"Ah yes, but under Linux they would have to give back everything, not just the parts they felt like;-)."
Which exactly why they would never use it in a million years. They want to be paid for their work making that slick GUI.
Using BSD allows them to pick and choose among their development, giving back lots to the community, but withholding their proprietary bits from their competitors. The options are give some stuff back to a BSD system, or give zero to Linux and write everything themselves in-house. A corporation exists to make money, not to give every single bit of stuff they do away for free.
BSD is not a corporate entity either, Mr. Ignorant Troll Fanboy.
Someone is Ignorant when they don't bother to educate themselves on a topic. Asking "what exactly are Apples contributions to the FreeBSD base", implying there are none, shows you are ignorant.
A Troll is someone looking to start a flame war, which you apparently are. Your definition of fanboy shows you to be nothing but a troll.
A Fanboy is someone who things their favorite 'thing' is awesome, ignores it's flaws, and thinks everything not their favorite 'thing', is crap.
That's you.
Personally, I'm an OpenBSD supporter. I don't use FreeBSD myself, but I think it's great that it's there. I'm for making the internet a safer place for everyone. Having companies use secure software is part of that. Non-corporate users benifit when there are less hacked machines at corporations spewing out viruses/worms/phishing-sites, etc.
Hopefully some day you will grow up out of the fanboy phase, and get a wider prespective on the world. Until then, go troll somewhere else.
I don't think the patch tuesday was a microsoft idea. The released individually as they finished the review process for years. I think they got feedback from their large corporate customers saying it would be much easier for their admins to only have to certify and install patches in regular batches, rather than haphazardly as each became available. So I think it's microsoft's large customer's inane scheduling idea. Microsoft just accomodated what their largest customers requested. Not that I think it makes for the best securfity, but it's what the customers (the big noisy ones) asked for.
The question isn't if human intervention is the only reason for the climate change. The question is are we making it worse.
I don't know how you can look at the millions of tons of CO2 we throw into the atmosphere every day, and claim that even if there were some other cause for an increase, that we aren't adding to it to make it worse.
1) Ever hear of Darwin? Lots/most of the non-GUI parts of the OS are re-released open source in the form of Darwin. Apple makes their money off the proprietary slick GUI, but they have been very good about releasing the 'icky-looking' real *NIX parts back to the community.
3) They have been a sponsor of a number of small open source meetings.
All that, and they don't *have* to give anything back because it's under a BSD license. But they do because it's good for their overall product to have a strong base. The better they help FreeBSD become, the more stable/powerful the base becomes to tack their slick GUI on.
It just goes to show, you don't have to use a GPL license and arm-twist folks into giving back. Even very big corporations can be convinced to give back if they have some smart people at the top. The smart people realize that it's to their benefit to give back.
I don't know about that. In modern industrialized nations with good education and economies, the average population growth is negative (if you don't count immigration). If we can get all the 3rd world countries up to speed with economy and education, we might not have an over population problem.
So for someone who likes the old basic theme that doesn't use needless resources, they get exactly what out of XP??? Need for a driver? Every hardware manufacturer I know has those available from their website. Is downloading drivers for the 4 or 5 pieces of hardware you probably need the never drivers for that hard? That might be worth the price of an XP upgrade to you, but not to me. So you'd be ignorant or dumb one for doing that in my book. (BTW, I have other machines with XP on them. So I know exactly what I'm (not) missing on my 2k boxes).
Oh, I forgot, with XP you get that wonderful *activation* feature that's missing on 2k.
There is no need to compare it to Intel's previous offerings.
Why? Because they were absolute crap compared to what AMD has been putting out.
Core 2 now gives Intel something to actually compare with AMDs. Saying Core 2 is competitive with AMD 64 aready clearly states that it blows P4's out of the water. Who cares by how much? Anyone concerned with performance is going to base the comparison vs AMD's offerings, because they were the only realistic choice before Core 2.
What if two (or more) not-so-massive stars collide outside a galaxy? Odds aren't great of it happening, but since the universe is so large, it's definitely going to happen somewhere.
My guess? The people who actually have VAX machines and care about them, made the changes. Not some guy who has one or two alphas.
Lots of other folks wrote new bits that work fine on x86, etc. It's not like the VAX updates were the only ones made. Why complain about people writing additional features for machines they use just because you don't use them?
And the guilty members are stepping down and also under investigation by law enforcement officials. What more do you want?
So far I've seen only one off the board, and another given a move (might even be considered a promotion). There certainly were more than 2 board members who knew what was going on (if not, there certainly should have been, and the others should be removed for negligence).
Several folks should go to jail on this one if the reports are true and they went as far as 'hacking' journalists computers. The rest should be booted from the company entirely, not shuffled around.
If they clean house I'd be satisfied. That's what more I want. People on the board should have ethics to go by, and not turn a blind eye towards something they 'don't want to know the details about'.
As others have said, you don't have to predict 100% (or anywhere close to that level of accuracy)which slot the ball will land in. That type of accuracy is indeed hard to get with the variables involved.
On the typical roulette table there are 37 or 38 slots. The payout for correctly betting on a single number is huge, usually 35 to 1.
All your device need to do is be able to tell you with decent accuracy which 1/2 of the wheel the ball will end up landing on. There are only about 18 slots on half the wheel. If the device correctly picks which half of the wheel the ball will and on, and you select the slot in the middle of that half of the wheel, your odds of the ball dropping into your slot are 1:18 The payout for the right slot is 35:1. $$$$.
As I said, the device doesn't have to pick the correct half of the wheel all the time. You have a 50% chance of selecting the right half of the wheel all on your own. If it can boost that to just 60%, then your odds are still 30:1 of being in the right slot, vs 35:1 payout. You will still make money over the long haul.
You will pick still the wrong slot most of the time, but the odds are now in your favor. Play enough times, and you will make money.
Huh? I open Enterprise Manager all the time with big views or tables. Others have zero problems reading, inserting, and updating into the table while I'm viewing it. No scrolling down to the bottom needed.
ACID keeps the relationships relevant. If it isn't ACID compliant, you can get corruption from bad transactions. What good are relationships if they are the wrong ones?
For the last 2-3 years, MySQL has supported the full gammut of ACID features.
Can we PLEASE stop beating this particular dead horse?
First off, the grandparent implied ACID was worthless. Not me.
When some idiot MySQL fanboy says ACID is worthless, I'm going to make sure anyone new to databases who reads the thread learns the truth.
Secondly, MySQL fanboys keep talking about how great it is at speed, and the only way modern MySQL is significantly faster than modern Postgres is when you use the non ACID compliant MyISAM. InnoDB and strict mode slow MySQL down so that it's no faster than Postgres or other 'real' relational databases. (With a real relattional database 'strict' isn't an option. It's a mandatory part of being a real relational database.) Plus with Postgres you get real modern high-level database features.
So to answer your question. NO. It's not dead yet.
3. Passwords must be changed every 90 days (maximum), and there must be a certain length of time before the same password can be reused.
If you want to piss someone off, use a password generator to create a random password whenever the password has to be renewed
While I change mine frequently, and make it extremely random, those two things are going to cause greater insecurity for most of your users. Why? Because they are going to put post-it notes on their desks with the passwords on them, because they won't remember them otherwise. Those two things should make the network more secure. In reality, they don't.
SATA2 is an extension/expansion of SATA. It wasn't in the SATA specs. It wasn't central to their design. It has been tacked on. And I do mean 'tacked on'. Which of those two words don't you understand?
The lack of performance in multi user benchmarks seems to agree with that analysis.
Got some benchmarks that show how SATA2 is great at multi user work and on par with SCSI? Post em. Otherwise I'll take your post as just SATA(2) fanboy crap. SCSI is built for multi user. SATA(2) is aimed at desktop. With the additional goal of being merely very bad at multi-user rather than horrifically terrible like old ATA drives.
SCSI drives have been aimed specifically at the server market for years. Their electronics have been specifically geared towared performance in that area. SATA is aimed for desktop systems. Almost no early SATA systems had NCQ, although more and more newer models have it now. It's been tacked on, not central to the design for decades like in SCSI.
Just take the baddest SATA drive around, the Western Digital Raptor 150. A 10,000 RPM drive with NCQ (Note, the earlier 36 GB and 74 GB Raptor SATA drives did not have NCQ. It's a new tack-on)
Wow, look. It not only blows away other SATA drives, but kills those expensive SCSI drives. This is why the uninformed grandparent things SCSI is 'ancient' tech.
Notice in the top graph where it slaughters every other SATA drive out there except for it's earlier sibling, the Raptor74. It's obviously pretty much the best SATA has to offer.
Now look at the next graph where it is compared to those 'Ancient' SCSI drives. Those SCSI drives beat the hell out the piss-poor excuse of NCQ that that high end SATA drive has.
That's why SCSI is still king for server work.
I've got a Raptor 150 in my home gaming machine. It's great. But I'd never think about it in my RAIDed servers at work. It just couldn't come close to the job the SCSI drives do.
I take it you don't run any servers. SCSI is vastly superior to SATA in a server role. SATA is better for single user work, but if you are tossing many file read/writes at the same time at the drive, SCSI will simply way out preform SATA.
Slashdot Mirror
"Ah yes, but under Linux they would have to give back everything, not just the parts they felt like ;-)."
Which exactly why they would never use it in a million years. They want to be paid for their work making that slick GUI.
Using BSD allows them to pick and choose among their development, giving back lots to the community, but withholding their proprietary bits from their competitors. The options are give some stuff back to a BSD system, or give zero to Linux and write everything themselves in-house. A corporation exists to make money, not to give every single bit of stuff they do away for free.
BSD is not a corporate entity either, Mr. Ignorant Troll Fanboy.
Someone is Ignorant when they don't bother to educate themselves on a topic. Asking "what exactly are Apples contributions to the FreeBSD base", implying there are none, shows you are ignorant.
A Troll is someone looking to start a flame war, which you apparently are. Your definition of fanboy shows you to be nothing but a troll.
A Fanboy is someone who things their favorite 'thing' is awesome, ignores it's flaws, and thinks everything not their favorite 'thing', is crap.
That's you.
Personally, I'm an OpenBSD supporter. I don't use FreeBSD myself, but I think it's great that it's there. I'm for making the internet a safer place for everyone. Having companies use secure software is part of that. Non-corporate users benifit when there are less hacked machines at corporations spewing out viruses/worms/phishing-sites, etc.
Hopefully some day you will grow up out of the fanboy phase, and get a wider prespective on the world. Until then, go troll somewhere else.
I don't think the patch tuesday was a microsoft idea. The released individually as they finished the review process for years. I think they got feedback from their large corporate customers saying it would be much easier for their admins to only have to certify and install patches in regular batches, rather than haphazardly as each became available. So I think it's microsoft's large customer's inane scheduling idea. Microsoft just accomodated what their largest customers requested. Not that I think it makes for the best securfity, but it's what the customers (the big noisy ones) asked for.
Umm, here's a big clue for you...
The virus/worm writers are the ones releasing the exploit into the wild the day after patch Tuesday.
That way they are more likely to have it expand for an entire month before MS patches it and messes up their fun.
Security researchers generally want things secure. Virus/Worm writers don't.
The question isn't if human intervention is the only reason for the climate change. The question is are we making it worse.
I don't know how you can look at the millions of tons of CO2 we throw into the atmosphere every day, and claim that even if there were some other cause for an increase, that we aren't adding to it to make it worse.
1) Ever hear of Darwin? Lots/most of the non-GUI parts of the OS are re-released open source in the form of Darwin. Apple makes their money off the proprietary slick GUI, but they have been very good about releasing the 'icky-looking' real *NIX parts back to the community.
3 +409098+/usr/local/www/db/text/1999/cvs-all/199907 04.cvs-all
2) Patches. A good number of them. Here's just one example that went back to FreeBSD:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=40798
3) They have been a sponsor of a number of small open source meetings.
All that, and they don't *have* to give anything back because it's under a BSD license. But they do because it's good for their overall product to have a strong base. The better they help FreeBSD become, the more stable/powerful the base becomes to tack their slick GUI on.
It just goes to show, you don't have to use a GPL license and arm-twist folks into giving back. Even very big corporations can be convinced to give back if they have some smart people at the top. The smart people realize that it's to their benefit to give back.
Yeah, I guess that's why Apple chose FreeBSD for part of it's base instead of Linux. Because BSD fails. Right.
There are lots of use using BSDs to do our daily work, who would never want to touch Linux. Sorry to tell ya, but BSDs aren't failing.
If you like Linux, that's great. But to claim BSDs are failing makes you a trolling fanboy.
I don't know about that. In modern industrialized nations with good education and economies, the average population growth is negative (if you don't count immigration). If we can get all the 3rd world countries up to speed with economy and education, we might not have an over population problem.
So for someone who likes the old basic theme that doesn't use needless resources, they get exactly what out of XP??? Need for a driver? Every hardware manufacturer I know has those available from their website. Is downloading drivers for the 4 or 5 pieces of hardware you probably need the never drivers for that hard? That might be worth the price of an XP upgrade to you, but not to me.
So you'd be ignorant or dumb one for doing that in my book. (BTW, I have other machines with XP on them. So I know exactly what I'm (not) missing on my 2k boxes).
Oh, I forgot, with XP you get that wonderful *activation* feature that's missing on 2k.
There is no need to compare it to Intel's previous offerings.
Why? Because they were absolute crap compared to what AMD has been putting out.
Core 2 now gives Intel something to actually compare with AMDs. Saying Core 2 is competitive with AMD 64 aready clearly states that it blows P4's out of the water. Who cares by how much? Anyone concerned with performance is going to base the comparison vs AMD's offerings, because they were the only realistic choice before Core 2.
What if two (or more) not-so-massive stars collide outside a galaxy? Odds aren't great of it happening, but since the universe is so large, it's definitely going to happen somewhere.
My guess? The people who actually have VAX machines and care about them, made the changes. Not some guy who has one or two alphas.
Lots of other folks wrote new bits that work fine on x86, etc. It's not like the VAX updates were the only ones made. Why complain about people writing additional features for machines they use just because you don't use them?
It is. You just have to use all the parts in the kit in conjunction with a Real Doll.
Yeah, nothing like dynamic popping and cracking crap coming from vinyl with any dirt on it, or that is worn, bad needles, etc, etc.
Been there done that. Old enough to remember when these new-fangled CD things were invented and how crappy my old LPs sounded compared.
Digital is king in my book. Your ears might like popping and other noise from the physical imperfections, but mine don't.
And I hope every pennny of that and more then gets awarded to the journalists whose computers were hacked once they sue her and HP as they should.
So far I've seen only one off the board, and another given a move (might even be considered a promotion). There certainly were more than 2 board members who knew what was going on (if not, there certainly should have been, and the others should be removed for negligence).
Several folks should go to jail on this one if the reports are true and they went as far as 'hacking' journalists computers. The rest should be booted from the company entirely, not shuffled around.
If they clean house I'd be satisfied. That's what more I want. People on the board should have ethics to go by, and not turn a blind eye towards something they 'don't want to know the details about'.
As others have said, you don't have to predict 100% (or anywhere close to that level of accuracy)which slot the ball will land in. That type of accuracy is indeed hard to get with the variables involved.
On the typical roulette table there are 37 or 38 slots. The payout for correctly betting on a single number is huge, usually 35 to 1.
All your device need to do is be able to tell you with decent accuracy which 1/2 of the wheel the ball will end up landing on. There are only about 18 slots on half the wheel. If the device correctly picks which half of the wheel the ball will and on, and you select the slot in the middle of that half of the wheel, your odds of the ball dropping into your slot are 1:18 The payout for the right slot is 35:1. $$$$.
As I said, the device doesn't have to pick the correct half of the wheel all the time. You have a 50% chance of selecting the right half of the wheel all on your own. If it can boost that to just 60%, then your odds are still 30:1 of being in the right slot, vs 35:1 payout. You will still make money over the long haul.
You will pick still the wrong slot most of the time, but the odds are now in your favor. Play enough times, and you will make money.
Huh? I open Enterprise Manager all the time with big views or tables. Others have zero problems reading, inserting, and updating into the table while I'm viewing it. No scrolling down to the bottom needed.
ACID keeps the relationships relevant. If it isn't ACID compliant, you can get corruption from bad transactions. What good are relationships if they are the wrong ones?
It's 'elite' to want to get back the same data you entered? You've got a real strange definition of elite.
Silent corruption of the data is great as long as it's fast eh? Brilliant.
Can we PLEASE stop beating this particular dead horse?
First off, the grandparent implied ACID was worthless. Not me.
When some idiot MySQL fanboy says ACID is worthless, I'm going to make sure anyone new to databases who reads the thread learns the truth.
Secondly, MySQL fanboys keep talking about how great it is at speed, and the only way modern MySQL is significantly faster than modern Postgres is when you use the non ACID compliant MyISAM. InnoDB and strict mode slow MySQL down so that it's no faster than Postgres or other 'real' relational databases. (With a real relattional database 'strict' isn't an option. It's a mandatory part of being a real relational database.) Plus with Postgres you get real modern high-level database features.
So to answer your question. NO. It's not dead yet.
Your data is pretty worthless if you can't be bothered with ACID complience to make sure it is consistant.
3. Passwords must be changed every 90 days (maximum), and there must be a certain length of time before the same password can be reused.
If you want to piss someone off, use a password generator to create a random password whenever the password has to be renewed
While I change mine frequently, and make it extremely random, those two things are going to cause greater insecurity for most of your users. Why? Because they are going to put post-it notes on their desks with the passwords on them, because they won't remember them otherwise. Those two things should make the network more secure. In reality, they don't.
SATA2 is an extension/expansion of SATA. It wasn't in the SATA specs. It wasn't central to their design. It has been tacked on. And I do mean 'tacked on'. Which of those two words don't you understand?
The lack of performance in multi user benchmarks seems to agree with that analysis.
Got some benchmarks that show how SATA2 is great at multi user work and on par with SCSI? Post em. Otherwise I'll take your post as just SATA(2) fanboy crap. SCSI is built for multi user. SATA(2) is aimed at desktop. With the additional goal of being merely very bad at multi-user rather than horrifically terrible like old ATA drives.
SCSI drives have been aimed specifically at the server market for years. Their electronics have been specifically geared towared performance in that area.
SATA is aimed for desktop systems. Almost no early SATA systems had NCQ, although more and more newer models have it now. It's been tacked on, not central to the design for decades like in SCSI.
Just take the baddest SATA drive around, the Western Digital Raptor 150. A 10,000 RPM drive with NCQ (Note, the earlier 36 GB and 74 GB Raptor SATA drives did not have NCQ. It's a new tack-on)
1) Look at it's benchmarks vs a bunch of SCSI drives for single user benchmarks.
Wow, look. It not only blows away other SATA drives, but kills those expensive SCSI drives. This is why the uninformed grandparent things SCSI is 'ancient' tech.
2) Now look at it's benchmarks vs a bunch of SCSI drives for multi user benchmarks.
Notice in the top graph where it slaughters every other SATA drive out there except for it's earlier sibling, the Raptor74. It's obviously pretty much the best SATA has to offer.
Now look at the next graph where it is compared to those 'Ancient' SCSI drives. Those SCSI drives beat the hell out the piss-poor excuse of NCQ that that high end SATA drive has.
That's why SCSI is still king for server work.
I've got a Raptor 150 in my home gaming machine. It's great. But I'd never think about it in my RAIDed servers at work. It just couldn't come close to the job the SCSI drives do.
I take it you don't run any servers. SCSI is vastly superior to SATA in a server role. SATA is better for single user work, but if you are tossing many file read/writes at the same time at the drive, SCSI will simply way out preform SATA.