The problem is that Internet is not "their own", it is a world-wide service.
Yes, I guess we can't blame US for wanting to control certain things from another countries. I guess the EU would do the same. What buggers me is that our governments (US and EU) are so fucked up that it seems countries aren't able to think "hey, this is the Right Thing to do, let's do it because everybody will benefit". Instead, apparently they just think "let's do everything we can to have more power and control so we can have more money"
The one reason why AJAX apps are doing so much noise is that they use standards that work everywhere
There's nothing stopping you from writing a C-based app which does most of the job on the server and which you download from a web page - put it in a restricted SELinux environment and you've the security. AJAX exist is just about convenience, not technical merits
I see so many laws (daily) that don't actually do anything, they just say things
Oh well, you're right. In fact, from your POV, NO LAW ON EARTH CHANGES ANYTHING. Noticed how racism exist, despite of the existence of laws that forbid it?
You can be pretty sure that Peru will adopt free software, gradually, and never 100%, but it'll be quite high I hope. Having a law which promotes it helps quite a lot to it - much better than some politician promising he'll adopt it if he wins the next elections.
Git is just a tool which is very efficient WRT to tracking what changes in a filesystem. It completely lacks any notion of "SCM". On purpose - git is intented to track changes in a filesystem and do it really well, if you want to build a complete SCM with GIT as backend that's OK
I still haven't even bothered to move to 2.6.x as I have no reason to
Well, what a insightful commentary - you don't update because you can't find a reason. Don't intented to sound trolly, but you don't seem to have reasons for not doing it, either;)
IOW: You don't update because you don't feel like doing it. That's OK. There's people running 2.0 & 2.2 kernels out there. It's just that I fail to see why this is so relevant;)
This is an architectural problem, not a resource problem. There is no reason why the Linux kernel should require the baroque system of manual patches and updates that is currently in place. Instead, it should be composable at runtime out of many modules that are encapsulated enough and insulated enough from one another to be developed and updated independently.
Exactly what makes you think that the source of problems is "lack of encapsulation" and that adding "encapsulation" will make it work magically? With "encapsulation", bugs in a module will not affect other modules. Yes. So what? It's still a bug, and needs to be fixed.
The problem here is "many patches being managed by a single person". This can be fixed very easily - allow more people to merge patches in the kernel instead of being just linus & andrew.
Maybe the quicker ftpfs implementation sucks, but that doesn't means the approach is less valid. Some of these things you mentioned can happen with NFS too. Quicker should reduce their timeouts, implement some kind of "congestion detection", allow user to parallelize tasks....is not that their approach is not valid, it's the implementation which seems to suck.
BTW Linux does allow you to have a ftpfs -and more - thing which works even with bash, ls & friends - it's called FUSE (kernel VFS userspace interface which you can use to implement userspace filesystems. It's included in 2.6.14-rc BTW)
The nightmare IE/windows users have suffered for years is pretty much derived from these two points.
BTW, gotta love how the IE guys are adding a "new" feature to IE7:
Building on the security features released at beta 1, upcoming new features will include ActiveX Opt-in: To reduce the attack surface and give users more control over the security of their PC, most ActiveX controls (even those already installed on the machine) will be disabled by default for users browsing the Internet
I already can read the press: "IE7, with new ActiveX Opt-IN technology which protects you from the threats of the Internets"
it's amazing how they're trying to get rid of one of their major security mistakes by converting it in marketing crap. "IE7 adds activex opt-in". No, IE7 doesn't "add" that feature. It just removes/limites a already existing feature
Windows has included open source code for a long time. And not just C:\windows\system32\ftp.exe (run strings to that file), why is then that several microsoft products haven been affected by zlib vulnerabilities, uh? Just read the fu***** license, it's all there.
Well, then Intel may sue AMD aswell because of the x86 32 ISA, right?
In fact x86-64 is pretty much the same instrucion set except that it has been extended to support 64-bit registers, etc. So you could very well say that x86-64 ISA is a derivative of the x86-32 bit ISA.
Of course intel and AMD have cross-license or some shit so they can use whatever stuff they want without licensing issues, but i think it was worth the post
A quick google search will reveal numerous reviews showing that the Pentium-M has the lower power/performance ratio on the market. That's why Intel is dominating in the laptop market.
And a slower, but more precise google search, would have revealed you more details. It'd have revealed you that the base of current intel strategy is the PLATFORM, not the CPU.
Which means that intel doesn't just sell you a "CPU", it sells you a CPU + chipset (usb, firewire, WIRELESS, IDE) + network card +....
And with that strategy, they're able to provide a "platform" which is much cheaper than getting different parts from different manufacturers. THAT's why intel is so succesful in the laptop market. Laptop market is very "brand-driven", people buys a "FOOBAR laptop", nobody buys different pieces of hardware in the store and assemble it and build a laptop. And the companies who build laptops appreciate intel's "platform-oriented" strategy.
Compare it with amd - they just make cpus and chipsets. There's not amount of "power/performance ratio" different that can make AMD beat intel in the laptop market.
And BTW, I use "everybody knows" when things are obvious, and have been duped in slashdot a minium of 5 times.
Yet another apple zealot changing their mind to acoomodate reality:
"And such designs require the lowest-voltage chips, which IBM and Freescale were not going to make with the PowerPC chip core--and which AMD has not yet perfected"
WHAT?!? IBM is not going to make low-power chips?!? What about the 970 low-power line (13-16W) that EVERYBODY KNOWS?
And AMD has "not yet perfected" low-power chips? Sorry, WTF? I don't think I need to search links for numbers - everybody knows that current intel chips, presscot & cia, are the CPUs which more power consume. Their performance per watt numbers are the worst of the whole desktop industry.
And then intel promises apple CPUs which give 5x more "performance per watt". Yeah - that's nice when you consider that they get that "5x" number when they compare it with the current intel chips - which, as everybody knows, they're the worst at performance/watt.
Yes, I know Intel is going to release centrino-based CPUs which will be much better. I love Intel in fact. But heck, I absolutely hate how most of apple zealots just don't think - they repeat everything which Jobs tell them. Some months ago intel CPUs where the worst, G5s were the best CPUs. Then, Jobs speaks, and suddenly everything changes. Guys, Intel CPUs today SUCK today, get over it.
XML is nice when you need a machine to process something. But it's suboptimal when you need a human to process it...I guess the question is: your http server's configuration file is meant to be processed by a machine or a human?
It breaks the filesystem namespace, it's ugly, there's a nice paper from Rob Pike and Peter J Weinberg where they compare and explain different namespace choices for several operative systems (unix, plan9, dos, VMS): The Hideous Name
If your not smart enough to remember how you file things, how are you going to be smart enough to remember the metadata needed to extract the files out of a database?
Remember what?
When I query something, I query what I _want_. Filesystem should provide me my files - there's nothing to remember. I'm already quering amarok interface with song names and it doesn't hurts. Same for spotlight - people likes it.
Second people complain of Resier4's system overhead
I don't understand those complains. I've seen benchmarks where reiser4 eats the double of CPU time than other filesystem. But then, it finishes the task in half of the time.
Which is the whole point of a filesystem, mind you. If your filesystem is eating few CPU cycles, it means it's wasting time waiting for the disk. In a "perfect world", any filesystem would eat 100% - it'd avoid all the I/O. Reiser 4 complains about eating too many CPU can be partly because it is fast at I/O. I guess their algorightms are also very complex and burn lots of cpu cycles too - if you want to avoid I/O you need complex algorithms after all, right?
CPU cycles are cheap. What do you prefer, a fast filesystem which doesn't eats cpu cycles (because it sucks and spends all the time waiting for the disk) or a filesystem which eats CPU power because it is fast?
Somehow I think they will be useful. The file/directory concept was born (IIRC) at Multics, and that was because people was starting to have too many files (until then there was no directories, just "files")
The file/directory idea got spread by unix (except for CP/M, who invented the "unit" bastardization which was inherited by DOS and NT) and it has been nice for 30 years
But now we have the same problem: We have too many files. The "file/diretory" thing was enought in the 70's because people didn't have too many files. But now, we have thousands and thousands of files, the "file/directory" idea is not enought.
I've suffered from this limitation several times. When I try to classify Joaquín Sabina's (a spanish musician who writes good lyrics) poems book, I don't know if I must save it under "~/musica/Joaquín_Sabina" or "~/docs" or what. What I really want is to have it in *both* sides, and while symlinks are nice, what I really want is a database query. This is where all those filesystems come to help - the world has been using the file/directory unix paradigm for 30 years, but that doesn't means it'll be forever the same, and the fact that unix didn't have it doesn't makes it a bad idea.
And when you're touting the excellence of Windows, you'd better be using it yourself.
So, if I like Windows that means that linux is crap and I can't use it?
I use linux and I think Windows is a OK operative system, which why I've bought it, still I defend linux above everything else. Why I should do another thing?
Because they're not stupid zealots who has to use just 1 operative system to satisfy their ego? Because they're using a hosting company who runs linux?
Releases are built with Microsoft Visual C++ 6, because there are concerns that the license of newer versions would not allow the builds to be distributed.
Sounds like a *really* weird license statment for a compiler O_o
Hell, most IE exploits can be gotten around by disabling Active-X
Well, duh, NO. ActiveX is not an "exploit door" itself - it's just a (crappy) way of executing binary code in people's computer.
Most of IE exploits can't be just avoided turning off activex - that just turns off the ability to run that binary code. Since activex has not "security" itself turning it off will just protect you from malicious web pages, not from exploits
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that Internet is not "their own", it is a world-wide service.
Yes, I guess we can't blame US for wanting to control certain things from another countries. I guess the EU would do the same. What buggers me is that our governments (US and EU) are so fucked up that it seems countries aren't able to think "hey, this is the Right Thing to do, let's do it because everybody will benefit". Instead, apparently they just think "let's do everything we can to have more power and control so we can have more money"
That may be you. I'm running amarok and I see two amarokapp processes each one eating ~ 44 MB of RSS. From those, only 23 MB are shared...
Then I use kopete, 36 MB of RSS and 25 shared.
Akregator, a app whose objective is manipulating fucikng text and rendering it in a preview via khtml kpart, 28 MB with 18 shared
KDE eats LOTS of memory man. I'm wasting lots of ram on caches etc. but KDE eats its share...
The one reason why AJAX apps are doing so much noise is that they use standards that work everywhere
There's nothing stopping you from writing a C-based app which does most of the job on the server and which you download from a web page - put it in a restricted SELinux environment and you've the security. AJAX exist is just about convenience, not technical merits
I see so many laws (daily) that don't actually do anything, they just say things
Oh well, you're right. In fact, from your POV, NO LAW ON EARTH CHANGES ANYTHING. Noticed how racism exist, despite of the existence of laws that forbid it?
You can be pretty sure that Peru will adopt free software, gradually, and never 100%, but it'll be quite high I hope. Having a law which promotes it helps quite a lot to it - much better than some politician promising he'll adopt it if he wins the next elections.
Git is just a tool which is very efficient WRT to tracking what changes in a filesystem. It completely lacks any notion of "SCM". On purpose - git is intented to track changes in a filesystem and do it really well, if you want to build a complete SCM with GIT as backend that's OK
Linux Kernel Gets Fully Automated Test
n t
2.6 stabilization project (helped a lot during 2.5.x develpment AFAIK)
http://www.osdl.org/docs/stabilization_plan.curre
I still haven't even bothered to move to 2.6.x as I have no reason to
;)
;)
Well, what a insightful commentary - you don't update because you can't find a reason. Don't intented to sound trolly, but you don't seem to have reasons for not doing it, either
IOW: You don't update because you don't feel like doing it. That's OK. There's people running 2.0 & 2.2 kernels out there. It's just that I fail to see why this is so relevant
This is an architectural problem, not a resource problem. There is no reason why the Linux kernel should require the baroque system of manual patches and updates that is currently in place. Instead, it should be composable at runtime out of many modules that are encapsulated enough and insulated enough from one another to be developed and updated independently.
Exactly what makes you think that the source of problems is "lack of encapsulation" and that adding "encapsulation" will make it work magically? With "encapsulation", bugs in a module will not affect other modules. Yes. So what? It's still a bug, and needs to be fixed.
The problem here is "many patches being managed by a single person". This can be fixed very easily - allow more people to merge patches in the kernel instead of being just linus & andrew.
no, kioslave really is the best way to do it.
Maybe the quicker ftpfs implementation sucks, but that doesn't means the approach is less valid. Some of these things you mentioned can happen with NFS too. Quicker should reduce their timeouts, implement some kind of "congestion detection", allow user to parallelize tasks....is not that their approach is not valid, it's the implementation which seems to suck.
BTW Linux does allow you to have a ftpfs -and more - thing which works even with bash, ls & friends - it's called FUSE (kernel VFS userspace interface which you can use to implement userspace filesystems. It's included in 2.6.14-rc BTW)
1. No activex
2. Automatic updates
The nightmare IE/windows users have suffered for years is pretty much derived from these two points.
BTW, gotta love how the IE guys are adding a "new" feature to IE7:
Building on the security features released at beta 1, upcoming new features will include ActiveX Opt-in: To reduce the attack surface and give users more control over the security of their PC, most ActiveX controls (even those already installed on the machine) will be disabled by default for users browsing the Internet
I already can read the press: "IE7, with new ActiveX Opt-IN technology which protects you from the threats of the Internets"
it's amazing how they're trying to get rid of one of their major security mistakes by converting it in marketing crap. "IE7 adds activex opt-in". No, IE7 doesn't "add" that feature. It just removes/limites a already existing feature
Windows has included open source code for a long time. And not just C:\windows\system32\ftp.exe (run strings to that file), why is then that several microsoft products haven been affected by zlib vulnerabilities, uh? Just read the fu***** license, it's all there.
for using their x86-64 technology?
Well, then Intel may sue AMD aswell because of the x86 32 ISA, right?
In fact x86-64 is pretty much the same instrucion set except that it has been extended to support 64-bit registers, etc. So you could very well say that x86-64 ISA is a derivative of the x86-32 bit ISA.
Of course intel and AMD have cross-license or some shit so they can use whatever stuff they want without licensing issues, but i think it was worth the post
A quick google search will reveal numerous reviews showing that the Pentium-M has the lower power/performance ratio on the market. That's why Intel is dominating in the laptop market.
....
And a slower, but more precise google search, would have revealed you more details. It'd have revealed you that the base of current intel strategy is the PLATFORM, not the CPU.
Which means that intel doesn't just sell you a "CPU", it sells you a CPU + chipset (usb, firewire, WIRELESS, IDE) + network card +
And with that strategy, they're able to provide a "platform" which is much cheaper than getting different parts from different manufacturers. THAT's why intel is so succesful in the laptop market. Laptop market is very "brand-driven", people buys a "FOOBAR laptop", nobody buys different pieces of hardware in the store and assemble it and build a laptop. And the companies who build laptops appreciate intel's "platform-oriented" strategy.
Compare it with amd - they just make cpus and chipsets. There's not amount of "power/performance ratio" different that can make AMD beat intel in the laptop market.
And BTW, I use "everybody knows" when things are obvious, and have been duped in slashdot a minium of 5 times.
Yet another apple zealot changing their mind to acoomodate reality:
"And such designs require the lowest-voltage chips, which IBM and Freescale were not going to make with the PowerPC chip core--and which AMD has not yet perfected"
WHAT?!? IBM is not going to make low-power chips?!? What about the 970 low-power line (13-16W) that EVERYBODY KNOWS?
And AMD has "not yet perfected" low-power chips? Sorry, WTF? I don't think I need to search links for numbers - everybody knows that current intel chips, presscot & cia, are the CPUs which more power consume. Their performance per watt numbers are the worst of the whole desktop industry.
And then intel promises apple CPUs which give 5x more "performance per watt". Yeah - that's nice when you consider that they get that "5x" number when they compare it with the current intel chips - which, as everybody knows, they're the worst at performance/watt.
Yes, I know Intel is going to release centrino-based CPUs which will be much better. I love Intel in fact. But heck, I absolutely hate how most of apple zealots just don't think - they repeat everything which Jobs tell them. Some months ago intel CPUs where the worst, G5s were the best CPUs. Then, Jobs speaks, and suddenly everything changes. Guys, Intel CPUs today SUCK today, get over it.
Statistics say that IIS6 has been doing MUCH better than apache 2
This is where XML is nice.
XML is nice when you need a machine to process something. But it's suboptimal when you need a human to process it...I guess the question is: your http server's configuration file is meant to be processed by a machine or a human?
I'm sorry, but that's quite the opposite: Statistics are showing that IIS6 has been doing MUCH better than apache 2.
I'm sorry, but that's quite the opposite: Statistics are showing that IIS6 has been doing MUCH better than apache lately.
The "unit bastardization" is the A:, B:, C: thing
It breaks the filesystem namespace, it's ugly, there's a nice paper from Rob Pike and Peter J Weinberg where they compare and explain different namespace choices for several operative systems (unix, plan9, dos, VMS): The Hideous Name
If your not smart enough to remember how you file things, how are you going to be smart enough to remember the metadata needed to extract the files out of a database?
Remember what?
When I query something, I query what I _want_. Filesystem should provide me my files - there's nothing to remember. I'm already quering amarok interface with song names and it doesn't hurts. Same for spotlight - people likes it.
Second people complain of Resier4's system overhead
I don't understand those complains. I've seen benchmarks where reiser4 eats the double of CPU time than other filesystem. But then, it finishes the task in half of the time.
Which is the whole point of a filesystem, mind you. If your filesystem is eating few CPU cycles, it means it's wasting time waiting for the disk. In a "perfect world", any filesystem would eat 100% - it'd avoid all the I/O. Reiser 4 complains about eating too many CPU can be partly because it is fast at I/O. I guess their algorightms are also very complex and burn lots of cpu cycles too - if you want to avoid I/O you need complex algorithms after all, right?
CPU cycles are cheap. What do you prefer, a fast filesystem which doesn't eats cpu cycles (because it sucks and spends all the time waiting for the disk) or a filesystem which eats CPU power because it is fast?
Somehow I think they will be useful. The file/directory concept was born (IIRC) at Multics, and that was because people was starting to have too many files (until then there was no directories, just "files")
The file/directory idea got spread by unix (except for CP/M, who invented the "unit" bastardization which was inherited by DOS and NT) and it has been nice for 30 years
But now we have the same problem: We have too many files. The "file/diretory" thing was enought in the 70's because people didn't have too many files. But now, we have thousands and thousands of files, the "file/directory" idea is not enought.
I've suffered from this limitation several times. When I try to classify Joaquín Sabina's (a spanish musician who writes good lyrics) poems book, I don't know if I must save it under "~/musica/Joaquín_Sabina" or "~/docs" or what. What I really want is to have it in *both* sides, and while symlinks are nice, what I really want is a database query. This is where all those filesystems come to help - the world has been using the file/directory unix paradigm for 30 years, but that doesn't means it'll be forever the same, and the fact that unix didn't have it doesn't makes it a bad idea.
And when you're touting the excellence of Windows, you'd better be using it yourself.
So, if I like Windows that means that linux is crap and I can't use it?
I use linux and I think Windows is a OK operative system, which why I've bought it, still I defend linux above everything else. Why I should do another thing?
Why do you run your site on Linux?
Because they're not stupid zealots who has to use just 1 operative system to satisfy their ego? Because they're using a hosting company who runs linux?
Releases are built with Microsoft Visual C++ 6, because there are concerns that the license of newer versions would not allow the builds to be distributed.
Sounds like a *really* weird license statment for a compiler O_o
Hell, most IE exploits can be gotten around by disabling Active-X
Well, duh, NO. ActiveX is not an "exploit door" itself - it's just a (crappy) way of executing binary code in people's computer.
Most of IE exploits can't be just avoided turning off activex - that just turns off the ability to run that binary code. Since activex has not "security" itself turning it off will just protect you from malicious web pages, not from exploits