>It was not a rip-off, unless you meant rip-off in the sense that it sucked.
It sucked greatly to the quality I expect from Gibson. The reason I also say "rip-off" is that the movie producers changed basic plot and names. Sort of like rip-off Rolex'es are Bolex.
We've had a bit of people affected by Nachi/welchia. The patching is not a problem at all.. but it's what nachi brings.
1: Usual reboot to brig in patch.
2: Locks itself in/winnt/system32/wins as svchost.exe and dllhost.exe . These processes are unkillable and undeletable without nasty anti-nachi patches
3: When 1 computer is infected on network, it floods the network adaptor at full output to pingscan the entire network, then internet.
4: When you have 3 or more on a network, the gateway becomes flooded and traffic slows to a crawl. If more than half are infected on a segment, no traffic gets through.
My main concern is that the 3 examples given were shoddy "censorship". What about other censorships done by Google that we havent been informed.
The thougt I'm trying to convey is that "everybody" uses google. Because they control what sites 'exist', they can make sites disappear. It's sort of like controlling somebodys language. If they dont know the word to convey something, how can they describe it? That's what Orwell was worried about.
After I describe it, it's not so trollish, is it? After all, I figured the/. community couldve picked up on that... but I guess not.
What google is censoring. Knowing that any DMCA 'request' Google deletes any record from them being.. How do we trust them?
They've showed that they have no regard for true searchfulness as they cut out Kazaa Lite, Clambake, many parts of scientology debunking. What else do they cut out that we dont know?
I have at least 8 search engines that I use constantly. And slowly, google is lowering itself in my eyes.
>I'm not talking about gnu/linux, just linux, the kernel. Which is monolithic.
Not quite. Normal monolithics did not have any sort of loadable module support. If you've ever installed System V, you have to do a kernel compile for your destination machine. Linux sort of breaks the monolithic 'tradition' by allowing movable modules of kernel to and fro, even on hardware insert.
A good example of modular system is Hurd. Everything in the system is removable except that small kernel bit.
>Which requires a recompile every time theres a significant architecture change.
I'd expect so. After all, since there's no Linux kernel fat binaries, I'd have to recompile to go from X86 to Mips or G(x). If you're thinking about adding cards on the busses (which most will think), that wouldnt need a kernel compile unless you didnt have modules or up to date configs to run the semi-source (ala Nvidia) to run it against.
>Which requires most real hardware support to be bottlenecked through Linus' selection process.
True. It also provides that the maintainers have actually tested it for goodness. After all, anybody can make a module/kernel code. Whether it passes LKML scrutiny is Linus' or the section maintainers discresion.
>Which is utterly retarded if the goal is a flexible OS.
That comment was utterly retarded. See? I just stated my opinion. They provide nothing to a logical argument.
>"Zealots flame away, since obviously your beloved linux kernel is beyond criticism. It's still the truth. ", The zealot proclaims.
Remember how Linus is "for" ring-0 like code ala TCPA? He said it had its place, and he was not going to play politician. Well, with IBM patches and the TCPA chip they made, that would go well with the election software.
Heck, if you wanted to get REALLY secure (given linux):
1: Have TCPA hardware/software installed 2: Have NSA security extentions on kernel 3: Have rootplug support setup so that ONLY the county seat has access to them.
Once this is setup, you cant enter root. If there was a kernel bug with Rootplug, you couldnt do much either. Lastly, rebooting a new OS will not allow you to see the data unencrypted. And of course, backups could be made to WORMs
Torvalds, Cox, and Stallman get that similar award.
After all, the free software was pushed by Torvalds and Cox by providing a free Nix under the gpl that pushes software in an open way.
And of course, Stallman, for writing Gnu C. No other FOSS comiler existed for C until he made it. And it was used in many unixes, NExT, Linux, *BSD, MacOS 10, and Linux with compilers also for WIndows. I'd say he would qualify for it too.
Re:Tattoos and other forms of fan appreciation
on
Ask Neil Gaiman
·
· Score: 1
Damn straight. I've never heard of the guy, and some bink lady gets his signature on her ass.
Re:Tattoos and other forms of fan appreciation
on
Ask Neil Gaiman
·
· Score: 1
You know, that kind of thing is just sad. That'd be one thing if my gd wanted to get a small tatoo, like a heart, somewhere. But some other guys signature?
If I was you (not you Ian), I'd dump her and get some girl that didnt have issues of worshipping some author. After all, seems that she loves somebody that she met once, and not you.
Sit down, turn off your cellphone, and prepare to be fascinated. Clear your schedule, because once you've started reading this interview, you won't be able to put it down until you've finished it.
Who would ever, in this time of the greatest interconnectivity in human history, go back to shipping bytes around via snail mail as a preferred means of data transfer? (Really, just what type of throughput does the USPS offer?) Jim Gray would do it, that's who. And we're not just talking about Zip disks, no sir; we're talking about shipping entire hard drives, or even complete computer systems, packed full of disks.
Gray, head of Microsoft's Bay Area Research Center, sits down with Queue and tells us what type of a voracious appetite for data could require such extreme measures. A recent winner of the ACM Turing Award, Gray is a giant in the world of database and transaction-processing computer systems. Before Microsoft, he worked at a few companies you might know: Digital, Tandem, IBM, and AT&T. He's also a member of the Queue Editorial Advisory Board.
Shooting questions at Gray on such topics as open-source databases and smart disks is David Patterson, who holds the Pardee Chair of Computer Science at the University of California at Berkeley. Patterson headed up the design and implementation of RISC I, which laid the foundations for Sun's SPARC architecture. Along with Randy Katz, Patterson also helped pioneer redundant arrays of independent disks--yes, RAID. DAVE PATTERSON What is the state of storage today?
JIM GRAY We have an embarrassment of riches in that we're able to store more than we can access. Capacities continue to double each year, while access times are improving at 10 percent per year. So, we have a vastly larger storage pool, with a relatively narrow pipeline into it.
We're not really geared for this. Having lots of RAM helps. We can cache a lot in main memory and reduce secondary storage access. But the fundamental problem is that we are building a larger reservoir with more or less the same diameter pipe coming out of the reservoir. We have a much harder time accessing things inside the reservoir.
DP How big were storage systems when you got started?
JG Twenty-megabyte disks were considered giant. I believe that the first time I asked anybody, about 1970, disk storage rented for a dollar per megabyte a month. IBM leased rather than sold storage at the time. Each disk was the size of a washing machine and cost around $20,000.
Much of our energy in those days went into optimizing access. It's difficult for people today to appreciate that, especially when they hold one of these $100 disks in their hand that has 10,000 times more capacity and is 100 times cheaper than the disks of 30 years ago.
DP How did we end up with wretched excess of capacity versus access?
JG First, people in the laboratory have been improving density. From about 1960 to 1990, the magnetic material density improved at something like 35 percent per year--a little slower than Moore's Law. In fact, there was a lot of discussion that RAM megabyte per dollar would surpass disks because RAM was following Moore's Law and disks were evolving much more slowly.
But starting about 1989, disk densities began to double each year. Rather than going slower than Moore's Law, they grew faster. Moore's Law is something like 60 percent a year, and disk densities improved 100 percent per year.
Today disk-capacity growth continues at this blistering rate, maybe a little slower. But disk access, which is to say, "Move the disk arm to the right cylinder and rotate the disk to the right block," has improved about tenfold. The rotation speed has gone up from 3,000 to 15,000 RPM, and the access times have gone from 50 milliseconds down to 5 milliseconds. That's a factor of 10. Bandwidth has improved about 40-fold, from 1 megabyte per second to 40 megabytes per second. Access times are improving about 7 to 10 percent per year. Meanwhile, densities have been improvi
Take computers used, software used, servers used, general topo of network, speed of pipes (together) and competancy of admin. The conglomeration is the "Computer and Network Insurance (CANI)".
I wonder how much would be charged for a competant unix admin, on heavilly firewalled subnet of mac and windows (seperated, of course) boxen, with Linux servers, and a T-3. --- Probably not as much as Winders with MCSE.
But a systems programmer could learn complex networking for making complex software that uses tricky (as in time and bandwidth critical) programming such as Beowulf, clustering, Grid, anonymous P2P, and others.
And well, if your program eats cpu like candy, why not make it 'clusterable' once you learn the network semantics of it? That's what the makers of Cinelerra did.
Too true. I knew about those options too, but if he wants logging, he can make a cheap logserver that archives these problems across the whole network. If it's only 1 computer, I'd probably use a real terminal or a cheapie like your minix box or printer.
OK. Then how do you guarantee the state of the kernel? If you use bios calls, it screws up the memmap even more. Thats assuming you can even pass something like that.
100$ question: How do you break out of code inserted that might have had a bug? How do you determine what code had that bug?
Answer those, and then I'll trust Write_after_system_crash api
You fail to understand what happens to create the "Dirty Bit".
1: System starts up (say clean). 2: It marks a bit on the partition that system has been started up. 3: Usage Usage Usage 4: Send shutdown 5: System umounts cleanly. Undoes "dirty bit" 6: Power == 0
On a dirty FS, stage #5 is never hit so when system comes back on, it checks the bit and detects unclean shutdown. The bit is never wrote during the unclean shutdown.
In the similar problem, I see problems when NTkern crashes. How exactly does it manage to:
1: Read the partitiom 2: Read the program on the partition 3: Run the insert log program to add log entry 4: Still have the "blue screen"
I smell nasty data corruption waiting to happen. After all, if you cant guarantee the state of the kernel, does it really justify reading, writing, and executing on a crashed kernel????
1: Security levels 2: Jail 3: PF - OS detection leading to modification of data stream (MS system lead to Linux ISO site) 4: Stable, high performance FS 5: Runs most linux junk (look at sourceforge, most are abandonware). Just doesnt run stuff that depends on proc unless you enable/proc (idiot) 6: Lot more quotas over users than you have in Linux
Those few features keep certain users on BSD. I figure Linux might get all those features. Still, if you want a really good system, get AIX. Linux and BSD is a good standby for cutting cost as long as you can deal with the limited feature set.
Slashdot Mirror
Hows the Clone open-source BEOS going?
We havent heard much about it..
>It was not a rip-off, unless you meant rip-off in the sense that it sucked.
It sucked greatly to the quality I expect from Gibson. The reason I also say "rip-off" is that the movie producers changed basic plot and names. Sort of like rip-off Rolex'es are Bolex.
We've had a bit of people affected by Nachi/welchia. The patching is not a problem at all.. but it's what nachi brings.
/winnt/system32/wins as svchost.exe and dllhost.exe . These processes are unkillable and undeletable without nasty anti-nachi patches
1: Usual reboot to brig in patch.
2: Locks itself in
3: When 1 computer is infected on network, it floods the network adaptor at full output to pingscan the entire network, then internet.
4: When you have 3 or more on a network, the gateway becomes flooded and traffic slows to a crawl. If more than half are infected on a segment, no traffic gets through.
Much nastier than blaster, in my opinion.
Johnny Mnemonic was a rip-off movie that portraied Neuromancer (William Gibson). The game, Shadowrun, is a magic added version of the book.
If anything, the future looks something like Neuromancer. I sure am ready for it..
Damn. And I thought that Linux Zealots were bad.
/. community couldve picked up on that... but I guess not.
My main concern is that the 3 examples given were shoddy "censorship". What about other censorships done by Google that we havent been informed.
The thougt I'm trying to convey is that "everybody" uses google. Because they control what sites 'exist', they can make sites disappear. It's sort of like controlling somebodys language. If they dont know the word to convey something, how can they describe it? That's what Orwell was worried about.
After I describe it, it's not so trollish, is it? After all, I figured the
What google is censoring. Knowing that any DMCA 'request' Google deletes any record from them being.. How do we trust them?
They've showed that they have no regard for true searchfulness as they cut out Kazaa Lite, Clambake, many parts of scientology debunking. What else do they cut out that we dont know?
I have at least 8 search engines that I use constantly. And slowly, google is lowering itself in my eyes.
>I'm not talking about gnu/linux, just linux, the kernel. Which is monolithic.
Not quite. Normal monolithics did not have any sort of loadable module support. If you've ever installed System V, you have to do a kernel compile for your destination machine. Linux sort of breaks the monolithic 'tradition' by allowing movable modules of kernel to and fro, even on hardware insert.
A good example of modular system is Hurd. Everything in the system is removable except that small kernel bit.
>Which requires a recompile every time theres a significant architecture change.
I'd expect so. After all, since there's no Linux kernel fat binaries, I'd have to recompile to go from X86 to Mips or G(x). If you're thinking about adding cards on the busses (which most will think), that wouldnt need a kernel compile unless you didnt have modules or up to date configs to run the semi-source (ala Nvidia) to run it against.
>Which requires most real hardware support to be bottlenecked through Linus' selection process.
True. It also provides that the maintainers have actually tested it for goodness. After all, anybody can make a module/kernel code. Whether it passes LKML scrutiny is Linus' or the section maintainers discresion.
>Which is utterly retarded if the goal is a flexible OS.
That comment was utterly retarded. See? I just stated my opinion. They provide nothing to a logical argument.
>"Zealots flame away, since obviously your beloved linux kernel is beyond criticism. It's still the truth. ", The zealot proclaims.
Remember how Linus is "for" ring-0 like code ala TCPA? He said it had its place, and he was not going to play politician. Well, with IBM patches and the TCPA chip they made, that would go well with the election software.
Heck, if you wanted to get REALLY secure (given linux):
1: Have TCPA hardware/software installed
2: Have NSA security extentions on kernel
3: Have rootplug support setup so that ONLY the county seat has access to them.
Once this is setup, you cant enter root. If there was a kernel bug with Rootplug, you couldnt do much either. Lastly, rebooting a new OS will not allow you to see the data unencrypted. And of course, backups could be made to WORMs
Nasty setup if done right.
sorta like the goatse movie..
Torvalds, Cox, and Stallman get that similar award.
After all, the free software was pushed by Torvalds and Cox by providing a free Nix under the gpl that pushes software in an open way.
And of course, Stallman, for writing Gnu C. No other FOSS comiler existed for C until he made it. And it was used in many unixes, NExT, Linux, *BSD, MacOS 10, and Linux with compilers also for WIndows. I'd say he would qualify for it too.
Damn straight. I've never heard of the guy, and some bink lady gets his signature on her ass.
You know, that kind of thing is just sad. That'd be one thing if my gd wanted to get a small tatoo, like a heart, somewhere. But some other guys signature?
If I was you (not you Ian), I'd dump her and get some girl that didnt have issues of worshipping some author. After all, seems that she loves somebody that she met once, and not you.
Have you both had a mental examination?
munch munch munch
NEED MORE INPUT!
Sit down, turn off your cellphone, and prepare to be fascinated. Clear your schedule, because once you've started reading this interview, you won't be able to put it down until you've finished it.
Who would ever, in this time of the greatest interconnectivity in human history, go back to shipping bytes around via snail mail as a preferred means of data transfer? (Really, just what type of throughput does the USPS offer?) Jim Gray would do it, that's who. And we're not just talking about Zip disks, no sir; we're talking about shipping entire hard drives, or even complete computer systems, packed full of disks.
Gray, head of Microsoft's Bay Area Research Center, sits down with Queue and tells us what type of a voracious appetite for data could require such extreme measures. A recent winner of the ACM Turing Award, Gray is a giant in the world of database and transaction-processing computer systems. Before Microsoft, he worked at a few companies you might know: Digital, Tandem, IBM, and AT&T. He's also a member of the Queue Editorial Advisory Board.
Shooting questions at Gray on such topics as open-source databases and smart disks is David Patterson, who holds the Pardee Chair of Computer Science at the University of California at Berkeley. Patterson headed up the design and implementation of RISC I, which laid the foundations for Sun's SPARC architecture. Along with Randy Katz, Patterson also helped pioneer redundant arrays of independent disks--yes, RAID.
DAVE PATTERSON What is the state of storage today?
JIM GRAY We have an embarrassment of riches in that we're able to store more than we can access. Capacities continue to double each year, while access times are improving at 10 percent per year. So, we have a vastly larger storage pool, with a relatively narrow pipeline into it.
We're not really geared for this. Having lots of RAM helps. We can cache a lot in main memory and reduce secondary storage access. But the fundamental problem is that we are building a larger reservoir with more or less the same diameter pipe coming out of the reservoir. We have a much harder time accessing things inside the reservoir.
DP How big were storage systems when you got started?
JG Twenty-megabyte disks were considered giant. I believe that the first time I asked anybody, about 1970, disk storage rented for a dollar per megabyte a month. IBM leased rather than sold storage at the time. Each disk was the size of a washing machine and cost around $20,000.
Much of our energy in those days went into optimizing access. It's difficult for people today to appreciate that, especially when they hold one of these $100 disks in their hand that has 10,000 times more capacity and is 100 times cheaper than the disks of 30 years ago.
DP How did we end up with wretched excess of capacity versus access?
JG First, people in the laboratory have been improving density. From about 1960 to 1990, the magnetic material density improved at something like 35 percent per year--a little slower than Moore's Law. In fact, there was a lot of discussion that RAM megabyte per dollar would surpass disks because RAM was following Moore's Law and disks were evolving much more slowly.
But starting about 1989, disk densities began to double each year. Rather than going slower than Moore's Law, they grew faster. Moore's Law is something like 60 percent a year, and disk densities improved 100 percent per year.
Today disk-capacity growth continues at this blistering rate, maybe a little slower. But disk access, which is to say, "Move the disk arm to the right cylinder and rotate the disk to the right block," has improved about tenfold. The rotation speed has gone up from 3,000 to 15,000 RPM, and the access times have gone from 50 milliseconds down to 5 milliseconds. That's a factor of 10. Bandwidth has improved about 40-fold, from 1 megabyte per second to 40 megabytes per second. Access times are improving about 7 to 10 percent per year. Meanwhile, densities have been improvi
To computer and network insurance.
Take computers used, software used, servers used, general topo of network, speed of pipes (together) and competancy of admin. The conglomeration is the "Computer and Network Insurance (CANI)".
I wonder how much would be charged for a competant unix admin, on heavilly firewalled subnet of mac and windows (seperated, of course) boxen, with Linux servers, and a T-3. --- Probably not as much as Winders with MCSE.
But a systems programmer could learn complex networking for making complex software that uses tricky (as in time and bandwidth critical) programming such as Beowulf, clustering, Grid, anonymous P2P, and others.
And well, if your program eats cpu like candy, why not make it 'clusterable' once you learn the network semantics of it? That's what the makers of Cinelerra did.
Too true. I knew about those options too, but if he wants logging, he can make a cheap logserver that archives these problems across the whole network.
If it's only 1 computer, I'd probably use a real terminal or a cheapie like your minix box or printer.
OK. Then how do you guarantee the state of the kernel? If you use bios calls, it screws up the memmap even more. Thats assuming you can even pass something like that.
100$ question: How do you break out of code inserted that might have had a bug? How do you determine what code had that bug?
Answer those, and then I'll trust Write_after_system_crash api
Hospitals, player killing will take on a new meaning.
;-\)
And also that guy with the syringe as seen on HalfLife
You fail to understand what happens to create the "Dirty Bit".
1: System starts up (say clean).
2: It marks a bit on the partition that system has been started up.
3: Usage Usage Usage
4: Send shutdown
5: System umounts cleanly. Undoes "dirty bit"
6: Power == 0
On a dirty FS, stage #5 is never hit so when system comes back on, it checks the bit and detects unclean shutdown. The bit is never wrote during the unclean shutdown.
In the similar problem, I see problems when NTkern crashes. How exactly does it manage to:
1: Read the partitiom
2: Read the program on the partition
3: Run the insert log program to add log entry
4: Still have the "blue screen"
I smell nasty data corruption waiting to happen. After all, if you cant guarantee the state of the kernel, does it really justify reading, writing, and executing on a crashed kernel????
Its not enough if you're trying to determine whats throwing the system out to lunch.
Id be apt to turn on hangcheck with 1min restart + email on my servers. But better is to know what they failed by..
That the reason Linux doenst write anything to the HD after Panic si so that it doesnt mangle/destroy the FS.
And if I'm correct, if you turn on serial console, you'll get a Panic output on serial. Add a serial2IP box and you're set.
Peopel wuld probably belive you if you speled corectlly.
Yeah, the ones still stuck on FreeBsd.
/proc (idiot)
Still there's neat things about BSD kernel.
1: Security levels
2: Jail
3: PF - OS detection leading to modification of data stream (MS system lead to Linux ISO site)
4: Stable, high performance FS
5: Runs most linux junk (look at sourceforge, most are abandonware). Just doesnt run stuff that depends on proc unless you enable
6: Lot more quotas over users than you have in Linux
Those few features keep certain users on BSD. I figure Linux might get all those features. Still, if you want a really good system, get AIX. Linux and BSD is a good standby for cutting cost as long as you can deal with the limited feature set.
It's the same reason you cant post abortion doctors Names, Addresses, Phone numbers on a website.