You have a display manager that doesn't have a proper driver model, the only decent driver is a blob that is a hack to bypass x.orgs own facilities to get full blown acceleration
I'm using a display manager with a proper driver model. You probably mean the pre-GEM drivers...
Oracle never did enhancements to their Linux distro, they release whatever Red Hat releases. I don't think there's people left these days who still thinks that Linux is "breakable". The "unbreakable" name is just marketing. Like "Oracle".
The whole point of "Unbreakable Linux" was to try to kill Red Hat. It was released a few months after Red hat bought Jboss, which Oracle did want to buy. They thought that they could make an Oracle-branded equivalent of CentOS, sell support much cheaper than Red Hat, get all their customers and hence kill the company. Fortunately it didnt work.
There're people who opposes to high-speed rails in Spain because they say it's not economically viable - it's a small country and high-speed rails don't pay off compared with airlines and normal-speed rails.
(And even people who wants high-speed rails agree with them - they just say that it doesn't matters if the nation loses money, because they're worth of it)
Why? I still have to get driven to a web page that requires me to use silverlight - even one that it's not important to me. Why would people reimplement something that not many people uses (and the situation doesn't seem to be improving).
Hell, I don't even have mono or java installed here, I never needed them. What kind of pages do people visit to hit one that requires java?. Flash, on the other hand, is used everywhere. It won the war *long* time ago, but MS, its parters and people like the mono moonlight team seem to look it from a very different (and unreal) perspective.
So what is MS going to do, close the source code? All those products are opensource, they can't. Any other company (IBM, RHAT, NOVELL) would resume the investment in Java & OO.org, and could offer jobs to the original programms.
For this reason, you can't supply more than about 10-20% of a given power grid directly from wind power - it destabilizes the power grid.
That's just not true. 10% of all the power used in Spain in 2007 came from wind power. On 20 March 2007 (a particularly windy day with low power usage during night, etc) we had a peak of 40% of power coming from windmills. On 22 january of this year, we had an absolute record of wind power (234.059 MWh, 22% of all the power used that day) - higher than all the power generated by the 7 nuclear power plants we have, BTW.
The grid didn't destabilized. Nobody noticed it. Sure, destabilization can happen and it's a problem, but it can be fixed. We have some sort of "coordination center" which (i think) predicts quite reliably the amount of wind we're going to have and balances everything accordinly.
"No write is guaranteed to be written to disk until the OS is shut down, everything can be cached in RAM for an indefinite amount of time." However that'd be real flaky and lead to data loss. That makes my FS useless. Doesn't matter if it is well documented, what matters is that the damn thing loses data on a regular basis.
It turns out that all the modern operative systems work exactly like that. In ALL of them you need to use explicit syncronization (fsync and friends) to get a notification that your data has really been written to disk (and that's all what you get, a notification, because the system could oops before fsync finishes). You also can mount your filesystem as "sync", which sucks.
Journaling, COW/transaction-based filesystems like ZFS only guarantee the integrity, not that your data is safe. It turns out that Ext3 has the same problem, it's just that the window is smaller (5 seconds). And I wouldn't bet that HFS and ZFS have not the same problem (btrfs is COW and transaction based, like ZFS, and has the same problem).
In some of those published emails, you can see Bill Gates:
-Asking to add Windows-specific quirks to the ACPI "standard", just to make Linux more dificult. "It seems unfortunate if we do this work and get our partners to do the work and the result is that Linux works great without having to do the work [...] Maybe there is no way to avoid this problem but it does bother me. Maybe we could define the APIs so that they work well with NT and not the others even if they are open. Or maybe we could patent something related to this
-Asking their teams to add IE-specific crap in the HTML code generated by Office, just to make harder for other browsers to display things: One thing we have got to change in our strategy - allowing Office documents to be rendered well by others people browser is one of the most destructive things we could do to the company. We have to stop putting any effort into this and make sure that Office documents very well depends on PROPIETARY IE capabilities" (emphasis by gates, not mine)
-Lobbying Intel to get them to do all their design work in Windows desktops, not in Linux.
And Intel wrote a UWB Linux stack that was merged in 2.6.28. And they're producing UWB chips. Which means that long-term Intel is going to put UWB chips in all the mobos that use their integrated stuff.
UWB doesn't seems "dead" to me, it looks more like an emerging technology.
I filed a bug warning of this security problem on March, 2005. Final answer of the developers after taking it to the freedesktop lists: WONTFIX. So, what's the point of reporting bugs?...
The fix is easy, only interpret.desktop files IFF they have the +x bit set (IOW, apply the regular UNIX semantics). It shouldn't take more than a few lines in Gnome and KDE to fix it, and distros can easily modify the scripts to make all the.desktop files +x-
"Socialism" is an european thing. Americans have been living in democracy more than 230 years (in all that time Europe has had to live with kings, coups d'etat, endless local wars, communism, nazism...)
America have been using their taxes to provide public services even before Marx and "socialism" were born, and it always was completely different of what we the europeans understand by "socialism".
As much hype as people wants to put in beos, the fact is that beos is...
-Incomplete, beos always missed important pieces (a reason why its so fast and slim: theres not much to load)
-Some parts have become old. For example, as great as the graphic subsystem was at its time, these days its old compared to the modern 3d-accelerated desktops. Even X.org is better than beos in this field these days.
-Some of the advantages are useless. Why do I care about installing a driver by dragging and dropping files? The desktop systems that really care about users do not need to do anything to get the hardware working, they automate the process as much as possible and do not require doing anything. Installing a driver in Windows is most of the times automatic, and there are rare exceptions where you have to insert a CD when you are asked to do it.
Any modern Linux distro is so much better than beos....
Slashdot Mirror
You have a display manager that doesn't have a proper driver model, the only decent driver is a blob that is a hack to bypass x.orgs own facilities to get full blown acceleration
I'm using a display manager with a proper driver model. You probably mean the pre-GEM drivers...
Intel works fine here. Nvidia is years behind when it comes to stability and integration
Why do you find more likely a merger of a desktop company with a server company, than the merger of two complementary server companies.
Oracle never did enhancements to their Linux distro, they release whatever Red Hat releases. I don't think there's people left these days who still thinks that Linux is "breakable". The "unbreakable" name is just marketing. Like "Oracle".
The whole point of "Unbreakable Linux" was to try to kill Red Hat. It was released a few months after Red hat bought Jboss, which Oracle did want to buy. They thought that they could make an Oracle-branded equivalent of CentOS, sell support much cheaper than Red Hat, get all their customers and hence kill the company. Fortunately it didnt work.
There're people who opposes to high-speed rails in Spain because they say it's not economically viable - it's a small country and high-speed rails don't pay off compared with airlines and normal-speed rails.
(And even people who wants high-speed rails agree with them - they just say that it doesn't matters if the nation loses money, because they're worth of it)
In 2007, 10% of all the power used in spain came from wind (with peaks of 40%). Don't listen those who say that the grid can't handle it.
If you have a server, you Should Not Be Browsing The Web (tm). And if you're using it as a desktop system...well, I hope god help you.
Why? I still have to get driven to a web page that requires me to use silverlight - even one that it's not important to me. Why would people reimplement something that not many people uses (and the situation doesn't seem to be improving).
Hell, I don't even have mono or java installed here, I never needed them. What kind of pages do people visit to hit one that requires java?. Flash, on the other hand, is used everywhere. It won the war *long* time ago, but MS, its parters and people like the mono moonlight team seem to look it from a very different (and unreal) perspective.
So what is MS going to do, close the source code? All those products are opensource, they can't. Any other company (IBM, RHAT, NOVELL) would resume the investment in Java & OO.org, and could offer jobs to the original programms.
No, it is not, it's like every other filesystem except Ext3 behaves. Welcome to the real world...
For this reason, you can't supply more than about 10-20% of a given power grid directly from wind power - it destabilizes the power grid.
That's just not true. 10% of all the power used in Spain in 2007 came from wind power. On 20 March 2007 (a particularly windy day with low power usage during night, etc) we had a peak of 40% of power coming from windmills. On 22 january of this year, we had an absolute record of wind power (234.059 MWh, 22% of all the power used that day) - higher than all the power generated by the 7 nuclear power plants we have, BTW.
The grid didn't destabilized. Nobody noticed it. Sure, destabilization can happen and it's a problem, but it can be fixed. We have some sort of "coordination center" which (i think) predicts quite reliably the amount of wind we're going to have and balances everything accordinly.
Like this one? http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article5901235.ece
It's just me? I don't find very interesting a benchmark of office suites. Look, my suite can write bold text faster than yours! Boring...
He won't need to wait that much. In fact, according to Shuttleworth, Canonicalâ(TM)s annual revenue is creeping toward $30 million.
"No write is guaranteed to be written to disk until the OS is shut down, everything can be cached in RAM for an indefinite amount of time." However that'd be real flaky and lead to data loss. That makes my FS useless. Doesn't matter if it is well documented, what matters is that the damn thing loses data on a regular basis.
It turns out that all the modern operative systems work exactly like that. In ALL of them you need to use explicit syncronization (fsync and friends) to get a notification that your data has really been written to disk (and that's all what you get, a notification, because the system could oops before fsync finishes). You also can mount your filesystem as "sync", which sucks.
Journaling, COW/transaction-based filesystems like ZFS only guarantee the integrity, not that your data is safe. It turns out that Ext3 has the same problem, it's just that the window is smaller (5 seconds). And I wouldn't bet that HFS and ZFS have not the same problem (btrfs is COW and transaction based, like ZFS, and has the same problem).
Welcome to the real world...
In some of those published emails, you can see Bill Gates:
-Asking to add Windows-specific quirks to the ACPI "standard", just to make Linux more dificult. "It seems unfortunate if we do this work and get our partners to do the work and the result is that Linux works great without having to do the work [...] Maybe there is no way to avoid this problem but it does bother me. Maybe we could define the APIs so that they work well with NT and not the others even if they are open. Or maybe we could patent something related to this
-Asking their teams to add IE-specific crap in the HTML code generated by Office, just to make harder for other browsers to display things: One thing we have got to change in our strategy - allowing Office documents to be rendered well by others people browser is one of the most destructive things we could do to the company. We have to stop putting any effort into this and make sure that Office documents very well depends on PROPIETARY IE capabilities" (emphasis by gates, not mine)
-Lobbying Intel to get them to do all their design work in Windows desktops, not in Linux.
-A lot of other "fun" stuff.
And you wonder why people hates Gates? ;)
And Intel wrote a UWB Linux stack that was merged in 2.6.28. And they're producing UWB chips. Which means that long-term Intel is going to put UWB chips in all the mobos that use their integrated stuff.
UWB doesn't seems "dead" to me, it looks more like an emerging technology.
I filed a bug warning of this security problem on March, 2005. Final answer of the developers after taking it to the freedesktop lists: WONTFIX. So, what's the point of reporting bugs?...
The fix is easy, only interpret .desktop files IFF they have the +x bit set (IOW, apply the regular UNIX semantics). It shouldn't take more than a few lines in Gnome and KDE to fix it, and distros can easily modify the scripts to make all the .desktop files +x-
I think you meant "mucho mÃs rÃpido", o "mÃs rÃpido" ;)
"Socialism" is an european thing. Americans have been living in democracy more than 230 years (in all that time Europe has had to live with kings, coups d'etat, endless local wars, communism, nazism...)
America have been using their taxes to provide public services even before Marx and "socialism" were born, and it always was completely different of what we the europeans understand by "socialism".
As much hype as people wants to put in beos, the fact is that beos is...
-Incomplete, beos always missed important pieces (a reason why its so fast and slim: theres not much to load)
-Some parts have become old. For example, as great as the graphic subsystem was at its time, these days its old compared to the modern 3d-accelerated desktops. Even X.org is better than beos in this field these days.
-Some of the advantages are useless. Why do I care about installing a driver by dragging and dropping files? The desktop systems that really care about users do not need to do anything to get the hardware working, they automate the process as much as possible and do not require doing anything. Installing a driver in Windows is most of the times automatic, and there are rare exceptions where you have to insert a CD when you are asked to do it.
Any modern Linux distro is so much better than beos....
You can see some of those benchmarks in this paper which explains the block allocator improvements that have been done in ext4.
is it possible to run ext4 without the journal?
Yes, it is. And, as you can see in the link, ext4 is faster than ext2. Even with journaling.
That's why suspend-to-mem exists.
Indeed, and consider how MUCH money on training Microsoft gets for free when public schools teach with Microsoft products.
It's not just the license. It's all the taxes you pay to train your own childs for the benefit of a private company.