The numerous features such as ACLs that NT and VMS both have and OS/2 doesn't lend a lot more credibility to those 'urban legends' than some poster on/. saying it's an outgrowth of OS/2.
Dave Cutler wasn't just some guy from DEC. He was one of VMS's main architects. Imagining he applied a lot of what he learned writing VMS to NT just doesn't take that much imagination.
Don't worry about Sony having to sell it at a loss. They'll make it up as they disable the drives on lots machines that they have decided is tryingt to play 'stolen' media. Then they can sell them a new working Blue-Ray.
School buses should have been used to transport people as already stated.
He basically ordered that thousands of folks to show up at the superdome for an emergency situation. How can you do that and not make sure that the place has food/water and some police/security??? Truely unbelievable.
Lack of planning on how to evacuate the elderly/infirm who couldn't even walk 5 miles to higher ground if needed like the able bodied.
Lack of planning for evacuating the hospitals.
The list goes on and on, lots of screwups. There was no planning.
But waiting until 24 hours before to actually order the evacuation was not out of line. Those big hurricanes are notorious for changing course rapidly, and they didn't really know for sure it would hit anywhere near New Orleans till then.
But he had plenty of time before then to set up a battle plan before that time to handle things. He didn't. "Everybody either leave town or got the the Superdome" is not a battle plan for emergency circumstances. He's as useless as the head of FEMA, and the guitar playing grinning idiot running this country.
As to your first point, lets see, on page three where they discuss what their setup was they say...
"Again, we are focusing on workstation and server applications" Their bolding, not mine.
They also state...
"The 64 bit Apple Machines were running OS X Server 10.4.1 (Tiger) and Yellow Dog 4.0 Linux version 2.6.10-1.ydl.1g5-smp." Again, their bolding, not mine.
It certainly seems they are discussing OS X as a server.
As to your second point, they probably had a G5 box handy. The CPUs and motherboard archetecture of the Xserve is pretty much the same as the G5.
Heck, the Xserve even uses the same serial ATA hard drive system as the G5 instead of a SCSI system many other vendors would use in their servers. The only real difference between the two systems is their form factor and video cards. For the purposes of this article, I think those can safely be ignored.
The article certainly has plenty of flaws, but testing OS X as a server (vs desktop) isn't one of them.
MySQL is know to have a 'real-life' problem running on OS X that Postrgres, Oracle, etc, etc, don't. Why not use a program that doesn't have a huge known bug working on the OS your testing rather than one you know isn't going to work right?
Personally I don't like MySQL, but I'd say their 'study' was hugely flawed if MySQL and Postrgres were known to run flawlessly on it, but they instead chose to benchmark Oracle if Oracle was known to have a huge bug.
I think I speak for most Mac users when I say that I couldn't possibly care less how many MySQL transactions my computer could (but doesn't) run per second. There is undoubtedly a more cost-effective way of building a dedicated MySQL server, and they should be used -- as long as I get to keep a Mac on my desk to connect to it.
That's all nice and all for you, but Apple does sell these things the call XServe's that are supposed to be "servers". And they run an OS called OS X "Server". Some of us really do run servers and it's informative to us for deciding if we should include a G5 or OS X Server as an option for new servers we need. I'm terribly sorry it doesn't interest most Mac users, but it certainly interests some of us. If you don't care, just skip the article.
They could be damn sure it was going to hit SOMEWHERE (hurricanes usually moving north and such.)
Well then, I guess all of florida and Texas should have evacuated north then by your logic eh? It was going to hit somewhere!
Evacuating areas you don't need to is bad for the reasons I already listed. If you know a hurricane is coming you can always throw some clothes in a bag, make sure the car is gassed up, and then leave once you know it's really going to hit (the 24 hour notice).
NOT moving them out surely is going to be a "major disruption" to some people i.e. being DEAD and all...
That makes a pretty damn good arguement for leaving the area once you know it's coming. Lots of them didn't.
Ever considered people who a) are poor and didn't know there was public transport available to move them out? b) were unable to move because they are too sick/disabled/emotionally disturbed to move out?
Certainly there were some elderly and sick people
who couldn't easily move. Of course I feel bad for them. The vast majority of people you see on TV down there, however, were QUITE capable of *walking* 10 miles across town to higher ground if that was their only means of transport and escaping likely drowning. It's those idiots I don't feel sorry for.
If those idiots had left like they were supposed to, the job of bussing out, sheltering, or rescuing those who were too sick or infirm to move themselves would be much much easier.
why was the evacuation order given only 24 hours in advance?
Most likely because
1) Hurricanes of that magnitude are known to shift directions quickly and they weren't sure it was really going to hit near NO till then.
2) If the hurricane wasn't really going to land there, moving that many people is a major disruption in peoples lives, commerce, and leaves areas open for looters
3) If you know you live in a place below sea level, next to the ocean, and a class 5 hurricane is coming towards you, you should be fucking smart enough to know to leave without someone having to 'order' it. Darwin rules.
If you want to argue that extending the copyright lengths to what they are currently is unhealthy and that we should reduce their lengths back toward what they were originally, I'm all with you.
But many on here seem to think that copyright/patenting and allowing folks to have some time to profit from their IP is a terrible thing and should be abolished. I disagree entirely with them and agree with the founding fathers that it's a good idea for just the reason you stated.
Because you want to force them to deal with your limitations on YOUR IP, while not dealing with their limitations on THEIR IP.
It's a double standard.
It doesn't matter if the 'goal is openness' or whatever noble thing (in your opinion) you are after. If you think you should be able to enforce restrictions on your IP, then you have to let them enforce restrictions on theirs. Even if they want different restrictions than you do.
Only two types? Sorry, leasing is a separate type from renting and a transfer of ownership. You might not think so, but it is according to the law. Read a few more legal books before you call anyone else on a lack of education.
I think you will also find in those books that rent is a periodic payment by a person for the use of another's property. There is an inherent requirement for a limitation on the time of use in the agreement for it to be considered a rental instead of a sale.
Sorry, I was still calling you a hypocrite. The phrase 'double standard' implies it in case you didn't understand.
License agreements don't turn the sale into a rental. What part of the license says you have to turn the CD back in after a certain amount of time? No part. I could say that that's showing a lack of understanding and logic, but you and I both know you are basically just making stuff up at this point.
It's great how you keep coming back to "the media industry is restricting sharing" without answering the obvious contradiction between your expectations for them to give back to you and how you don't want to give back to them. Just keep dodging like that so you don't have to admit to yourself that you really do have a double standard there. That might be a psychological deficiency. Unfortunately, lack of ethics aren't as easily treatable with pharmaceuticals.
Ohhh, I see. So the GPL writer has the right to impose a condition to ensure the product is not relabeled, but the Media company has no such right. Got it. Once again. Hypocrisy.
Thinking that someone else will have to give back while using your IP, while not giving back to them while using theirs (when they require it as you do) is hypocrisy. There is nothing unfounded about it.
Excellent. Why don't we let all the companies that would like to copy Linux and sell it in devices without providing their source code just do it? They aren't depriving another person of the ownership of Linux. The opensource developers aren't loosing anything.
Think this idea will get a +4 Insightful as well? I don't. Hypocrites Rule!
Where's the law that says you have to buy their CDs? Where's the law that says you have to buy tickets to see their movies or rent their DVDs?
Their isn't any. You don't have to see the movie. You don't have to listen to the music. You don't buy (*OR* steal)<-- That's voting with your dollars. It's really not a hard concept to grasp.
Just because something is technically possible, it doesn't make it right. Wire fraud is technically possible. I guess it should just be allowed because because technology has outpaced paper money... Kind of an idiotic point of view, isn't it?
There are good reasons that it's not good to download the stuff, but comparing it to swiping materials is just going to make you look dumb to the majority of Slashdot.
That's ok. The majority of Slashdot seems to think copying a song without permission is no big deal. But when a company copies Linux and releases it without the source, then it's a HUGE deal.
Gotta love the hypocrisy.
(disclaimer: Yes, I know Slashdot has a lot of different folks on it and not all share those same set of views at the same time, but a lot of them seem to.)
Slashdot Mirror
Dave Cutler wasn't just some guy from DEC. He was one of VMS's main architects. Imagining he applied a lot of what he learned writing VMS to NT just doesn't take that much imagination.
Just a guess but, maybe a lack of someone working on OpenSSH who actually uses UnixWare 7?
Don't worry about Sony having to sell it at a loss. They'll make it up as they disable the drives on lots machines that they have decided is tryingt to play 'stolen' media. Then they can sell them a new working Blue-Ray.
Awwww, does tweety want a Holstein?
School buses should have been used to transport people as already stated.
He basically ordered that thousands of folks to show up at the superdome for an emergency situation. How can you do that and not make sure that the place has food/water and some police/security??? Truely unbelievable.
Lack of planning on how to evacuate the elderly/infirm who couldn't even walk 5 miles to higher ground if needed like the able bodied.
Lack of planning for evacuating the hospitals.
The list goes on and on, lots of screwups. There was no planning.
But waiting until 24 hours before to actually order the evacuation was not out of line. Those big hurricanes are notorious for changing course rapidly, and they didn't really know for sure it would hit anywhere near New Orleans till then.
But he had plenty of time before then to set up a battle plan before that time to handle things. He didn't. "Everybody either leave town or got the the Superdome" is not a battle plan for emergency circumstances. He's as useless as the head of FEMA, and the guitar playing grinning idiot running this country.
We used to drink. Heavily.
"Again, we are focusing on workstation and server applications" Their bolding, not mine.
They also state...
"The 64 bit Apple Machines were running OS X Server 10.4.1 (Tiger) and Yellow Dog 4.0 Linux version 2.6.10-1.ydl.1g5-smp." Again, their bolding, not mine.
It certainly seems they are discussing OS X as a server.
As to your second point, they probably had a G5 box handy. The CPUs and motherboard archetecture of the Xserve is pretty much the same as the G5. Heck, the Xserve even uses the same serial ATA hard drive system as the G5 instead of a SCSI system many other vendors would use in their servers. The only real difference between the two systems is their form factor and video cards. For the purposes of this article, I think those can safely be ignored.
The article certainly has plenty of flaws, but testing OS X as a server (vs desktop) isn't one of them.
Personally I don't like MySQL, but I'd say their 'study' was hugely flawed if MySQL and Postrgres were known to run flawlessly on it, but they instead chose to benchmark Oracle if Oracle was known to have a huge bug.
1) You can't get OSX on top end x86 hardware to test.
and
2) They do talk about kernel locking issues which should be the same wheather the OS is running on PowerPC or x86 hardware.
That's all nice and all for you, but Apple does sell these things the call XServe's that are supposed to be "servers". And they run an OS called OS X "Server". Some of us really do run servers and it's informative to us for deciding if we should include a G5 or OS X Server as an option for new servers we need. I'm terribly sorry it doesn't interest most Mac users, but it certainly interests some of us. If you don't care, just skip the article.
Yes. Don't listen to people in irc channels. :)
Well then, I guess all of florida and Texas should have evacuated north then by your logic eh? It was going to hit somewhere!
Evacuating areas you don't need to is bad for the reasons I already listed. If you know a hurricane is coming you can always throw some clothes in a bag, make sure the car is gassed up, and then leave once you know it's really going to hit (the 24 hour notice).
NOT moving them out surely is going to be a "major disruption" to some people i.e. being DEAD and all...
That makes a pretty damn good arguement for leaving the area once you know it's coming. Lots of them didn't.
Ever considered people who a) are poor and didn't know there was public transport available to move them out? b) were unable to move because they are too sick/disabled/emotionally disturbed to move out?
Certainly there were some elderly and sick people who couldn't easily move. Of course I feel bad for them. The vast majority of people you see on TV down there, however, were QUITE capable of *walking* 10 miles across town to higher ground if that was their only means of transport and escaping likely drowning. It's those idiots I don't feel sorry for.
If those idiots had left like they were supposed to, the job of bussing out, sheltering, or rescuing those who were too sick or infirm to move themselves would be much much easier.
Most likely because
1) Hurricanes of that magnitude are known to shift directions quickly and they weren't sure it was really going to hit near NO till then.
2) If the hurricane wasn't really going to land there, moving that many people is a major disruption in peoples lives, commerce, and leaves areas open for looters
3) If you know you live in a place below sea level, next to the ocean, and a class 5 hurricane is coming towards you, you should be fucking smart enough to know to leave without someone having to 'order' it. Darwin rules.
If you want to argue that extending the copyright lengths to what they are currently is unhealthy and that we should reduce their lengths back toward what they were originally, I'm all with you.
But many on here seem to think that copyright/patenting and allowing folks to have some time to profit from their IP is a terrible thing and should be abolished. I disagree entirely with them and agree with the founding fathers that it's a good idea for just the reason you stated.
Because you want to force them to deal with your limitations on YOUR IP, while not dealing with their limitations on THEIR IP.
It's a double standard.
It doesn't matter if the 'goal is openness' or whatever noble thing (in your opinion) you are after. If you think you should be able to enforce restrictions on your IP, then you have to let them enforce restrictions on theirs. Even if they want different restrictions than you do.
Only two types? Sorry, leasing is a separate type from renting and a transfer of ownership. You might not think so, but it is according to the law. Read a few more legal books before you call anyone else on a lack of education.
I think you will also find in those books that rent is a periodic payment by a person for the use of another's property. There is an inherent requirement for a limitation on the time of use in the agreement for it to be considered a rental instead of a sale.
License agreements don't turn the sale into a rental. What part of the license says you have to turn the CD back in after a certain amount of time? No part. I could say that that's showing a lack of understanding and logic, but you and I both know you are basically just making stuff up at this point.
It's great how you keep coming back to "the media industry is restricting sharing" without answering the obvious contradiction between your expectations for them to give back to you and how you don't want to give back to them. Just keep dodging like that so you don't have to admit to yourself that you really do have a double standard there. That might be a psychological deficiency. Unfortunately, lack of ethics aren't as easily treatable with pharmaceuticals.
Ohhh, I see. So the GPL writer has the right to impose a condition to ensure the product is not relabeled, but the Media company has no such right. Got it. Once again. Hypocrisy.
I anxiously await their arrival.
Thinking that someone else will have to give back while using your IP, while not giving back to them while using theirs (when they require it as you do) is hypocrisy. There is nothing unfounded about it.
Who was attacking the GPL? I was attacking you because you are a hypocrite.
So when we share their information without giving back to them it's good.
And when they share our information without giving back it's bad.
Is that what your saying? Gotya. Like I said. You are a hypocrite.
Think this idea will get a +4 Insightful as well? I don't. Hypocrites Rule!
Where's the law that says you have to buy their CDs? Where's the law that says you have to buy tickets to see their movies or rent their DVDs?
Their isn't any. You don't have to see the movie. You don't have to listen to the music. You don't buy (*OR* steal)<-- That's voting with your dollars. It's really not a hard concept to grasp.
Just because something is technically possible, it doesn't make it right. Wire fraud is technically possible. I guess it should just be allowed because because technology has outpaced paper money... Kind of an idiotic point of view, isn't it?
That's ok. The majority of Slashdot seems to think copying a song without permission is no big deal. But when a company copies Linux and releases it without the source, then it's a HUGE deal.
Gotta love the hypocrisy.
(disclaimer: Yes, I know Slashdot has a lot of different folks on it and not all share those same set of views at the same time, but a lot of them seem to.)