more Linux products and solutions to the global marketplace vs. RHES.
HP probably won't buy it (yet). If they do it will be to take SuSE for use as their Linux solution provider, and to put down Novell to garner further favor from Microsoft- who also power their midrange backoffice offerings. But HP is still cooling down from the Compaq merger. It's too soon to look at Novell while simultaneously keeping it's current investors happy (they should be focusing on ops as is).
Maybe it'll be Oracle, to use as another pawn in their game to beat everybody else (read: Microsoft) no matter what the cost.
Give me a break. Check my posting history.
Moderators are the ones taking bonghits around here tonight.
...so that they can cram as many little east-meets-west philosophical treats like so many marshmellows in your Lucky Charms- and idiots can "discover" them and feel real good about themselves because they're not wasting away 2 hours and 8 dollars in a theater, they're getting a nutritional part of your balanced spiritual breakfast.
I'm sorry. That's just wrong.
You know, those hidden little lessons would be about ten times more effective if you could actually follow the plot and believe that those ideas "make sense" in the Matrix world, or any world for that matter. Or not be turned off by the whispering-as-acting, in any case.
I was going to comment, but you beat me to it.
All of that sound effect using H's, G's and U's on jerkcity is supposed to be them taking bonghits.
Dick-sucking should have S's and P's
The writers are idiots (or maybe their really smart). They just dreamt up something that looked kinda cool for conveying the fact that Neo + Smith = both die. Only dramatically and with religious overtones.
That's it. They expect loser audience members to do the hard work of figuring out HOW within the confines of their pathetic excuses for dialog. Then they go to the bank and take out huge credit lines to buy Hummers.
Suckers.
You could tell that after the success first movie, no one who actually liked the idea of the story and Matrix universe got in on it. The stink of fresh cash attracted hacks like flies to meat. It was strictly a business venture.
On a completely different subject, whenever I heard "The Source" mentioned, I kept thinking about Open Source software, and every time I heard the Oracle's name mentioned, I thought of the database provider.
Is something wrong with me? ^_^
1) those jacks are the absolute worst possible excuse for an antennta
2) This isn't interesting, or even funny. Mod down.
Do yourself a favor and continue not seeing the two movies unless you're going with friends during a matinee (and sneaking in food) for the purpose of ridiculing it.
is AC opening the gag order courtesy of Joel and Larry for "stealing" the script to the Matrix 4: Duality
(dual link, see http://www.intechlabs.com/ourfaqs/tv/dvi.htm)I -A even supports 1920x1080 at 60Hz, and 1600*1200 1920*1080 so I don't see how that's relevant anyway. And remember, it didn't work at 800x600 either. (!)
DV
DVI-D explicitly supports 2048x1536, etc. etc.
Also, I returned this product 3 times so far, and each new one has had exactly the same problem. It's definitely a systemic defect.
a) Their specs say support up to 1600x1200x24bit@60Hz. It's DVI-B compliant (>350MHz bitclock)
b) The monitors and video cards support it.
c) 3 of the 4 connectors work perfectly. But without fail, the first one causes weird image ghosting (it's hard to describe, it looks like what Hollywood would show you when a "satellite link gets broken up")
Also, the first one doesn't work even at 800x600. It doesn't ghost as much, but if the screen is full of bright pixels it still does it.
So it doesn't matter.
So, as far as I can see, it's a lemon.
n/t