One suggestion which I thought was partictularly interesting involved a bounty system whereby a price would be put on 'hacker's heads', incentivating other hackers to go after them and bring them forward.
No clever ideas like this are, were, or ever will be a suitable substitute for implementing real security. People need to wake up and realize that "hackers" are successful because peole still prefer convenience above all else.
For one, we still have this serious problem of people using software that is fundamentally insecure (Outlook, IE, ISS, Windows, etc). Nobody seems to be getting the point that Microsoft products fail utterly at meeting any of Microsoft's promises about security.
Of course, I would venture that is not even the biggest problem. People refuse to use strong passwords (or at least change them regularly). Software is not kept updated on servers (I recognize that free and open software like Linux is insecure if you're behind the times). Services are kept wide open so that nobody has to go searching for access (think file shares). Nobody uses encryption (viruses and spam would cease if company mail servers required valid PGP signatures from employees on emails before they got delivered),
There's so much that needs to be done. The above is hardly an exhaustive list (nor was I making an attempt to create one), but nobody seems interested in taking a crack at what really matters. Instead most seem to be more interested in silly ideas like "hacker bounties" which would be utterly ineffective against a group of people which do not seem to fear consequences for their actions.
Homogenous systems are more likely to experience catastrophic failure
Viruses, worms, etc. (closely related to previous point)
I'm sure I've missed at least a few things.
In the overall scheme of things the cost/benefit business analysis mandates Microsoft is the only smart financial choice, that's why it is called a monopoly. If a company, especially a fortune 500 company, wants to do business without Microsoft then the expense of going against the monopoly is huge.
This is assuming there are no hidden costs. It costs lots of time and money when your network becomes swamped with the latest Outlook worm. It costs lots of time and money to manage the upgrade path, as Microsoft blunders the upgrade process regularly.
And if you were to switch to a free and/or open solution, the savings would be excellent. This is especially the case with intranet software that neither the client nor other businesses need to interact with. So how does going against the "Microsoft force" negatively impact you here?
in the information age we now depend on computers.
Somewhat true, but you are absolutely wrong to assume we also therefore depend on Microsoft. We don't. I've been Microsoft free for years (Linux, FreeBSD, and OS X are my alternatives). I've saved myself a lot of time and money in being Microsoft free. My computers do what I need them to do and all is well.
By that logic we can choose not to go to the hospital when we need to too. That doesn't mean it makes any sense.
What point are you trying to make? You don't make sense. Microsoft isn't the cure for anything and I have a wide selection of hospitals where I live. Care to clarify what you're trying to say?
Umm, you need to be reminded that Microsoft is a court proven monopoly.
And being a monopoly is not illegal. Abusing monopoly power to stifle competition, is. Furthermore, while Microsoft are indeed a monopoly and they are indeed unlawfully leveraging their monopoly power, that doesn't mean that you don't have the option to use something else. Boycott them. Buy a Mac. Run Linux on your workstation. Just because Microsoft holds a monopoly doesn't mean you have to use them.
By definition that means you have no real choice.
Wrong. It only means they have a lot more market share than their competition.
The average user is not going to use Linux.
My mother and sister run RedHat. Suites them just fine. Of course, if you don't know Linux, there are better desktop alternatives to Windows and Linux.
The company I work for uses Microsoft Outlook exclusively and it is against company policy to use anything else.
Corporate entities also have this choice. Your company clearly chooses to do something stupid. It gets whatever it deserves---worms, viruses, and all the other rewards of Outlook.
You too, have a choice in the matter. You can recommend changes in corporate policy. Prepare a case and present it to the IT staff.
But that would require effort.
Sure, people can choose not use computers and not to have a job, but are they smart choices? Is that really free will? Didn't you watch the Matrix when Neo makes they statement, "we control these machines. We can turn them off or destroy them if we want." To which the Senator replies, "and then we'd have no water and no air."
Now I see I've wasted my time. Not only are you clueless, you're taking far too many drugs.
You are making the faulty assumption that a computer is Microsoft Windows. Just because Microsoft sell a product, does not mean that you have to use it. Computers run other operating systems, maybe you've heard of a few.
Yes, that's right, nobody. I think we all need to be reminded that using Microsoft products is an act of free will. It's not as if they're the only game in town for personal computers (they used to be) or that you couldn't interoperate without them (that used to be the case too). Furthermore, to run a successful business these days no longer means that you have to use Microsoft products. Lots of people are doing just fine (if not better) without crap from Redmond. (And that doesn't even mean they have to use open source alternatives. There's always Apple which put out better hardware than anyone else. Of course, using open source is good too. What Windows functionality isn't provided on the server by some variety of BSD or Linux?)
So don't say that a security researcher releasing findings before alerting Microsoft is making things "bad" for Microsoft users who are "forced" to use Windows. I have yet to talk to anybody who uses Microsoft products that doesn't acknowledge the weaknesses in the platform or isn't aware of the media surrounding Microsoft's utter failure to make "security their top priority". They (Windows users) know well enough by now that the platform they've chosen is vastly inferior in terms of security to alternatives. And if they don't realize that, they're mindless zealots (who have an infinite loop blocking entry to their site). By now, they get what they deserve and the security community should no longer have to drag its feet (pacing itself with Microsoft) on their account.
Parents, once you're past making the huge mistake of actually letting the kids have computers in their rooms, what's a reasonable set of guidlines?
You don't want a real answer. You've already made your decision: you think it's bad and has no benefits. You're convinced your children will become sex maniacs and off building pipe bombs in no time. Nothing we say here is really going to make you think rationally about the whole thing.
Consider something a little more fundamental.
If you've raised your children with the morals you hole dear, and taught them to be responsible and honest with you, giving them unfettered Internet access is no problem. Unrestricted Net access is only a problem if you're a failure of a parent. If your children are off searching for porn, it's because you didn't address the morality of it. If your children are lying to you about anything, it's because you didn't raise them to respect you. If your children sneak around behind your back, it's because you didn't raise them to trust you or you simply refuse to understand them or communicate with them.
The problem isn't the Internet. The problem isn't drugs (including alcohol). The problem isn't sex and violence in entertainment. The problem is the parents. My mother taught me morals, my mother was understanding, and I felt comfortable telling her anything. As a result, freedom with the Internet has never been a problem for me. I've grown up quite well and the Internet has been a valuable tool in my development.
The Internet is whatever your children make it out to be. Furthermore, your children model their behavior after what they learn from you. So, believe me: you're not suddenly going to resolve any shortcomings you've had with an Ask Slashdot.
I cannot even begin to relate how many times I've seen job postings asking for at least 10 years experience with.NET and longer in Java. They ask for SQL, C++, HTML, or the equivalent. Oh, and having a firm understanding of TCP/IP or ethernet will clearly help any web developer/designer (whatever that is supposed to be).
It's amazing to me that companies can actually make job postings like this then reject qualified individuals (probably when they inform the employee that it's presently impossible to have 10 years in.NET). It's amazing they can even function at all. I mean, who writes the postings? Upper-level employees, no doubt.
This concludes my rant. Silly, isn't it? Nevertheless, do a search for tech jobs on Dice, and this is the kind of nonsense you turn up.
Two-thirds of all unclaimed money will be given to low-income California schools for computer purchases
And what kind of computers and software will they be buying? Considering how schools are going from Apple to stupid, chances are they'll be Windows boxes.
If that's the case, great deal for Microsoft. Hand Microsoft their money right back to them and increase their mind and market share. What a brilliant way to settle a dispute.
I found this review that sums up the movie pretty well. All in all, a massive disappointment. Revolutions could and should have been so much more. Why is it that when anyone in Hollywood gets a good idea that has so much potential, they always manage to fuck it up?
Windows isn't ready for the desktop either. It's unstable, virus prone, the UI is inconsistent and difficult to use, and trying to fix hardware problems is often a nightmare. Windows isn't any better for the home desktop than RedHat Linux is.
I would say we should recommend Apple's products to the home user for the converse of all the reasons Windows should not be used given above. It's very disappointing RedHat would ever make an endorsement of such a lousy product.
I'm sure most of us have worked in technical support. I can personally vouch that I've seen machines brought in by customers who have done numbers 4, 5 (naturally), and definitely 6 (I think the customer let their child play with the motherboard?) and of course, it was never pretty.
So, just incase there are some of you who don't think random computer hardware destruction is funny, consider the fact that this is definitely a satire piece, aimed at the uberclueless... (and those people are touching the insides of their computers).
The article mentions Windows 9x as dying technology. No doubt about that. But the article makes this statement:
Can 92 million users be wrong? Yes. Declining support, reliability problems, security issues and incompatibility with new applications should drive the remaining installed base to Windows 2000 or XP.
They make this prediction that these 92 million users are going to be driven for various reasons to Windows 2K/XP. What's funny about this is that the very same article then goes on to number two...
Two-tier computing with fat clients had its day, but there are now better ways to distribute data and computing power for flexibility, ease of maintenance and business continuity.
So if they predict this mass drive from Old Windows (tm) to New Windows (tm), why then tell us that 2-teir architecture with fat clients is dead? Windows is the fattest of the fat. What a silly contradiction. Of course, they give absolute minimum treatment to Linux with lame excuses as to why it isn't or won't be adopted.
A few other silly things about this article... Dot-matrix printers being replaced with laser or ink yet? This is either a "no shit, Sherlock" or it's a "never will happen." There's a LOT of dot-matrix printers out there that are used on carbon paper for instant duplicates. You can't do that with other types of printers without printing multiplesheets. Dot-matrix is also better for populating forms that can otherwise be filled out by humans (on the same carbon paper, btw). So, this article is either stating the obvious or dead wrong on this point. Useless.
Next, they mention CRTs will be replaced with LCD displays. I would argue that we'll see OLEDs which are cheaper to manufacture and higher quality than LCD displays long before LCDs really hit the same volume as CRTs. This is a nah-uh.
As for file servers being replaced by small storage appliances... uhm, I think they missed the point.
I cannot believe this article got posted to Slashdot. It's the most absurd thing I've ever seen. It was written by some poor schmuck who has no clue and is struggling to write to save his job. The simple trick here is to write something that'll spark controversy or something along those lines... utterly pointless, obvious, or outright wrong.
Uh, yes, it does. If you have n drives, a given block m will be stored on the m%n disk. If you lose a disk, you lose 1/n of the data in a distributed fashion. This is to improve read and write speed as you no doubt know. It certainly means you're going to suffer a loss of data than if you simply had two drives in some vanilla configuration and you lost one. (Say, the first drive was full and the second was only partially full--all the data on the first disk will be intact.)
In my case, I am not even talking about disk failure, I am talking about stupid user failure. I screwed up my array (don't ask how--I don't remember) because I was careless and using LVM to do it. My second disk would not read as part of the array anymore. That means I lost every other block of the data I had.
I am not sure what the hell you're thinking, but let me see if I can sort it out.
Reading this comment reminds me of exactly why Apple has such great mind share with average home users and Linux doesn't. In a word: innovation.
Don't get me wrong either, I love Apple. Their products are very good. But what exactly does Apple "innovate"? They have shiny computers (check). Their hardware is good (check), but they don't make it--they just put it together. MacOS X is mostly pre-existing technologies (yes, even Quartz), but the dock is cool, so I'd call that "innovation", maybe.
Now, let's look at how you're pitting Apple, a big company with who knows how many paid engineers, versus... an operating system kernel. "In this corner, we have a huge, heavy-duty bulldozer! In this corner, we have a spark-plug! Who will be the victor?"
Apple: puts out uber-cool, lickin' your chops iPod
Are you about to tell us Apple is a better innovator than Linux because Linus Torvalds doesn't make hardware?
Linux: Can we run this on WINE? In other words, can we take this cool stuff from another platform and try to make it work on ours.
This is where your post comes to it's highest climax of stupidity.
You're claiming Linux (an OS kernel) is not "innovative" because someone else decided not to write software for it? Why not say that Apple lacks innovation because they aren't supporting a very viable platform. Frankly, you're an idiot.
Worse still, you then go on to tell us that Linux doesn't innovate because there are open source projects out there that write interoperability software. This world you live in must lack tools for intercommunication and interoperability between things... that must suck. On this note, I can guarantee you that Apple has a few libraries of their own for porting applications to Windows from their platform.
You probably can and probably will, but meanwhile you have to wait for some point in time AFTER everyone else has it.
And that's "our" fault?
Let's face it, cool is very often about being first... about having something others don't have.
Okay, Mr. Cool, need I remind you how many things the open source community had before the commercial world had it? For example, many X11 GUIs had highly flexible themeability for years before WindowsXP was released. Just because Microsoft's marketing spin said it was "innovation" doesn't make it so. There's plenty of examples, but they're more technical. Guess who Microsoft steals a lot of their stuff from. Guess what Apple based OS X on? Think before spouting off. Open source has had a lot of firsts. Most people don't realize though.
Lucky for us, we're cool because we've had a stable operating system long before most consumer-range industry players. We probably will always have one "before" Microsoft does.;)
What Linux needs is innovation.
"Linux" has got lots of it.
They need something that only they have (at least for a little while) that everyone else wants. That is how it will build mind share, not by saying "look, we can do it too (if you're only willing to wait a while)"
Personally, I've found that Windows is still doing a lot of catching up. When I'm at work, I miss my Linux box. It works and works well. Windows just kind of, well, sputters along. It's very inconsistent, the user interface sucks, and it chokes on many of my daily tasks.
I'm not sure if you noticed yet or not, but open source does have lots of things other people want that isn't offered by Microsoft. Security, stability, integrity, etc. Is that innovation enough for you?
Unfortunately, you also posted, thereby undoing your metamoderation.;)
Meta-moderations are undone by thread participation? I do not believe this is the case. I have posted to stories where I have then meta-moderated ("hey, I just read that!"), but not the same thread. I hope that is not the case. However, I think it is likely I am not the only M2 who protested.:-)
Thank you for the thought.
No problem! I know it boils my blood when I spend my valuable time to make a comment on Slashdot, only to be censored by some pea-brain who think they're being cute. By the way, despite my sig, I do pay close attention to what is actually being moderated. There are fringe cases where I just absolutely must agree with a negative moderation. These usually involve gay porn pictures involving a gaping rectum.
Well, I meta-moderated the "Flamebait" moderation as "Unfair". I know it's not much, but at least you know that's a little less probability that the asshole who moderated you will get points again.
You're absolutely fucking right on this topic. There's not a point you wrote that I don't agree with and I wish more people would get these hints. As for myself, I recommend that if people want to buy tools costing several thousand dollars that "just work", they should by Apple.
One reason I like Apple's products is the fact they aren't x86. x86 is very behind the times when compared to the PowerPC architecture. Especially considering Intel's efforts to butcher design principles to get higher and ultimately meaningless clock speeds. There is no doubt in my mind that what Apple has now is superior. No reason to fuck that up.
Furthermore, if Apple made "the switch", they would really become very disinteresting from a layman's point of view. Having an x86 processor means they are just another PC, possibly with some cooler bells and whistles. The perception that they use certain technology because of good engineering decisions would vanish despite all other efforts.
Of course, Apple knows this. I think we can safely say it won't be doing anything this foolish, especially considering the cheap fabrication costs of the G5 and the fact that chip blows away the competition.
Perhaps it is true that Eolas is not going to pursue this software patent nonsense against anyone but Microsoft.
The reasoning? I think any judge could see that this behavior against any or all of the other browsers would effective shut out the web for everybody, not just Microsoft. That just would then just tell Eolas to can it (and Eolas knows that). Of course, if it's well within their legal rights to shut down every other browser...
I think Wikipedia's entry on gigabyte should make this crap appear really stupid. Here's a clip from the entry:
Because of irregularities in definition and usage of the kilobyte, the exact number could be any of the following:
1073741824 bytes - 1024 times 1024 times 1024, or 2^30. This is the definition used in computer science and computer programming.
1000000000 bytes or 10^9 - this is the definition used by telecommunications engineers and storage manufacturers.
Since most people who buy computers are not in "computer science or computer programming", I would argue the value used by storage manufacturers is perfectly applicable when selling computers in the mainstream.
Sadly, it appears lawsuits rather than education on a minor issue will be used to settle this matter, which will lead to a precedent that will be yet another aggrivation for the computer industry. Damnit, if you're a lay person, it's safe to say that 1,000 Megabytes is roughly 1 Gigabyte.
Slashdot Mirror
No clever ideas like this are, were, or ever will be a suitable substitute for implementing real security. People need to wake up and realize that "hackers" are successful because peole still prefer convenience above all else.
For one, we still have this serious problem of people using software that is fundamentally insecure (Outlook, IE, ISS, Windows, etc). Nobody seems to be getting the point that Microsoft products fail utterly at meeting any of Microsoft's promises about security.
Of course, I would venture that is not even the biggest problem. People refuse to use strong passwords (or at least change them regularly). Software is not kept updated on servers (I recognize that free and open software like Linux is insecure if you're behind the times). Services are kept wide open so that nobody has to go searching for access (think file shares). Nobody uses encryption (viruses and spam would cease if company mail servers required valid PGP signatures from employees on emails before they got delivered),
There's so much that needs to be done. The above is hardly an exhaustive list (nor was I making an attempt to create one), but nobody seems interested in taking a crack at what really matters. Instead most seem to be more interested in silly ideas like "hacker bounties" which would be utterly ineffective against a group of people which do not seem to fear consequences for their actions.
Cure the sickness; don't treat the symptoms.
I'm sure I've missed at least a few things.
This is assuming there are no hidden costs. It costs lots of time and money when your network becomes swamped with the latest Outlook worm. It costs lots of time and money to manage the upgrade path, as Microsoft blunders the upgrade process regularly.
And if you were to switch to a free and/or open solution, the savings would be excellent. This is especially the case with intranet software that neither the client nor other businesses need to interact with. So how does going against the "Microsoft force" negatively impact you here?
Somewhat true, but you are absolutely wrong to assume we also therefore depend on Microsoft. We don't. I've been Microsoft free for years (Linux, FreeBSD, and OS X are my alternatives). I've saved myself a lot of time and money in being Microsoft free. My computers do what I need them to do and all is well.
When I was hired, I asked if I could run my operating system of choice. The answer was yes. I don't use Windows.
I work for a company that is not stupid that enjoyed the fact that I could save them some cash.
What point are you trying to make? You don't make sense. Microsoft isn't the cure for anything and I have a wide selection of hospitals where I live. Care to clarify what you're trying to say?
And being a monopoly is not illegal. Abusing monopoly power to stifle competition, is. Furthermore, while Microsoft are indeed a monopoly and they are indeed unlawfully leveraging their monopoly power, that doesn't mean that you don't have the option to use something else. Boycott them. Buy a Mac. Run Linux on your workstation. Just because Microsoft holds a monopoly doesn't mean you have to use them.
Wrong. It only means they have a lot more market share than their competition.
My mother and sister run RedHat. Suites them just fine. Of course, if you don't know Linux, there are better desktop alternatives to Windows and Linux.
Corporate entities also have this choice. Your company clearly chooses to do something stupid. It gets whatever it deserves---worms, viruses, and all the other rewards of Outlook.
You too, have a choice in the matter. You can recommend changes in corporate policy. Prepare a case and present it to the IT staff.
But that would require effort.
Now I see I've wasted my time. Not only are you clueless, you're taking far too many drugs.
You are making the faulty assumption that a computer is Microsoft Windows. Just because Microsoft sell a product, does not mean that you have to use it. Computers run other operating systems, maybe you've heard of a few.
Yes, that's right, nobody. I think we all need to be reminded that using Microsoft products is an act of free will. It's not as if they're the only game in town for personal computers (they used to be) or that you couldn't interoperate without them (that used to be the case too). Furthermore, to run a successful business these days no longer means that you have to use Microsoft products. Lots of people are doing just fine (if not better) without crap from Redmond. (And that doesn't even mean they have to use open source alternatives. There's always Apple which put out better hardware than anyone else. Of course, using open source is good too. What Windows functionality isn't provided on the server by some variety of BSD or Linux?)
So don't say that a security researcher releasing findings before alerting Microsoft is making things "bad" for Microsoft users who are "forced" to use Windows. I have yet to talk to anybody who uses Microsoft products that doesn't acknowledge the weaknesses in the platform or isn't aware of the media surrounding Microsoft's utter failure to make "security their top priority". They (Windows users) know well enough by now that the platform they've chosen is vastly inferior in terms of security to alternatives. And if they don't realize that, they're mindless zealots (who have an infinite loop blocking entry to their site). By now, they get what they deserve and the security community should no longer have to drag its feet (pacing itself with Microsoft) on their account.
...when you can't get laid.
I guess it wouldn't help if I said that most Slashdotters probably had unrestricted access when they were kids too...
You don't want a real answer. You've already made your decision: you think it's bad and has no benefits. You're convinced your children will become sex maniacs and off building pipe bombs in no time. Nothing we say here is really going to make you think rationally about the whole thing.
Consider something a little more fundamental.
If you've raised your children with the morals you hole dear, and taught them to be responsible and honest with you, giving them unfettered Internet access is no problem. Unrestricted Net access is only a problem if you're a failure of a parent. If your children are off searching for porn, it's because you didn't address the morality of it. If your children are lying to you about anything, it's because you didn't raise them to respect you. If your children sneak around behind your back, it's because you didn't raise them to trust you or you simply refuse to understand them or communicate with them.
The problem isn't the Internet. The problem isn't drugs (including alcohol). The problem isn't sex and violence in entertainment. The problem is the parents. My mother taught me morals, my mother was understanding, and I felt comfortable telling her anything. As a result, freedom with the Internet has never been a problem for me. I've grown up quite well and the Internet has been a valuable tool in my development.
The Internet is whatever your children make it out to be. Furthermore, your children model their behavior after what they learn from you. So, believe me: you're not suddenly going to resolve any shortcomings you've had with an Ask Slashdot.
I cannot even begin to relate how many times I've seen job postings asking for at least 10 years experience with .NET and longer in Java. They ask for SQL, C++, HTML, or the equivalent. Oh, and having a firm understanding of TCP/IP or ethernet will clearly help any web developer/designer (whatever that is supposed to be).
It's amazing to me that companies can actually make job postings like this then reject qualified individuals (probably when they inform the employee that it's presently impossible to have 10 years in .NET). It's amazing they can even function at all. I mean, who writes the postings? Upper-level employees, no doubt.
This concludes my rant. Silly, isn't it? Nevertheless, do a search for tech jobs on Dice, and this is the kind of nonsense you turn up.
And what kind of computers and software will they be buying? Considering how schools are going from Apple to stupid, chances are they'll be Windows boxes.
If that's the case, great deal for Microsoft. Hand Microsoft their money right back to them and increase their mind and market share. What a brilliant way to settle a dispute.
I found this review that sums up the movie pretty well. All in all, a massive disappointment. Revolutions could and should have been so much more. Why is it that when anyone in Hollywood gets a good idea that has so much potential, they always manage to fuck it up?
I think this article sums up the situation pretty well.
Windows isn't ready for the desktop either. It's unstable, virus prone, the UI is inconsistent and difficult to use, and trying to fix hardware problems is often a nightmare. Windows isn't any better for the home desktop than RedHat Linux is.
I would say we should recommend Apple's products to the home user for the converse of all the reasons Windows should not be used given above. It's very disappointing RedHat would ever make an endorsement of such a lousy product.
I'm sure most of us have worked in technical support. I can personally vouch that I've seen machines brought in by customers who have done numbers 4, 5 (naturally), and definitely 6 (I think the customer let their child play with the motherboard?) and of course, it was never pretty.
So, just incase there are some of you who don't think random computer hardware destruction is funny, consider the fact that this is definitely a satire piece, aimed at the uberclueless... (and those people are touching the insides of their computers).
The article mentions Windows 9x as dying technology. No doubt about that. But the article makes this statement:
They make this prediction that these 92 million users are going to be driven for various reasons to Windows 2K/XP. What's funny about this is that the very same article then goes on to number two...
So if they predict this mass drive from Old Windows (tm) to New Windows (tm), why then tell us that 2-teir architecture with fat clients is dead? Windows is the fattest of the fat. What a silly contradiction. Of course, they give absolute minimum treatment to Linux with lame excuses as to why it isn't or won't be adopted.
A few other silly things about this article... Dot-matrix printers being replaced with laser or ink yet? This is either a "no shit, Sherlock" or it's a "never will happen." There's a LOT of dot-matrix printers out there that are used on carbon paper for instant duplicates. You can't do that with other types of printers without printing multiplesheets. Dot-matrix is also better for populating forms that can otherwise be filled out by humans (on the same carbon paper, btw). So, this article is either stating the obvious or dead wrong on this point. Useless.
Next, they mention CRTs will be replaced with LCD displays. I would argue that we'll see OLEDs which are cheaper to manufacture and higher quality than LCD displays long before LCDs really hit the same volume as CRTs. This is a nah-uh.
As for file servers being replaced by small storage appliances... uhm, I think they missed the point.
I cannot believe this article got posted to Slashdot. It's the most absurd thing I've ever seen. It was written by some poor schmuck who has no clue and is struggling to write to save his job. The simple trick here is to write something that'll spark controversy or something along those lines... utterly pointless, obvious, or outright wrong.
And here I am wasting my time.
I'll leave it to Gabe and Tycho to talk about Max Payne 2.
Uh, yes, it does. If you have n drives, a given block m will be stored on the m%n disk. If you lose a disk, you lose 1/n of the data in a distributed fashion. This is to improve read and write speed as you no doubt know. It certainly means you're going to suffer a loss of data than if you simply had two drives in some vanilla configuration and you lost one. (Say, the first drive was full and the second was only partially full--all the data on the first disk will be intact.)
In my case, I am not even talking about disk failure, I am talking about stupid user failure. I screwed up my array (don't ask how--I don't remember) because I was careless and using LVM to do it. My second disk would not read as part of the array anymore. That means I lost every other block of the data I had.
I am not sure what the hell you're thinking, but let me see if I can sort it out.
Don't get me wrong either, I love Apple. Their products are very good. But what exactly does Apple "innovate"? They have shiny computers (check). Their hardware is good (check), but they don't make it--they just put it together. MacOS X is mostly pre-existing technologies (yes, even Quartz), but the dock is cool, so I'd call that "innovation", maybe.
Now, let's look at how you're pitting Apple, a big company with who knows how many paid engineers, versus... an operating system kernel. "In this corner, we have a huge, heavy-duty bulldozer! In this corner, we have a spark-plug! Who will be the victor?"
Are you about to tell us Apple is a better innovator than Linux because Linus Torvalds doesn't make hardware?
Linux: Can we run this on WINE? In other words, can we take this cool stuff from another platform and try to make it work on ours.This is where your post comes to it's highest climax of stupidity.
You're claiming Linux (an OS kernel) is not "innovative" because someone else decided not to write software for it? Why not say that Apple lacks innovation because they aren't supporting a very viable platform. Frankly, you're an idiot.
Worse still, you then go on to tell us that Linux doesn't innovate because there are open source projects out there that write interoperability software. This world you live in must lack tools for intercommunication and interoperability between things... that must suck. On this note, I can guarantee you that Apple has a few libraries of their own for porting applications to Windows from their platform.
And that's "our" fault?
Okay, Mr. Cool, need I remind you how many things the open source community had before the commercial world had it? For example, many X11 GUIs had highly flexible themeability for years before WindowsXP was released. Just because Microsoft's marketing spin said it was "innovation" doesn't make it so. There's plenty of examples, but they're more technical. Guess who Microsoft steals a lot of their stuff from. Guess what Apple based OS X on? Think before spouting off. Open source has had a lot of firsts. Most people don't realize though.
Lucky for us, we're cool because we've had a stable operating system long before most consumer-range industry players. We probably will always have one "before" Microsoft does. ;)
"Linux" has got lots of it.
They need something that only they have (at least for a little while) that everyone else wants. That is how it will build mind share, not by saying "look, we can do it too (if you're only willing to wait a while)"Personally, I've found that Windows is still doing a lot of catching up. When I'm at work, I miss my Linux box. It works and works well. Windows just kind of, well, sputters along. It's very inconsistent, the user interface sucks, and it chokes on many of my daily tasks.
I'm not sure if you noticed yet or not, but open source does have lots of things other people want that isn't offered by Microsoft. Security, stability, integrity, etc. Is that innovation enough for you?
Blah. Why do I bother with Slashbots?
Beware your RAID-0 arrays. Screwing carelessly with these setups can cause you many problems, data interleaving and all that.
You bastard. Stop giving me a bad name. HOMPH.
Meta-moderations are undone by thread participation? I do not believe this is the case. I have posted to stories where I have then meta-moderated ("hey, I just read that!"), but not the same thread. I hope that is not the case. However, I think it is likely I am not the only M2 who protested. :-)
No problem! I know it boils my blood when I spend my valuable time to make a comment on Slashdot, only to be censored by some pea-brain who think they're being cute. By the way, despite my sig, I do pay close attention to what is actually being moderated. There are fringe cases where I just absolutely must agree with a negative moderation. These usually involve gay porn pictures involving a gaping rectum.
Well, I meta-moderated the "Flamebait" moderation as "Unfair". I know it's not much, but at least you know that's a little less probability that the asshole who moderated you will get points again.
You're absolutely fucking right on this topic. There's not a point you wrote that I don't agree with and I wish more people would get these hints. As for myself, I recommend that if people want to buy tools costing several thousand dollars that "just work", they should by Apple.
Cheers!
One reason I like Apple's products is the fact they aren't x86. x86 is very behind the times when compared to the PowerPC architecture. Especially considering Intel's efforts to butcher design principles to get higher and ultimately meaningless clock speeds. There is no doubt in my mind that what Apple has now is superior. No reason to fuck that up.
Furthermore, if Apple made "the switch", they would really become very disinteresting from a layman's point of view. Having an x86 processor means they are just another PC, possibly with some cooler bells and whistles. The perception that they use certain technology because of good engineering decisions would vanish despite all other efforts.
Of course, Apple knows this. I think we can safely say it won't be doing anything this foolish, especially considering the cheap fabrication costs of the G5 and the fact that chip blows away the competition.
Perhaps it is true that Eolas is not going to pursue this software patent nonsense against anyone but Microsoft.
The reasoning? I think any judge could see that this behavior against any or all of the other browsers would effective shut out the web for everybody, not just Microsoft. That just would then just tell Eolas to can it (and Eolas knows that). Of course, if it's well within their legal rights to shut down every other browser...
Nevermind.
I think Wikipedia's entry on gigabyte should make this crap appear really stupid. Here's a clip from the entry:
Since most people who buy computers are not in "computer science or computer programming", I would argue the value used by storage manufacturers is perfectly applicable when selling computers in the mainstream.
Sadly, it appears lawsuits rather than education on a minor issue will be used to settle this matter, which will lead to a precedent that will be yet another aggrivation for the computer industry. Damnit, if you're a lay person, it's safe to say that 1,000 Megabytes is roughly 1 Gigabyte.