Right, I think this guy may need to check what his DNS servers are set to. Attempting to use my Comcast DNS servers (Much like all the others here on the Slashdot), I get NXDOMAIN results back for fake domains.
Doing a quick search online for Earthlink DNS servers, I came back with one at 207.217.126.81. Running a query against this server (From inside and outside Comcast's network) returns the 207.69.131.9 & 207.69.131.10 IPs.
Unlikely to be a Comcast issue, maybe more of a PEBKAC issue.
Embedded linux... So you'd pay 32 bucks...Not the 699 for a normal PC/Server running linux..
Re:They've been working on this for a while now
on
C&W Bails Out
·
· Score: 3, Informative
You must be in my general area.
C&W cancled the remaining three years of our contracts on our lines (Which they also stated they could do with no repercussions), and told us to either find a new provider or sign a contract with New Edge Networks.
Everyone in our company throught C&W was going to get sued for the contract thing. I wonder if any other companies have thought about it.
They didn't leave us much time to get new lines in. I'm really grateful for the work AT&T pulled for us. Based on all estimates, we were going to have our new Ts in only days (2 at most) before C&W pulled our old lines. Not much time to might 9 Class C's of DSL customers, dial-up users, and dedicated T customers.
I am now left with a very bad taste on how NewEdge treated us ("No, you *have* to sign at least a 1 year contract, we can't give you any less, because that's the deal we have with C&W" -- Each T1 from NewEdge was over 1100$ a month..Not a good deal), and how C&W treated us. Given the choice, I'll never do business with either one of them again.
I wish I could tell you the correct US Code...But here is the "$500" part:
(B) an action to recover for actual monetary loss from such a violation, or to receive $500 in damages for each such violation, whichever is greater, or
(C) both such actions.
This is about Fax spamming...Or misuse of telephone equipment... If you look at it loosely enough, email could apply... In the real world, I doubt it would hold up...But heck, there are some good lawyers out there... (Good being figurative =])...
All I have is the Section # and title:
Sec. 227. Restrictions on use of telephone equipment
You could do a search on that, and find it though, I'm sure..
Does anyone not see a reason to just attach an admendment to the infamous 'US Code Title 47 Section 227'?... In case you been in the dark for a long time, this is the measure to stop/prevent fax-spamming.
Let me take an important clip here:
2) The term ''telephone facsimile machine'' means equipment which has the capacity (A) to transcribe text or images, or both, from paper into an electronic signal and to transmit that signal over a regular telephone line, or (B) to transcribe text or images (or both) from an electronic signal received over a regular telephone line onto paper.
As far as I can figure from reading the act, that's basicly the only section that would need to be changed. I think it would just need to expressly say computers and/or any electronic form of communication. Also kill off that 'regular telephone lines' and..Er...Well, put in any type of line (Or lack there of, eg: wireless)...
If anyone read this act, what are your opinions in just shaping that to make spam illegal...Now.. Not in 5 years.
Hell, I'd like to sue the sender for 500$ per transmission. The only part I really don't care for, is you need to tell them to stop sending the stuff to you. Faxing, that could be pretty easy, but ususally sending a 'remove' to a spammer magicly gets you on a 100 more lists. I'm pretty sure some bright people (Note, I didn't say politicions. I think they lack that 'bright' edge..=]) could come up with a wording that would make email users happy, and spammers scared.
Then again, in this day in age where everyone sues a company making a product, not the person mis-using it. Maybe we should just sue the people who make mass-mailing programs? =]
Just a few comments, I'd like to make on your good points:
I didn't mean to come off as saying FP needs to be installed use to FP Extensions. I just don't understand why I can't administer the FP extensions right inside IIS with a FP-enabled web. That's the main reason I think the FP admin tool included with 2000 is silly. No real other reason.. =]
As for AD, you are correct, but lucky I can say I didn't origionally setup the box, I just had to make it work.. =] AD isn't setup by default, and many people won't need it, as it's a bit of overkill for internet server applications.
I'm actually not inexperienced with 2000, I've been running it for over 6 months now (Okay, so that's not *really* a long time =]) and I've used and abused Professional, Server, and Advanced Server. I'd also be interested in knowing about your drive config. We have a RAID/Mirror setup, on some old old SCSI drives which aren't the fastest things in the world.
I tried to make my post unbiased, and I see that I have failed, but I didn't mean to come off sounding like Win2k is crap. It's far from being crap, but it's not my cup of tea. And that's my opinion, which I don't believe I gave until my physical analysis was complete.
Actually we can't format it, MS won't let us.. It was part of the agreement.. =] We agreed upon, for a free version of Win2kAS, we'd run it on one of our machines, and put 2 MS logo's on our main webpage. It's amusing, our Linux/PHP machine says the site was created by and maintained in Front Page.. =]
We do use FP for our BSD box we have at an APT complex, and that is good to us. The setup was much easier and the administration was part of the setup, so I don't mind. I also don't have to fight with file permissions that Win2k seems to mysteriously change on us. That causes problems with people 1.) Trying to connect to the FP web, and 2.) people trying to overwrite files when they update them. Give me Unix file permissions anyday...
Here's the setup:
RedHat 6.0 on a Sparc 10 (That's a single 50mhz(?) processor) with 64 megs of RAM.
Win2k Adv Server on a Compaq dual P-Pro 166 with 128 megs of RAM.
On the Win2k machine, we *only* do web. Therefor there are no sharing, F&P is removed. Active Directory is removed, and 99% of the sites have Front Page installed. We also have PHP installed for one website, and perl available to all. There is a total of about 50 sites, all being very small, 2 - 3 pages, 1 to 5 pics.
On the Linux machine, we do web, mail, shells, and other management stuff. There are about a hundred personal websites, and about 75 more commercial sites. None of the sites on here are small, per say. For example, we host the official Camaro SS website, some government websites, and many normal business sites. Most sites are 20+ pages, with over 30 pics to play with. To me, that's decient size, maybe not to everyone. PHP and perl are, of course, available and widly used.
On to performance:
How about initial connect time. The Win2k box literally takes up to 3 seconds to start sending you data, while the linux box takes 1 - 2 seconds (Mail beats up this little machine =])
Response time, post initial connection: Win2k box and linux box are pretty quick, usually being next to instant, though the Win box seems to take a slight more time.
Stability: Not bad at all. We had inital problems with the Win2k box, but that was from Active Directory and that 50+ IP bug. We removed AD and have the latest patches/updates and now the box is firm. The linux box is the same, all the latest RH updates, and it never goes down, nor have real problems.
Annoyances in Win2k: Not having a decient way to admin FP-enabled webs without the Front Page program installed, or using the silly CLI util. MMC likes to quit responding, and lock. Easy to fix, but really annoying.
Annoyances in Linux: Er..Uhm..*thinks*..I kinda like Linux, no complaints.. =] Then again, it'd be *really* annoying if you didn't like the CLI.
Conclusion: If we didn't get Win2kAS for free, I wouldn't of considered running it. After using it and learning about it, I still wouldn't consider running it if I had to buy it. I like the low-overhead Linux can offer, and I feel it offers better bang for the lack-of-a-buck. I can't comment on how Win2k would be on a nice fast, expensive machine, but ISPs aren't the best place to go for the latest and greatest machines. I'll stick with my linux machines, thank you. Win2k was interesting to play with though, but so is everything new. =]
That's the fun part. The manufactors like to play games. Some say you can put on 4 buses with 2 devices each. Others will claim you can put 4 devices on the 2 busses.
The big problem is the chipset of the motherboard. Does it support the 4 devices per bus? Does it supply enough voltage? I think that's why you are seeing that with your 66 Controller. Check out some of the Promise controllers. They are more then happy to have 8 devices from what I hear.
Hope that helps you. It basicly boils down to how the mobo/chipset maker designed the chips.
You answer your own question. I don't agree with you, but for the simple fact that Joe-Bob-Computer-User isn't going to 'see much difference' in the drives is the exact reason. Well, okay, actually isn't because they don't know the difference so they won't pay more, therefor prices aren't going down.
Rememeber the very *very* slim profit space on HDs, and then ask a company who does SCSI how much they make off them. I'm sure it can't be too much. Think Flat-Screen TV/monitors here...
On the other hand, I don't agree with you one bit that Joe-Bob-Computer-User won't notice a difference. Let's dream for a second here. Joe-Bob buys a nice new Compaq with a expensive SCSI setup in it. You looked at a pre-fab computer lately? They load so much crap at Windows startup it's not funny. It's pure evil, I saw a Athlon 1ghz with a GeForce run slower then my K6-2 500 with a TNT2.
So let's say that startup crap is gone, and the OS is properly tuned. If you don't see a difference, then you have ADD.. =] The difference is very clear, try burning a CD on a nice SCSI controller with a nice drive. Then try loading some programs while doing it. Not much difference then normal use. Now try doing that on a IDE drive. Oh dear, you have whacked your IDE bus, and the overhead is causing your computer to run like a TRS-80.. The simple point of the reduction in overhead, is more then enough for me to spend a few extra dollars (Well, maybe not a few) in getting SCSI. Now, I just need to get those few extra dollars.. =]
Then again, this is just my observation.. =]
UDMA66 can have 4 devices per port. So, 8 devices on a standard system. Now, if they would just put more ports on a board, so overhead per chain stays fairly low, that'd be nice.
Or even a more wild dream: Make CPUs more efficent, instead of just faster.. Naa, never happen.. =]
Because what you don't see when you come to this site, and possibly look at the code, is that all the pages are dynamicly generated. I can't be sure, but I'm guessing the 'sections' on the front page could be located on more then one server. And the artciles are in a DB on another server, so if that can't be reached, you just seriously chopped down the size of your resulting HTML. (And output, since there is no longer a middle) =] The webpage where I work is located in 5 different files (PHP), and joined together when the user loads. But when it's all together, and you look at the source, the page looks like it should be one file.
It defines the INTERFACE between the web server and the 'CGI application' (meaning, an application using the CGI interface).
I don't mean to sound sarcastic, but the 'CGI Application' is a script, therefor it's a 'CGI Script'...Make sense? You write scripts in languages that implement CGI, and you write it for the sole purpose of being on a webpage, and going through CGI. Therefore, it basicly becomes a CGI Script in name.
It's kinda like 'Coffee cup'...The cup isn't made out of coffee, but that's what the name *technically* implies. It holds coffee, so it should only be called a 'cup containing coffee'.. Never a 'coffee cup', or a 'cup of coffee'. Welcome to the American language.. =]
Bad wording, and benchmark link
on
Athlons Sold Out
·
· Score: 2
No. The K6's successer is allready on hte market. The K7's isn't. What's selling now is allways worse then what's selling in two months (in CPUs at least). Just because there is an extra large discontunity coming up doesn't mean you can point to the future product and say the current one is history.
That was bad wording on my part, I apolgize. I should have said, maybe: Marketwise , the K7 is obsolete. As in, it's time for them to market the poo out of the Spitfires and Thunderbirds. In the sense I wrote it there, I didn't mean obsolete, pertaining to old hardware (Like writing this post on my Atari 800 (Not literally)). Very bad choice of words on my part. Also, if you are interetested, check out this link to HardOCP, where they have some benchmarks of a 750mhz Thunderbird.
As many quality hardware sites speculate, the Spitfire will still outperform the current Athlon in many applications, mostly games. Unfortantly, a good site I frequent (Ace's hardware) had an article/link/write up on why the Spitfire and T-bird CPUs are better CPUs then current Athlons (As in, what they changed, how the on-die cache will help/hurt, etc) but they don't keep a backlog of articles that I can see. If you want to check them out and see if you can find anything, the address is www.aceshardware.com . They have pretty technical info, which makes the place pretty good.. =]
I think what a lot of you people fail to realize something when you say "Oh no, AMD is out of stock, Intel is going to make up for it"...
1.) AMD may be out of stock with old Athlon chips, but your local store isn't.
2.) Intel isn't going to be bought instead, because Intel can't even supply their chips.
3.) Why would you want an Athlon anymore, anyway? Spitfire (Low-end) and Thunderbirds (High-end) are on their way in a month and some, which are much better then the current Athlon. On-die cache, better tweaking of the core, etc. Athlons now are what the origional K6 was. Obsolete. Time for those power hungry people with money to upgrade to a bigger and better system.. =]
On a side note, those Spitfire's are suppost to be pretty cheap, and perform better then the origional K7? Sounds like a winning combo to me. I currently run A k6-2 350, a K6-3 400, and K6-2 500, and will be upgrading slowly to some Spitfires, and maybe a Thunderbird for my linux server.
Conclusion: Good for AMD. They really took the jewels on this one, and they reported one heck of a profit (Comparativly - Did I mutilate that word?:P) and now they are going to move up again. Unlike Intel, they don't do this much at the expense of the consumer.
That is not the perfect solution though. Don't forget to include you cannot be running httpd on port 80 if you do that. I use to have those in my hosts file, and I also run a web server, and there were many pages that wouldn't properly load because of it. What would happen is that the page would start loading, and (This didn't happen on all sites) then it would go full screen into my webserver stating that I didn't have permission to access so and so resource or that the file didn't exist (I setup very restrictive permissions since it is private).
On the other hand, if someone has a solution to this, I would be highly interested in hearing it.
Really? I never had those problems. When did you use this? Maybe I have a newer version. I haven't had a single error message come up, and granted mpeg is bad, but I think a little script reworking will get it to not make the mpeg window larger then the size of the video (stretch, as the case may be). I was looking into xanim flags and command line options and the/etc/pluggerrc file to see about resizing it. If it's been a while since you used it, I recommand giving it another chance.. =]
I'm not sure if many of you tried using the Netscape plugin called 'Plugger'...It's pretty fancy, and you can find it on Netscape's plugin page. I can pretty much stream all my movie files/avi file/etc/etc with it, and it doesn't require too many programs to be installed. Here is a copy of the mime types:
Whoa, big paste.. =] It uses programs like xanim, and another free one, that I can't rememeber the name for now. I recommend checking it out. The readme from the program is pretty good too, and will tell you what you need to do, and download.
The way CNN makes it sound is like a HD went down or something, or perhaps a race-condition of some sort or another. Someone did raise a good question, why would the NSA admit to something like this? From the article it appears they didn't loose anything, so good for them, but I wonder how 'back-logged' they became. I honestly can't think of a reason for them to tell, but if they did, maybe they'll release more info. Something saucy like "Don't use IDE on your servers, SCSI is your friend..".. =]
I think the answer to that may be how and why it's being done. If that webserver and laptop has my CC numbers, and other sorts of personal info on it that I really didn't want anyone abusive to have, I'd be more then happy when they took it away from the person. Even if wasn't my info at all, but maybe a collection of other people's info. I guess the answer could be so wartered down to this: If what is in those files shows the company/person is taking part in illegal activities then it should be 'okay'... But then, in the fun of humanity, that brings up another question. Will the law enforcement actually stick to that? Will they just say "Oh, well, we thought there might be something on there damaging, guess we were wrong, sorry about the HD, you'll never see it again." On the other hand, I'm not too sure if I would want the officals to have (or not have) the ability to take data on probable cause. That's just too sticky of a situation, and maybe can only be figured out on a per-situation basis.
If RedHat keeps this up, they'll have more closed source software in their box then open. I'm not sure if that's a bad thing or a good thing, but I wonder if that's the only way for a distro to 'stand out'. I guess I got the wrong idea, and thought RH would of wanted more to push the software as OSS. Again I'm not passing judment and saying this is bad or good. But it does make me wonder. Oh well, just my two pence.
As of 2000, Jan 25 - 9:45 Central time, I still cannot resolve (www.)etoy.com. Is this still the 'problem' with NSI? Or is it now a problem with the DNS server at the ISP? Could anyone let me know?
Slashdot Mirror
Snap.. Forgot his traffic was being intercepted, not his DNS queries.. Shoots my theory in the butt.
Right, I think this guy may need to check what his DNS servers are set to. Attempting to use my Comcast DNS servers (Much like all the others here on the Slashdot), I get NXDOMAIN results back for fake domains.
Doing a quick search online for Earthlink DNS servers, I came back with one at 207.217.126.81. Running a query against this server (From inside and outside Comcast's network) returns the 207.69.131.9 & 207.69.131.10 IPs.
Unlikely to be a Comcast issue, maybe more of a PEBKAC issue.
Outlook Express can pick up from multiple mailboxes and dump them into seperate folders. I do it all the time. It's under their Mail Rules.
..
Tools -> Message Rules -> Mail -> New -> "Where The Message is from the specified account" -> "Move it to the specified folder"
Done... Now when my Work email gets checked with my six other accounts, Work goes into a Work folder.
Embedded linux... So you'd pay 32 bucks...Not the 699 for a normal PC/Server running linux..
You must be in my general area.
C&W cancled the remaining three years of our contracts on our lines (Which they also stated they could do with no repercussions), and told us to either find a new provider or sign a contract with New Edge Networks.
Everyone in our company throught C&W was going to get sued for the contract thing. I wonder if any other companies have thought about it.
They didn't leave us much time to get new lines in. I'm really grateful for the work AT&T pulled for us. Based on all estimates, we were going to have our new Ts in only days (2 at most) before C&W pulled our old lines. Not much time to might 9 Class C's of DSL customers, dial-up users, and dedicated T customers.
I am now left with a very bad taste on how NewEdge treated us ("No, you *have* to sign at least a 1 year contract, we can't give you any less, because that's the deal we have with C&W" -- Each T1 from NewEdge was over 1100$ a month..Not a good deal), and how C&W treated us. Given the choice, I'll never do business with either one of them again.
Exactly what I was thinking. I pre-ordered the game, all hyped-up ready to kick my boss' ass, and boom...No multiplayer support.
What a *total* let-down. Every game coming out these days has multiplayer support. What the *hell* was Firaxis thinking?
Just as well. I'll wait for Civ III Gold Multiplayer, and dump another fifty bucks to them.
I wish I could tell you the correct US Code...But here is the "$500" part:
...
(B) an action to recover for actual monetary loss from such a violation, or to receive $500 in damages for each such violation, whichever is greater, or
(C) both such actions.
This is about Fax spamming...Or misuse of telephone equipment... If you look at it loosely enough, email could apply... In the real world, I doubt it would hold up...But heck, there are some good lawyers out there... (Good being figurative =])
All I have is the Section # and title:
Sec. 227. Restrictions on use of telephone equipment
You could do a search on that, and find it though, I'm sure..
Does anyone not see a reason to just attach an admendment to the infamous 'US Code Title 47 Section 227'? ... In case you been in the dark for a long time, this is the measure to stop/prevent fax-spamming.
..Er...Well, put in any type of line (Or lack there of, eg: wireless)...
Let me take an important clip here:
2) The term ''telephone facsimile machine'' means equipment which has the capacity (A) to transcribe text or images, or both, from paper into an electronic signal and to transmit that signal over a regular telephone line, or (B) to transcribe text or images (or both) from an electronic signal received over a regular telephone line onto paper.
As far as I can figure from reading the act, that's basicly the only section that would need to be changed. I think it would just need to expressly say computers and/or any electronic form of communication. Also kill off that 'regular telephone lines' and
If anyone read this act, what are your opinions in just shaping that to make spam illegal...Now.. Not in 5 years.
Hell, I'd like to sue the sender for 500$ per transmission. The only part I really don't care for, is you need to tell them to stop sending the stuff to you. Faxing, that could be pretty easy, but ususally sending a 'remove' to a spammer magicly gets you on a 100 more lists. I'm pretty sure some bright people (Note, I didn't say politicions. I think they lack that 'bright' edge..=]) could come up with a wording that would make email users happy, and spammers scared.
Then again, in this day in age where everyone sues a company making a product, not the person mis-using it. Maybe we should just sue the people who make mass-mailing programs? =]
Just a few comments, I'd like to make on your good points:
I didn't mean to come off as saying FP needs to be installed use to FP Extensions. I just don't understand why I can't administer the FP extensions right inside IIS with a FP-enabled web. That's the main reason I think the FP admin tool included with 2000 is silly. No real other reason.. =]
As for AD, you are correct, but lucky I can say I didn't origionally setup the box, I just had to make it work.. =] AD isn't setup by default, and many people won't need it, as it's a bit of overkill for internet server applications.
I'm actually not inexperienced with 2000, I've been running it for over 6 months now (Okay, so that's not *really* a long time =]) and I've used and abused Professional, Server, and Advanced Server. I'd also be interested in knowing about your drive config. We have a RAID/Mirror setup, on some old old SCSI drives which aren't the fastest things in the world.
I tried to make my post unbiased, and I see that I have failed, but I didn't mean to come off sounding like Win2k is crap. It's far from being crap, but it's not my cup of tea. And that's my opinion, which I don't believe I gave until my physical analysis was complete.
Actually we can't format it, MS won't let us.. It was part of the agreement.. =] We agreed upon, for a free version of Win2kAS, we'd run it on one of our machines, and put 2 MS logo's on our main webpage. It's amusing, our Linux/PHP machine says the site was created by and maintained in Front Page.. =]
We do use FP for our BSD box we have at an APT complex, and that is good to us. The setup was much easier and the administration was part of the setup, so I don't mind. I also don't have to fight with file permissions that Win2k seems to mysteriously change on us. That causes problems with people 1.) Trying to connect to the FP web, and 2.) people trying to overwrite files when they update them. Give me Unix file permissions anyday...
Here's the setup:
RedHat 6.0 on a Sparc 10 (That's a single 50mhz(?) processor) with 64 megs of RAM.
Win2k Adv Server on a Compaq dual P-Pro 166 with 128 megs of RAM.
On the Win2k machine, we *only* do web. Therefor there are no sharing, F&P is removed. Active Directory is removed, and 99% of the sites have Front Page installed. We also have PHP installed for one website, and perl available to all. There is a total of about 50 sites, all being very small, 2 - 3 pages, 1 to 5 pics.
On the Linux machine, we do web, mail, shells, and other management stuff. There are about a hundred personal websites, and about 75 more commercial sites. None of the sites on here are small, per say. For example, we host the official Camaro SS website, some government websites, and many normal business sites. Most sites are 20+ pages, with over 30 pics to play with. To me, that's decient size, maybe not to everyone. PHP and perl are, of course, available and widly used.
On to performance:
How about initial connect time. The Win2k box literally takes up to 3 seconds to start sending you data, while the linux box takes 1 - 2 seconds (Mail beats up this little machine =])
Response time, post initial connection: Win2k box and linux box are pretty quick, usually being next to instant, though the Win box seems to take a slight more time.
Stability: Not bad at all. We had inital problems with the Win2k box, but that was from Active Directory and that 50+ IP bug. We removed AD and have the latest patches/updates and now the box is firm. The linux box is the same, all the latest RH updates, and it never goes down, nor have real problems.
Annoyances in Win2k: Not having a decient way to admin FP-enabled webs without the Front Page program installed, or using the silly CLI util. MMC likes to quit responding, and lock. Easy to fix, but really annoying.
Annoyances in Linux: Er..Uhm..*thinks*..I kinda like Linux, no complaints.. =] Then again, it'd be *really* annoying if you didn't like the CLI.
Conclusion: If we didn't get Win2kAS for free, I wouldn't of considered running it. After using it and learning about it, I still wouldn't consider running it if I had to buy it. I like the low-overhead Linux can offer, and I feel it offers better bang for the lack-of-a-buck. I can't comment on how Win2k would be on a nice fast, expensive machine, but ISPs aren't the best place to go for the latest and greatest machines. I'll stick with my linux machines, thank you. Win2k was interesting to play with though, but so is everything new. =]
That's the fun part. The manufactors like to play games. Some say you can put on 4 buses with 2 devices each. Others will claim you can put 4 devices on the 2 busses.
The big problem is the chipset of the motherboard. Does it support the 4 devices per bus? Does it supply enough voltage? I think that's why you are seeing that with your 66 Controller. Check out some of the Promise controllers. They are more then happy to have 8 devices from what I hear.
Hope that helps you. It basicly boils down to how the mobo/chipset maker designed the chips.
You answer your own question. I don't agree with you, but for the simple fact that Joe-Bob-Computer-User isn't going to 'see much difference' in the drives is the exact reason. Well, okay, actually isn't because they don't know the difference so they won't pay more, therefor prices aren't going down.
.. The simple point of the reduction in overhead, is more then enough for me to spend a few extra dollars (Well, maybe not a few) in getting SCSI. Now, I just need to get those few extra dollars.. =]
Rememeber the very *very* slim profit space on HDs, and then ask a company who does SCSI how much they make off them. I'm sure it can't be too much. Think Flat-Screen TV/monitors here...
On the other hand, I don't agree with you one bit that Joe-Bob-Computer-User won't notice a difference. Let's dream for a second here. Joe-Bob buys a nice new Compaq with a expensive SCSI setup in it. You looked at a pre-fab computer lately? They load so much crap at Windows startup it's not funny. It's pure evil, I saw a Athlon 1ghz with a GeForce run slower then my K6-2 500 with a TNT2.
So let's say that startup crap is gone, and the OS is properly tuned. If you don't see a difference, then you have ADD.. =] The difference is very clear, try burning a CD on a nice SCSI controller with a nice drive. Then try loading some programs while doing it. Not much difference then normal use. Now try doing that on a IDE drive. Oh dear, you have whacked your IDE bus, and the overhead is causing your computer to run like a TRS-80
Then again, this is just my observation.. =]
UDMA66 can have 4 devices per port. So, 8 devices on a standard system. Now, if they would just put more ports on a board, so overhead per chain stays fairly low, that'd be nice.
Or even a more wild dream: Make CPUs more efficent, instead of just faster.. Naa, never happen.. =]
Because what you don't see when you come to this site, and possibly look at the code, is that all the pages are dynamicly generated. I can't be sure, but I'm guessing the 'sections' on the front page could be located on more then one server. And the artciles are in a DB on another server, so if that can't be reached, you just seriously chopped down the size of your resulting HTML. (And output, since there is no longer a middle) =]
The webpage where I work is located in 5 different files (PHP), and joined together when the user loads. But when it's all together, and you look at the source, the page looks like it should be one file.
It defines the INTERFACE between the web server and the 'CGI application' (meaning, an application using the CGI interface).
...Make sense? You write scripts in languages that implement CGI, and you write it for the sole purpose of being on a webpage, and going through CGI. Therefore, it basicly becomes a CGI Script in name.
...The cup isn't made out of coffee, but that's what the name *technically* implies. It holds coffee, so it should only be called a 'cup containing coffee' .. Never a 'coffee cup', or a 'cup of coffee'. Welcome to the American language.. =]
I don't mean to sound sarcastic, but the 'CGI Application' is a script, therefor it's a 'CGI Script'
It's kinda like 'Coffee cup'
No. The K6's successer is allready on hte market. The K7's isn't. What's selling now is allways worse then what's selling in two months (in CPUs at least). Just because there is an extra large discontunity coming up doesn't mean you can point to the future product and say the current one is history.
That was bad wording on my part, I apolgize. I should have said, maybe: Marketwise , the K7 is obsolete. As in, it's time for them to market the poo out of the Spitfires and Thunderbirds. In the sense I wrote it there, I didn't mean obsolete, pertaining to old hardware (Like writing this post on my Atari 800 (Not literally)). Very bad choice of words on my part. Also, if you are interetested, check out this link to HardOCP, where they have some benchmarks of a 750mhz Thunderbird.
As many quality hardware sites speculate, the Spitfire will still outperform the current Athlon in many applications, mostly games. Unfortantly, a good site I frequent (Ace's hardware) had an article/link/write up on why the Spitfire and T-bird CPUs are better CPUs then current Athlons (As in, what they changed, how the on-die cache will help/hurt, etc) but they don't keep a backlog of articles that I can see. If you want to check them out and see if you can find anything, the address is www.aceshardware.com . They have pretty technical info, which makes the place pretty good.. =]
1.) AMD may be out of stock with old Athlon chips, but your local store isn't.
2.) Intel isn't going to be bought instead, because Intel can't even supply their chips.
3.) Why would you want an Athlon anymore, anyway? Spitfire (Low-end) and Thunderbirds (High-end) are on their way in a month and some, which are much better then the current Athlon. On-die cache, better tweaking of the core, etc. Athlons now are what the origional K6 was. Obsolete. Time for those power hungry people with money to upgrade to a bigger and better system.. =]
On a side note, those Spitfire's are suppost to be pretty cheap, and perform better then the origional K7? Sounds like a winning combo to me. I currently run A k6-2 350, a K6-3 400, and K6-2 500, and will be upgrading slowly to some Spitfires, and maybe a Thunderbird for my linux server.
Conclusion: Good for AMD. They really took the jewels on this one, and they reported one heck of a profit (Comparativly - Did I mutilate that word?
That is not the perfect solution though. Don't forget to include you cannot be running httpd on port 80 if you do that. I use to have those in my hosts file, and I also run a web server, and there were many pages that wouldn't properly load because of it. What would happen is that the page would start loading, and (This didn't happen on all sites) then it would go full screen into my webserver stating that I didn't have permission to access so and so resource or that the file didn't exist (I setup very restrictive permissions since it is private).
On the other hand, if someone has a solution to this, I would be highly interested in hearing it.
Really? I never had those problems. When did you use this? Maybe I have a newer version. I haven't had a single error message come up, and granted mpeg is bad, but I think a little script reworking will get it to not make the mpeg window larger then the size of the video (stretch, as the case may be). I was looking into xanim flags and command line options and the /etc/pluggerrc file to see about resizing it. If it's been a while since you used it, I recommand giving it another chance.. =]
I'm not sure if many of you tried using the Netscape plugin called 'Plugger' ...It's pretty fancy, and you can find it on Netscape's plugin page. I can pretty much stream all my movie files/avi file/etc/etc with it, and it doesn't require too many programs to be installed. Here is a copy of the mime types:
audio/x-mpegurl
audio/mpegurl
audio/x-mpeg-url
audio/mpeg-url
image/x-sun-raster
image/sun-raster
image/x-png
image/png
image/x-tiff
image/tiff
audio/x-wav
audio/wav
audio/x-basic
audio/basic
audio/x-psid
audio/psid
audio/x-mpeg
audio/mpeg
audio/x-mpeg3
audio/mpeg3
audio/x-mpeg2
audio/mpeg2
audio/x-mod
audio/mod
audio/x-midi
audio/midi
video/x-fli
video/fli
video/x-msvideo
video/msvideo
video/x-anim
video/anim
video/x-sgi-movie
video/sgi-movie
video/x-dl
video/dl
video/x-quicktime
video/quicktime
video/x-mpeg
video/mpeg
Whoa, big paste.. =] It uses programs like xanim, and another free one, that I can't rememeber the name for now. I recommend checking it out. The readme from the program is pretty good too, and will tell you what you need to do, and download.
The way CNN makes it sound is like a HD went down or something, or perhaps a race-condition of some sort or another. .. =]
Someone did raise a good question, why would the NSA admit to something like this? From the article it appears they didn't loose anything, so good for them, but I wonder how 'back-logged' they became.
I honestly can't think of a reason for them to tell, but if they did, maybe they'll release more info. Something saucy like "Don't use IDE on your servers, SCSI is your friend.."
I think the answer to that may be how and why it's being done. If that webserver and laptop has my CC numbers, and other sorts of personal info on it that I really didn't want anyone abusive to have, I'd be more then happy when they took it away from the person. Even if wasn't my info at all, but maybe a collection of other people's info.
I guess the answer could be so wartered down to this: If what is in those files shows the company/person is taking part in illegal activities then it should be 'okay'...
But then, in the fun of humanity, that brings up another question. Will the law enforcement actually stick to that? Will they just say "Oh, well, we thought there might be something on there damaging, guess we were wrong, sorry about the HD, you'll never see it again."
On the other hand, I'm not too sure if I would want the officals to have (or not have) the ability to take data on probable cause. That's just too sticky of a situation, and maybe can only be figured out on a per-situation basis.
If RedHat keeps this up, they'll have more closed source software in their box then open. I'm not sure if that's a bad thing or a good thing, but I wonder if that's the only way for a distro to 'stand out'. I guess I got the wrong idea, and thought RH would of wanted more to push the software as OSS. Again I'm not passing judment and saying this is bad or good. But it does make me wonder. Oh well, just my two pence.
As of 2000, Jan 25 - 9:45 Central time, I still cannot resolve (www.)etoy.com. Is this still the 'problem' with NSI? Or is it now a problem with the DNS server at the ISP? Could anyone let me know?