that is a very side note, focusing on types of mistakes instead of the noticing and filtering out code that contains those mistakes.
Linus' last post on that thread discussing the topic puts it finally, that we should feel happy about. basically, if it gets all the way to Linus, via email, and it hasn't been seen, then the kernel will have a backdoor in it. this is how it is for both intentional malicious code and plain old bad mistakes.
MRTG is not just a stupid little graph. and yes, it can handle
I mentioned RRDTool because it usually goes with MRTG, and can do grouped graphing. can Concord automatically get the average cpu or memory usage of a web server farm ? yes, you can get different time intervals on the fly with MRTG.
MRTG isn't meant for billing and accounting, but many tier 1 ISPs use it because it can be basically customized to any heart's content because its source code is all there.
when it doesn't work, you ask the guy who wrote it himself, for free, or get up off your ass and fix it yourself.
look, whatever works for you, great. i'm not saying MRTG is for everyone. most people use OpenView, CiscoWorks, and NetIQ so they can see bandwidth graphs and get pages when things go down, period. MRTG (and Nagios) does all of that.
for no cost of software.
Sorry you're having so much trouble understanding me. Benchmarks are there to compare apples and apples. Entering budget as fixed variable into the scenario is not a benchmark, it's some other sort of evaluation.
"That is why each team should be given a budget and a scenario. Then let them do the best they can with their platform and that budget."
That's a great idea. But that's not known as a "benchmark".
It's obvious to me that you're not quite aware of how the term 'benchmark' as its used in common terminology, and are only interested in arguing.
When Microsoft argues about how the Samba Team tunes the server, (which they have in the past, and will in the future) then yes...they will cry foul over the results. Welcome to my point.
"How can one side complain that their platform wasn't tuned correctly when they did the tuning themselves?"
Uh. You're not understanding me. In past samba/filesharing/webserver/database benchmarks, there have been many times where the 'losing' group complained that the winning group had tuned their setup to be unfair and not within the boundaries of the test. Maybe you haven't seen reports of that happen...sorry if I assumed you had.
I thought that *I* was clear in that. Basically, my point is that whenever a 'benchmark' is run and publishes the results as a form of endorsement for the 'winning' product, someone will complain about the procedure, the setup, or the way the results are calculated, and publicly deny the value of the benchmark.
The only reliable benchmarks are those performed by *real* non-biased parties, and the exact specifics of tuning, setup, procedure, etc. have been documented. In addition, any reliable benchmarking will be using standard and open testing software (i.e. siege, httperf, bonnie, etc.) and not rely on proprietary tools such as LoadRunner.
I'm very aware of the intricacies of webserving infrastructures with regards to performance and reliability.
The only problem with your example is that it's not a "benchmark" in the traditional sense...it's an exercise in IT budgets. It's obvious that most situations will go with your latter option (multiple servers, load balanced) for many reasons, not just budgetary, performance, and reliability. Your suggestion for a 'benchmark' isn't measuring the performance of anything, except for the intelligence of the people running the tests.
Having done many types of webserving, disk i/o, and cpu benchmarks for many different organizations, I'll ask you to trust me when I say that benchmarking is not quite as simple an effort as your post makes it out to be.
I'm well aware of how to run regression testing for web performance...how to do it is not my point.
The point is not a technical one. The point is that most of these crappy benchmarks are set up to fail in what they set out to do: compare two completely different OSs and applications (i.e. apache and IIS) set up by two different groups of people, and tuned the best they can.
The "losing" group invariably complains that the OSs weren't tuned effectively, set up improperly,etc., and then cry foul about the setup, attempting to declare the results biased and moot.
For example...with regards to performance and reliability...I, for one, have never (and will never) rely on raid for webservers....I'll have redundancy set up elsewhere (i.e. load balanced).
p.s. having multiple processing power on webservers ain't gonna get you nuthin when compared to the same number of individual machines dolling out requests, even in a 'least # of connections' balancing algorithm. In webserving, CPUs don't mean crap. it's memory that matters.
but the list is about individual humans, not organizations or communities. Christ, if that were the case, the libertarian party would be on the list of influencing privacy issues in the IT field.
also, it's not just the Linux community that is wanting to replace X, it's the much greater X11 community.
It's debateable whether Palmisano is more influential on the Linux community, or vice versa. While I won't call IBM a 'sugar daddy' for Linux, it has done more for putting Linux in places that wouldn't think of it than any other influence, hands down.
the passion with which you are pursuing this so-called "urbanlegend busting" is far more interesting to me.
I'm going to assume that there's a deeper reason for it. I'm gonna guess that it probably has something to do with an affinity for obsessive thinking, maybe mixed in with some insecurity indicated by a vigorous want of validation of your intelligence (i.e. you want to make sure you're heard on everyone's opinion on this), and finally a disdain for things that you can't accurately measure (otherwise you'd be taking people's anecdotes as interesting comments and wouldn't be on an 'urban legend busting' kick).
Take a look back at the responses you've given. Take a look at their condescending nature. It's as if you're arguing about a past or ongoing relationship, or some far-reaching political agenda...both of which aren't at all related to the larger discussion, and at best is a short-lived sidenote.
Take particular note of the way you taunt and talk down to people who aren't rigorously "following" your constraints on what you deem to be logical responses to your comment. It's very clear that that sort of thing is amusing for you, a sort of thrill that might help an otherwise meaningless day pass by, hm ?
But, of course, I could be wrong about that. What do I know ? I'm just an ol' *zealous* slashdotter.
Good luck. I always find a good deep breath and a nice walk will help with getting some clarity.
"Mostly to tweak brittle zealots such as yourself"
A.k.a. trolling, because most likely, you have so little else to do. Or, I guess your disks have just filled up (which is your own fault, btw).
Well I'm hoping you don't spend the majority of your time searching for (very) minor points to make and urban legends to "burst"...but whatever turns you on, I guess...hope you got a buzz from this.
Unfortunately for you, you're not going to be able to prove either way whether unsubscribing has any effect, only that any non-anecdotal evidence exists.
So it's hardly "bursting" anything...it's an attempt (a feeble one, at that) to get some attention by trying to prove a non-existing fact, and it's a futile and sad thing to watch, to be totally honest.
Why are you such a jerk ? What is your point with this verification of unsubscribe/replying ?
Either yes...it does put you on a new list, or no, it doesn't. What does either answer help, or provide to this discussion, besides your own little semantic tantrum about pointing out Allman's statement to be untrue.
The point is so minor that it warrants no more than about 2 seconds thought.
I'm seeing a lot of arguments here. What if it turns out that some independent organization hasn't *done* the hard numbers on replying ? What if it can't be proven via a study that replying with an unsubscribe doesn't put you on yet another list ?
What is your point here ? Or just to get a lot of people wrapped up in an argument that has nothing to do with stopping spam at all, only to see yourself win an argument ?
I have replied and 'unsubscribed' to a spam that was delivered to an alias I set up. The mail came to the account "info" at mydomain, and I replied with "myname1964" at mydomain, which I have never used or given out. That was about a year ago,
I began receiving spam to myname1964 at mydomain about 6 months ago.
Slashdot Mirror
because it explains why the article is in the MemoryHole, and not readily available. informative.
you don't know what spoofing an IP address involves, then.
Why don't you RTFA ? If you did, then you wouldn't be experiencing such diarrhea of the mouth.
For someone so interested in UI and a computer's overall user experience, you sure are ignorant about what he's talking about.
What's the 'particular purpose' that computers were invented for, genius ? Do you use a computer differently than I ?
Do people use toasters in a wide variety of ways ?
Dolt.
that is a very side note, focusing on types of mistakes instead of the noticing and filtering out code that contains those mistakes.
Linus' last post on that thread discussing the topic puts it finally, that we should feel happy about. basically, if it gets all the way to Linus, via email, and it hasn't been seen, then the kernel will have a backdoor in it. this is how it is for both intentional malicious code and plain old bad mistakes.
MRTG is not just a stupid little graph. and yes, it can handle I mentioned RRDTool because it usually goes with MRTG, and can do grouped graphing. can Concord automatically get the average cpu or memory usage of a web server farm ? yes, you can get different time intervals on the fly with MRTG. MRTG isn't meant for billing and accounting, but many tier 1 ISPs use it because it can be basically customized to any heart's content because its source code is all there. when it doesn't work, you ask the guy who wrote it himself, for free, or get up off your ass and fix it yourself. look, whatever works for you, great. i'm not saying MRTG is for everyone. most people use OpenView, CiscoWorks, and NetIQ so they can see bandwidth graphs and get pages when things go down, period. MRTG (and Nagios) does all of that. for no cost of software.
show me something that is better than MRTG and rddtools and/or Cricket. anything.
except when engineers are trying their hand at being UI or design-oriented people, which can literally kill the product.
Sorry you're having so much trouble understanding me. Benchmarks are there to compare apples and apples. Entering budget as fixed variable into the scenario is not a benchmark, it's some other sort of evaluation.
"That is why each team should be given a budget and a scenario. Then let them do the best they can with their platform and that budget."
That's a great idea. But that's not known as a "benchmark".
It's obvious to me that you're not quite aware of how the term 'benchmark' as its used in common terminology, and are only interested in arguing.
When Microsoft argues about how the Samba Team tunes the server, (which they have in the past, and will in the future) then yes...they will cry foul over the results. Welcome to my point.
"How can one side complain that their platform wasn't tuned correctly when they did the tuning themselves?"
Uh. You're not understanding me. In past samba/filesharing/webserver/database benchmarks, there have been many times where the 'losing' group complained that the winning group had tuned their setup to be unfair and not within the boundaries of the test. Maybe you haven't seen reports of that happen...sorry if I assumed you had.
I thought that *I* was clear in that. Basically, my point is that whenever a 'benchmark' is run and publishes the results as a form of endorsement for the 'winning' product, someone will complain about the procedure, the setup, or the way the results are calculated, and publicly deny the value of the benchmark.
The only reliable benchmarks are those performed by *real* non-biased parties, and the exact specifics of tuning, setup, procedure, etc. have been documented. In addition, any reliable benchmarking will be using standard and open testing software (i.e. siege, httperf, bonnie, etc.) and not rely on proprietary tools such as LoadRunner.
I'm very aware of the intricacies of webserving infrastructures with regards to performance and reliability.
The only problem with your example is that it's not a "benchmark" in the traditional sense...it's an exercise in IT budgets. It's obvious that most situations will go with your latter option (multiple servers, load balanced) for many reasons, not just budgetary, performance, and reliability. Your suggestion for a 'benchmark' isn't measuring the performance of anything, except for the intelligence of the people running the tests.
Having done many types of webserving, disk i/o, and cpu benchmarks for many different organizations, I'll ask you to trust me when I say that benchmarking is not quite as simple an effort as your post makes it out to be.
I'm well aware of how to run regression testing for web performance...how to do it is not my point.
The point is not a technical one. The point is that most of these crappy benchmarks are set up to fail in what they set out to do: compare two completely different OSs and applications (i.e. apache and IIS) set up by two different groups of people, and tuned the best they can.
The "losing" group invariably complains that the OSs weren't tuned effectively, set up improperly,etc., and then cry foul about the setup, attempting to declare the results biased and moot.
For example...with regards to performance and reliability...I, for one, have never (and will never) rely on raid for webservers....I'll have redundancy set up elsewhere (i.e. load balanced).
p.s. having multiple processing power on webservers ain't gonna get you nuthin when compared to the same number of individual machines dolling out requests, even in a 'least # of connections' balancing algorithm. In webserving, CPUs don't mean crap. it's memory that matters.
don't be so hasty. people don't pay for content, yet the medium (at the "consumer level") is unchanged...the Internet.
VoIP won't be making money anytime soon, and I suspect it won't ever. If you feel like being educated, I'll explain why.
I think that there is a fundamental understanding of SCO's abilities with respect to Unix licenses.
They do have "have full legal right to BRING TO COURT a termination of IBM & SGI's Unix licenses".
Whether the contract has been breached is for the courts to decide.
oh sorry..that last AC reply to you was me.
so are you arguing that you can't expect results of empirical evidence to support what will happen in the future ???!!
but the list is about individual humans, not organizations or communities. Christ, if that were the case, the libertarian party would be on the list of influencing privacy issues in the IT field.
also, it's not just the Linux community that is wanting to replace X, it's the much greater X11 community.
It's debateable whether Palmisano is more influential on the Linux community, or vice versa. While I won't call IBM a 'sugar daddy' for Linux, it has done more for putting Linux in places that wouldn't think of it than any other influence, hands down.
I would say that anyone running an SMTP server on their desktop deserves to get rooted.
"The best security on your email program will not matter if you're running a vulnerable version of sendmail."
what are you talking about ? please re-read that sentence and make sure you don't have to qualify it with some other facts to make it true.
what does it matter to a desktop machine's security if sendmail is totally rooted ?
"Them's the rules."
You mean a rule like this one:
"If I start a thread, it's MINE, and I can be a jackass to people who respond to me and expect them not to call me a jackass."
?
Hm. Don't see no link to no rules here like that.
Oh well. While you're praying to Unicorn's, pray for some help with not being a jackass.
the passion with which you are pursuing this so-called "urbanlegend busting" is far more interesting to me.
I'm going to assume that there's a deeper reason for it. I'm gonna guess that it probably has something to do with an affinity for obsessive thinking, maybe mixed in with some insecurity indicated by a vigorous want of validation of your intelligence (i.e. you want to make sure you're heard on everyone's opinion on this), and finally a disdain for things that you can't accurately measure (otherwise you'd be taking people's anecdotes as interesting comments and wouldn't be on an 'urban legend busting' kick).
Take a look back at the responses you've given. Take a look at their condescending nature. It's as if you're arguing about a past or ongoing relationship, or some far-reaching political agenda...both of which aren't at all related to the larger discussion, and at best is a short-lived sidenote.
Take particular note of the way you taunt and talk down to people who aren't rigorously "following" your constraints on what you deem to be logical responses to your comment. It's very clear that that sort of thing is amusing for you, a sort of thrill that might help an otherwise meaningless day pass by, hm ?
But, of course, I could be wrong about that. What do I know ? I'm just an ol' *zealous* slashdotter.
Good luck. I always find a good deep breath and a nice walk will help with getting some clarity.
"Mostly to tweak brittle zealots such as yourself"
A.k.a. trolling, because most likely, you have so little else to do. Or, I guess your disks have just filled up (which is your own fault, btw).
Well I'm hoping you don't spend the majority of your time searching for (very) minor points to make and urban legends to "burst"...but whatever turns you on, I guess...hope you got a buzz from this.
Unfortunately for you, you're not going to be able to prove either way whether unsubscribing has any effect, only that any non-anecdotal evidence exists.
So it's hardly "bursting" anything...it's an attempt (a feeble one, at that) to get some attention by trying to prove a non-existing fact, and it's a futile and sad thing to watch, to be totally honest.
Good luck with that, have fun. Jerk.
Why are you such a jerk ? What is your point with this verification of unsubscribe/replying ?
Either yes...it does put you on a new list, or no, it doesn't. What does either answer help, or provide to this discussion, besides your own little semantic tantrum about pointing out Allman's statement to be untrue.
The point is so minor that it warrants no more than about 2 seconds thought.
What, besides getting your own personal clarification on an irrelevant sidenote to this discussion, is your point here ?
You're requiring non-anecdotal evidence on a discussion board ? For what reason ?
If keeping disk space monitored is part of your job, then it *is* your fault, isn't it ?
I'm seeing a lot of arguments here. What if it turns out that some independent organization hasn't *done* the hard numbers on replying ? What if it can't be proven via a study that replying with an unsubscribe doesn't put you on yet another list ?
What is your point here ? Or just to get a lot of people wrapped up in an argument that has nothing to do with stopping spam at all, only to see yourself win an argument ?
I'm gonna guess it's the latter.
I have replied and 'unsubscribed' to a spam that was delivered to an alias I set up. The mail came to the account "info" at mydomain, and I replied with "myname1964" at mydomain, which I have never used or given out. That was about a year ago,
I began receiving spam to myname1964 at mydomain about 6 months ago.
There's some proof that yes, replying is bad.