Depends on where you are coming from, but this situation does exist for some people, namely me. I run a network in which I have to setup/manage/install/* Linux and Windows based servers, plus I also have to support all of the staff here which primarily run Macs + a few windows machines. So this would be a GREAT thing for me, if I could tri-boot...and I know for a fact my boss would more than happily let me do this if it helped me do my job more efficiently. I am already dual-booting linux and windows on my laptop, which they purchased for me.
Sure my situation isn't common, but it does exist.
What China is doing here is OVERRIDING the default/normal/rest_of_the_world's names, and thus anyone looking up, say....http:://google.com will get directed to CHINA's version/replacement/whatever of google.com. The net of days past did not handle this. Off the top of my head it would be quite difficult, if not impossible to preserve the way sites are accessed normally from inside that (China's internet) network (and thats saying there is a bridge of some sort from 'their' internet to 'our' internet).
I would if I had any mod points. I believe you are correct, sir (or maam).
To put it in my words:
People need to learn how to interact...the computer (and IC's in general because they are required for computers) allow us to communicate more freely and in ways that were not possible in the past. Now, many humans misuse this capability, and thus starve other sections of their life (ex: social). However, you cannot blame computers or IC's or anything else except for the person who chose to do or act in the manner they did. It isn't the hammer that gets blamed when you miss the nail and crush your hand...why blame the 'hammer' in this case then?
I am sorry...but did you not eat your wheaties this morning? From what I read, Sun is still presently LOSING money, while storagetek actually showed a decent profit.
If anything, this is lifting them up...in more ways than just monetarily as well.
Exactly. Since it is mostly well proven that Microsoft has been indirectly funding SCO in some fashion...it isn't a far off idea that they might mimic the same behavior they endorse.
You call all of that innovation? More like simple integration, that is all. Innovation would require something unique, something new...which NONE of what you mentioned was.
The point everone is trying to make is that although Microsoft had/has a known monopoly, that monopoly is slowly but surely crumbling. With more and more users switching to alternatives, it is absolutely evident.
Re:Are they completely out of touch?
on
Gates on Google
·
· Score: 1
Underestimated MS how...in technical/overall ability, or marketing/monopolistic power?
hm....something makes me lead toward the latter...but thats just me.
Sorry to feed the trolls, but I have to correct an error in your underlying argument.
SSE2 IS included in AMD chips, it just has a different name.
SSE2 IS NOT used for number crunching, SSE2 is simply shortcuts for certain types of processing that may or may not be common. And also, every program must be compiled to take advantage of these extensions, of which few really do.
You must have been doing something wrong, your 'decision' that AMD's are slower than their Intel counterpart, is flat out wrong
I am in the same camp. I made the jump to AMD when the Athlon chips had recently come out...and I haven't looked back since. Intel has had overpriced underperforming chips for years now. I use AMD in servers at work, I use them in my personal PCs I build, and I use them in PCs I build for friends/etc. I have never had any issues with AMD chips despite what many will tell you about them (especially those nay-sayers about AMD in servers, its all complete FUD).
I DO want Intel to stay around, though...I mean, I can see AMD getting lazy if they had no direct competition. I don't want what happened to Intel to happen to AMD (ie: lazyness, lack of push for cheaper/better products).
There are always going to be happy and sad people with WHATEVER decision you make. The trick, is making the most people happy (atleast in this case) and/or minimising problems. So with that in mind, what would be best?
Thats right, NOT including RAW sockets in a platform which is absolutely intended for your run of the mill user that has NO use for them. I don't see how developers for WinXP can complain, their platform is not meant for the type of people that would even fathom using raw sockets.
Well I think it has something to do with the lack of understanding of open source. When windows was implemented/installed, it was business as usual, just from a new vendor. OSS is a new paradigm and thus is far less known.
Thats just MHO, though.
Not only that, but market share and earnings have nothing to do with who is playing catch up with who. Intel is/was behind and IS indeed playing catch up so that they don't LOSE their current market share and ph4t earnings.
Well, yes, actually. hosts.[allow/deny] only denies access to services which are run through inetd. Thus any service which is not controlled by inetd is not filtered by the hosts.[allow/deny] files. That would leave apache, sendmail, sshd, etc...all of which have or have had exploits out for them in the recent past.
WRONG, thats not the only thing people mean when they say X 'caused' Y. How dare you think that everyone thinks as you do, let alone in an unguided logic-lacking, stupid method. I certainly do not think in such a manner (or atleast try not to).
It SHOULD mean that there is sufficient empirical evidence that event X caused Y to occur.
I just HAD to reply to this telling you how litteraly hilarious the parent post was to me. I spewed water out my nose, which I mistakenly was drinking while reading your submission.
Maybe I just don't understand what you are saying here...but if a competitor (Apple) is doing well, then MS cannot afford to cut corners in R&D as that's where any innovation and new ideas will come from (as far as MS is concerned). So halving their R&D in this instance may improve short term earnings #s, but could very possibly have a horrible effect in the long term.
Or, I could've just completely misunderstood your post...feel free to correct me if that is the case.
I am guessing you meant for that to sound sarcastic, correct?
Just think about it though, for a moment. It may sound crazy...'CARRY a raid array around with you, that sounds crazy!'...but people also used to think a gig of ram in a laptop was insane. Well that isn't too uncommon anymore, and I think raid enabled devices such as this might become common one day.
Totally possible.
Re:So what do we do?
on
Life Interrupted
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I don't really think this is true multitasking. You are talking about context switching....or switching between different tasks at a rapid rate. Tell me, can you listen to a leacture, take notes on it, and read/. at the SAME EXACT MOMENT? I'm not talking about looking up, listening, then writing..I am talking about doing it all at once (true multitasking). So, can you?
More than likely you cannot, as most humans generally find. The problem this article is mainly discussing, is summed up in two words: 'information overload'. When you are inundated with information that you cannot process fast enough, some people may end up switching from one to the other in confusion/struggle/etc and end up not getting much done (because true multi-tasking is not built into us).
I'd say this is a big problem in our information centric world now...and the cure? Push the off button, stretch your muscles, relax, take one step at a time...and most importantly one step at a time in one direction at a time. I think you might find you get more done, are happier, and generally more care free (IMO). Don't let yourself get distracted, focus on whats at hand rather than being a slave to everything around you. Breath, and just go forward. Learn to say no when it matters, and learn to not bother saying no when you shouldn't have to.
Just my humble opinion, take it with a truckload of salt...but it works for me.
Who says there has to be an entry in/etc/fstab in order to mount it? But even still, yes, of course, as I said prior...NOTHING is foolproof except for physical disconnection from the system (and of course, any networks).
True, the only REALLY fail safe is to physically disconnect whatever you're using as a storage device, otherwise you can always infultrate the backups once you gain access to the server as a whole.
HOWEVER, in this example unmounting a/the drive would have saved the gp's backup data. So it's better than just leaving the drive mounted.
Slashdot Mirror
Whats funny is I know of several people who do this...
Depends on where you are coming from, but this situation does exist for some people, namely me. I run a network in which I have to setup/manage/install/* Linux and Windows based servers, plus I also have to support all of the staff here which primarily run Macs + a few windows machines. So this would be a GREAT thing for me, if I could tri-boot...and I know for a fact my boss would more than happily let me do this if it helped me do my job more efficiently. I am already dual-booting linux and windows on my laptop, which they purchased for me. Sure my situation isn't common, but it does exist.
It isn't the same.
What China is doing here is OVERRIDING the default/normal/rest_of_the_world's names, and thus anyone looking up, say....http:://google.com will get directed to CHINA's version/replacement/whatever of google.com. The net of days past did not handle this. Off the top of my head it would be quite difficult, if not impossible to preserve the way sites are accessed normally from inside that (China's internet) network (and thats saying there is a bridge of some sort from 'their' internet to 'our' internet).
MOD PARENT UP
I would if I had any mod points. I believe you are correct, sir (or maam).
To put it in my words:
People need to learn how to interact...the computer (and IC's in general because they are required for computers) allow us to communicate more freely and in ways that were not possible in the past. Now, many humans misuse this capability, and thus starve other sections of their life (ex: social). However, you cannot blame computers or IC's or anything else except for the person who chose to do or act in the manner they did. It isn't the hammer that gets blamed when you miss the nail and crush your hand...why blame the 'hammer' in this case then?
Right, you shouldn't.
I am sorry...but did you not eat your wheaties this morning? From what I read, Sun is still presently LOSING money, while storagetek actually showed a decent profit.
If anything, this is lifting them up...in more ways than just monetarily as well.
Exactly. Since it is mostly well proven that Microsoft has been indirectly funding SCO in some fashion...it isn't a far off idea that they might mimic the same behavior they endorse.
Just MHO.
You call all of that innovation? More like simple integration, that is all. Innovation would require something unique, something new...which NONE of what you mentioned was.
The point everone is trying to make is that although Microsoft had/has a known monopoly, that monopoly is slowly but surely crumbling. With more and more users switching to alternatives, it is absolutely evident.
Underestimated MS how...in technical/overall ability, or marketing/monopolistic power? hm....something makes me lead toward the latter...but thats just me.
Now countless /.'ers have a not-so-great excuse to repeat the ever so way over-done Al Gore Internet quote that I refuse to regurgitate myself.
Did someone post this JUST so they could make that joke a 1000 times?
I am in the same camp. I made the jump to AMD when the Athlon chips had recently come out...and I haven't looked back since. Intel has had overpriced underperforming chips for years now. I use AMD in servers at work, I use them in my personal PCs I build, and I use them in PCs I build for friends/etc. I have never had any issues with AMD chips despite what many will tell you about them (especially those nay-sayers about AMD in servers, its all complete FUD). I DO want Intel to stay around, though...I mean, I can see AMD getting lazy if they had no direct competition. I don't want what happened to Intel to happen to AMD (ie: lazyness, lack of push for cheaper/better products).
There are always going to be happy and sad people with WHATEVER decision you make. The trick, is making the most people happy (atleast in this case) and/or minimising problems. So with that in mind, what would be best?
Thats right, NOT including RAW sockets in a platform which is absolutely intended for your run of the mill user that has NO use for them. I don't see how developers for WinXP can complain, their platform is not meant for the type of people that would even fathom using raw sockets.
Well I think it has something to do with the lack of understanding of open source. When windows was implemented/installed, it was business as usual, just from a new vendor. OSS is a new paradigm and thus is far less known. Thats just MHO, though.
"No the code is... 1 2 3 4 5!"
Not only that, but market share and earnings have nothing to do with who is playing catch up with who. Intel is/was behind and IS indeed playing catch up so that they don't LOSE their current market share and ph4t earnings.
Well, yes, actually. hosts.[allow/deny] only denies access to services which are run through inetd. Thus any service which is not controlled by inetd is not filtered by the hosts.[allow/deny] files. That would leave apache, sendmail, sshd, etc...all of which have or have had exploits out for them in the recent past.
I think you are the one that needs a clue, you absolutely NEED root privileges (via buffer overflow or otherwise) in order to install a rootkit.
So yea...get a clue buddy, you are completely incorrect.
WRONG, thats not the only thing people mean when they say X 'caused' Y. How dare you think that everyone thinks as you do, let alone in an unguided logic-lacking, stupid method. I certainly do not think in such a manner (or atleast try not to).
It SHOULD mean that there is sufficient empirical evidence that event X caused Y to occur.
I just HAD to reply to this telling you how litteraly hilarious the parent post was to me. I spewed water out my nose, which I mistakenly was drinking while reading your submission.
Thanks Tom, you just made my day.
ROFL
Doh, I stand corrected. Thank you.
Maybe I just don't understand what you are saying here...but if a competitor (Apple) is doing well, then MS cannot afford to cut corners in R&D as that's where any innovation and new ideas will come from (as far as MS is concerned). So halving their R&D in this instance may improve short term earnings #s, but could very possibly have a horrible effect in the long term.
Or, I could've just completely misunderstood your post...feel free to correct me if that is the case.
I am guessing you meant for that to sound sarcastic, correct?
Just think about it though, for a moment. It may sound crazy...'CARRY a raid array around with you, that sounds crazy!'...but people also used to think a gig of ram in a laptop was insane. Well that isn't too uncommon anymore, and I think raid enabled devices such as this might become common one day.
Totally possible.
I don't really think this is true multitasking. You are talking about context switching....or switching between different tasks at a rapid rate. Tell me, can you listen to a leacture, take notes on it, and read /. at the SAME EXACT MOMENT? I'm not talking about looking up, listening, then writing..I am talking about doing it all at once (true multitasking). So, can you?
More than likely you cannot, as most humans generally find. The problem this article is mainly discussing, is summed up in two words: 'information overload'. When you are inundated with information that you cannot process fast enough, some people may end up switching from one to the other in confusion/struggle/etc and end up not getting much done (because true multi-tasking is not built into us).
I'd say this is a big problem in our information centric world now...and the cure? Push the off button, stretch your muscles, relax, take one step at a time...and most importantly one step at a time in one direction at a time. I think you might find you get more done, are happier, and generally more care free (IMO). Don't let yourself get distracted, focus on whats at hand rather than being a slave to everything around you. Breath, and just go forward. Learn to say no when it matters, and learn to not bother saying no when you shouldn't have to.
Just my humble opinion, take it with a truckload of salt...but it works for me.
Who says there has to be an entry in /etc/fstab in order to mount it? But even still, yes, of course, as I said prior...NOTHING is foolproof except for physical disconnection from the system (and of course, any networks).
True, the only REALLY fail safe is to physically disconnect whatever you're using as a storage device, otherwise you can always infultrate the backups once you gain access to the server as a whole.
HOWEVER, in this example unmounting a/the drive would have saved the gp's backup data. So it's better than just leaving the drive mounted.