I am thinking of reducing the amount of swap on my primary compute server -- the reason is simple: if the machine starts using appreciable amounts of swap, it becomes so slow, it is unusable. So, really, by reducing the swap, what I do is get the OOM killer to take action and kill some processes sooner. I may have an unusual situation that when my machine is out of memory, the cause is almost certainly due to a process that I want killed anyway.
The problem with this is that there is no guarantee that the process(es) that the kernel kills are the ones that are causing the problem (basically put a process is killed when it requests a resource that is not available and that is not necessarily the process that is hogging the resource to begin with). A better approach is to limit the resources that a given process can use with utilities such as ulimit and similar so that it sees the resource as being unavailable sooner and is killed off instead of something else more critical.
Linux will use swap sometimes even if you don't fill up your RAM. It can swap out idle programs and use the recovered RAM for file caching which gives a performance boost to the file system.
with Bind a simple run of sed through the text config files and a restart and you're done.
Not quite. You would still need to update serial numbers which is very important. I can't think of a simple line of sed that would both update the config itself and the serial numbers in all relevant files.
You'd be surprised. Nowadays, they're packing up to 8 movies on a dual layer DVD (just over 1 gig each) and the quality isn't that bad. You can get avi rips off the internet that are less than 800 megs and they're pretty good too. I can easily see them putting a decent quality movie on a 2 gig USB key.
I'm sure this technology will be cracked before it gets out the door (the fact that it plays on Linux means I can probably already dump the stream from my player) but seriously, why bother with a movie that's already been ripped 100 times?
One other thing you never seem to get rid of are all the Memory Leaks. And if you have multiple independent processes running now, does this mean that Google Chrome will have (memory leaks) * (# of tabs) = (much bigger memory leaks overall)?
Hopefully what it means is that memory will be individually associated with each tab with its own process or thread. When you close one tab it would free up the memory for that tab instead of having to close the entire browser to recover the leaked memory.
The second question is: will Google Chrome run natively under GNU/Linux, and if so, using which GUI toolkit? Well, I doubt it very much it will at all,
This is just the beginning -- Google Chrome is far from done. We're releasing this beta for Windows to start the broader discussion and hear from you as quickly as possible. We're hard at work building versions for Mac and Linux too, and will continue to make it even faster and more robust.
They are also open sourcing the browser, so even if they don't build it for Linux someone will:
We owe a great debt to many open source projects, and we're committed to continuing on their path. We've used components from Apple's WebKit and Mozilla's Firefox, among others -- and in that spirit, we are making all of our code open source as well. We hope to collaborate with the entire community to help drive the web forward.
Actually the question on my mind is what's going to happen to Mozilla? As I remember, they get most of their backing from Google generously paying for the traffic they get from Mozilla's search plugin. If Google cancels that deal (and they very well might, if they have a competing browser), Mozilla will lose most of its cash-flow very suddenly.
I can't see that happening. If Google canceled that deal they would loose all that traffic they get from FireFox users. They want to pull more people off of IE and onto a browser that uses google search by default. I doubt whether they care much if it's their browser or FF, just adding Google browser to the mix will add another front to the war that MS has to fight.
I've found gscan2pdf to be excellent for doing automated (via a document feeder) or semi-automated (flat bed scanner or other source) scans to pdf format and it supports importing from jpg or other formats. It also supports OCRing if you have gocr or tesseract installed (I recommend tesseract as an excellent OCR utility). I'm not sure if this is available for windows, though, you may have to have GNU/Linux to use these programs.
Oh yes, and it even can properly paginate all the scans of a double sided document from a single-sided automatic document feeder (it knows how to put them into correct page order) by just flipping the stack of documents over and feeding them back into the feeder.
dd in linux will image the disk just fine (it will make a bit by bit copy). You will still need to find a driver for the file system to be able read the data, though.
The interface with the drives was a NEC 765 FDC, used for the same purpose in the IBM PC/XT, PC/AT and PS/2 machines.
...so that suggests that the IBM compatible floppy interface built into most modern motherboards should be compatible with the drive. Now finding a driver to read the file system may be a different matter.
What kind of "warning" is that? That if you misrepresent your product you might have to sell another product to affected consumers at around the wholesale price (where the manufacturer still makes a profit)? And that people might flock to your online store to buy loads of stuff because they think they're getting a great deal with a 20% discount?
The only real fine here is $5000, pocket change.
It's my understanding that when you steal from a store, they ban you from ever returning to the store. I have always assumed that this ban is meaningless because they just don't have the resources to make sure that you don't come back.
It's not about keeping you from coming back. What it's about is having teeth to get you with next time they think you may be shoplifting. Shoplifting can be difficult to prove and prosecute in some areas (I really intended to pay for that, I just shoved it in my pocket because I only have two hands). Any property owner (or tenant, etc.) can (in most areas) issue a type of "trespass" or "restraining" order to any person which legally denies them permission to enter the property again and can be prosecuted if they do. Hence they issue such an order and if the offender is caught on the property again (maybe they are caught trying to shoplift again) then they don't have to rely on proving the shoplifting to prosecute, all they have to show is that they issued the trespass order and the alleged shoplifter can be prosecuted that way instead.
Former FBI Official Imaj Oke stated today that We need a new earth due to the massive amounts of crime and terrorism on this one.
"Our current planet is so rife with criminal activity that we need to populate a new planet that will be restricted only to fully law abiding citizens." He said at an interview earlier this afternoon, "Once we have established the new planet the old one will, of course no longer be necessary and will be dismantled for parts."
Oke went on to describe the technical merits of the new planet stating that life on the planet would be fully controlled by benevolent corporate monopoly interests to ensure that nobody's intellectual property is infringed.
I'm surprised he isn't able to torture those members of the house who dissent until they bend to his will, it is the security of the United States which is at risk here and any reasonable person would understand that all available measures must be employed to maintain that security.
But if other people have contributed to the code - anything at all - then won't the code forevermore be GPL - even future versions? I thought that was the point of the GPL..
ie. to get away from it, he'd have to reimplement everything from scratch..
Yes, unless the oroginal author either (a) gets permission from all the contributors or (b) removes their code from the project. In this particular case he claims to be the "sole author of both the atscap and the pchdtvr codebases" so that particular point is moot. He still can't terminate the existing license that he distributed the code with, though, and that license (the GPL) gives explicit permission to redistribute.
The text of the GPL is a contract. Licenses are simple grants--permission to do x, within the scope of y, except where z. The GPL requires further action, requires active agreement, and takes away rights from licensees. The GPL is not purely a license, but EULA like the others--a license created by contract.
Bzzzt, wrong.
The GPL is a license in that it grants additional privileges not already granted under copyright law. There is no contractual obligation on the part of the recipient except that the GPL is the only means by which he can get those privileges so if he doesn't agree to it then he does not have any other means to obtain permission to copy and (re-)distribute the software (unless the software is dual-licensed). The only way that your privileges under the GPL can be revoked is if you violate one of its provisions.
If I were to redistribute atscap and conform to all the conditions required by the license and this guy were to take me to court to try to stop me, all I would have to do is show the license that I recieved with the software which explicitly gives me permission to redistribute to the judge and the case would be dismissed (note: IANAL and it may not be quite this easy, but that is the general principle of it).
You cannot revoke any version of the GPL (or most OS licenses for that matter) as it is a perpetual and irrevocable license. You can, however, release future versions of the software under any license you want as long as you hold the copyright, but that's not what this author is trying to do, he's trying to tell people that the software they already got unther the GPL can no longer be used under the GPL and they must destroy their copies. This goes against everything the GPL and Free Software stands for.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps Microsoft's investment in customer service is to reduce return rates when folk turn on a new version.
There, fixed that for ya.
I am thinking of reducing the amount of swap on my primary compute server -- the reason is simple: if the machine starts using appreciable amounts of swap, it becomes so slow, it is unusable. So, really, by reducing the swap, what I do is get the OOM killer to take action and kill some processes sooner. I may have an unusual situation that when my machine is out of memory, the cause is almost certainly due to a process that I want killed anyway.
The problem with this is that there is no guarantee that the process(es) that the kernel kills are the ones that are causing the problem (basically put a process is killed when it requests a resource that is not available and that is not necessarily the process that is hogging the resource to begin with). A better approach is to limit the resources that a given process can use with utilities such as ulimit and similar so that it sees the resource as being unavailable sooner and is killed off instead of something else more critical.
Linux will use swap sometimes even if you don't fill up your RAM. It can swap out idle programs and use the recovered RAM for file caching which gives a performance boost to the file system.
with Bind a simple run of sed through the text config files and a restart and you're done.
Not quite. You would still need to update serial numbers which is very important. I can't think of a simple line of sed that would both update the config itself and the serial numbers in all relevant files.
You'd be surprised. Nowadays, they're packing up to 8 movies on a dual layer DVD (just over 1 gig each) and the quality isn't that bad. You can get avi rips off the internet that are less than 800 megs and they're pretty good too. I can easily see them putting a decent quality movie on a 2 gig USB key.
What would be the point?
I'm sure this technology will be cracked before it gets out the door (the fact that it plays on Linux means I can probably already dump the stream from my player) but seriously, why bother with a movie that's already been ripped 100 times?
One other thing you never seem to get rid of are all the Memory Leaks. And if you have multiple independent processes running now, does this mean that Google Chrome will have (memory leaks) * (# of tabs) = (much bigger memory leaks overall)?
Hopefully what it means is that memory will be individually associated with each tab with its own process or thread. When you close one tab it would free up the memory for that tab instead of having to close the entire browser to recover the leaked memory.
The second question is: will Google Chrome run natively under GNU/Linux, and if so, using which GUI toolkit? Well, I doubt it very much it will at all,
Google has an official announcement now where they say:
They are also open sourcing the browser, so even if they don't build it for Linux someone will:
Actually the question on my mind is what's going to happen to Mozilla? As I remember, they get most of their backing from Google generously paying for the traffic they get from Mozilla's search plugin. If Google cancels that deal (and they very well might, if they have a competing browser), Mozilla will lose most of its cash-flow very suddenly.
I can't see that happening. If Google canceled that deal they would loose all that traffic they get from FireFox users. They want to pull more people off of IE and onto a browser that uses google search by default. I doubt whether they care much if it's their browser or FF, just adding Google browser to the mix will add another front to the war that MS has to fight.
The US VP ... gets a vote in Congress,
Actually, half of a vote, or a tie breaker only vote.
I've found gscan2pdf to be excellent for doing automated (via a document feeder) or semi-automated (flat bed scanner or other source) scans to pdf format and it supports importing from jpg or other formats. It also supports OCRing if you have gocr or tesseract installed (I recommend tesseract as an excellent OCR utility). I'm not sure if this is available for windows, though, you may have to have GNU/Linux to use these programs.
Oh yes, and it even can properly paginate all the scans of a double sided document from a single-sided automatic document feeder (it knows how to put them into correct page order) by just flipping the stack of documents over and feeding them back into the feeder.
Private Investigator
Yes Twice.
ummmm, probably because the maximum length of CAT 5/5e/6/6a cable is 100 meters?
dd in linux will image the disk just fine (it will make a bit by bit copy). You will still need to find a driver for the file system to be able read the data, though.
What kind of "warning" is that? That if you misrepresent your product you might have to sell another product to affected consumers at around the wholesale price (where the manufacturer still makes a profit)? And that people might flock to your online store to buy loads of stuff because they think they're getting a great deal with a 20% discount? The only real fine here is $5000, pocket change.
It's not about keeping you from coming back. What it's about is having teeth to get you with next time they think you may be shoplifting. Shoplifting can be difficult to prove and prosecute in some areas (I really intended to pay for that, I just shoved it in my pocket because I only have two hands). Any property owner (or tenant, etc.) can (in most areas) issue a type of "trespass" or "restraining" order to any person which legally denies them permission to enter the property again and can be prosecuted if they do. Hence they issue such an order and if the offender is caught on the property again (maybe they are caught trying to shoplift again) then they don't have to rely on proving the shoplifting to prosecute, all they have to show is that they issued the trespass order and the alleged shoplifter can be prosecuted that way instead.
Former FBI Official Imaj Oke stated today that We need a new earth due to the massive amounts of crime and terrorism on this one.
"Our current planet is so rife with criminal activity that we need to populate a new planet that will be restricted only to fully law abiding citizens." He said at an interview earlier this afternoon, "Once we have established the new planet the old one will, of course no longer be necessary and will be dismantled for parts."
Oke went on to describe the technical merits of the new planet stating that life on the planet would be fully controlled by benevolent corporate monopoly interests to ensure that nobody's intellectual property is infringed.
He may not be able to torture them, but he can spin it to try to make it look like the house is blatantly putting Americans at risk for not passing the bill. He does such a great job of tieing the bill into the shooting too, almost as if the lack of such a bill is responsible for it.
Funny how he promises to veto the bill unless this immunity provision is in place, I don't see anything about that provision in his little speech.
If you can talk them into giving you ssh access it is trivial to talk them into giving you root access at the same time, exploit isn't needed.
ie. to get away from it, he'd have to reimplement everything from scratch..
Yes, unless the oroginal author either (a) gets permission from all the contributors or (b) removes their code from the project. In this particular case he claims to be the "sole author of both the atscap and the pchdtvr codebases" so that particular point is moot. He still can't terminate the existing license that he distributed the code with, though, and that license (the GPL) gives explicit permission to redistribute.
The text of the GPL is a contract. Licenses are simple grants--permission to do x, within the scope of y, except where z. The GPL requires further action, requires active agreement, and takes away rights from licensees. The GPL is not purely a license, but EULA like the others--a license created by contract.
Bzzzt, wrong.
The GPL is a license in that it grants additional privileges not already granted under copyright law. There is no contractual obligation on the part of the recipient except that the GPL is the only means by which he can get those privileges so if he doesn't agree to it then he does not have any other means to obtain permission to copy and (re-)distribute the software (unless the software is dual-licensed). The only way that your privileges under the GPL can be revoked is if you violate one of its provisions.
If I were to redistribute atscap and conform to all the conditions required by the license and this guy were to take me to court to try to stop me, all I would have to do is show the license that I recieved with the software which explicitly gives me permission to redistribute to the judge and the case would be dismissed (note: IANAL and it may not be quite this easy, but that is the general principle of it).
BTW, Groklaw has had a very good article on the difference between a license and a contract a few years ago, I highly suggest reading it, especially if you fail to grasp why the GPL is a license and not a contract.
Yes.
You cannot revoke any version of the GPL (or most OS licenses for that matter) as it is a perpetual and irrevocable license. You can, however, release future versions of the software under any license you want as long as you hold the copyright, but that's not what this author is trying to do, he's trying to tell people that the software they already got unther the GPL can no longer be used under the GPL and they must destroy their copies. This goes against everything the GPL and Free Software stands for.