Bullshit. TCP may have error correction and everything built in but it can also be done in UDP. Do you think Cisco (you know that small networking startup in San Jose) would use tftp instead of regular ftp if there wasn't a way to transfer using udp without the file being scrambled.
Go read about TFTP. Its designed for small file transfers between hosts on a network (think same subnet). Cisco uses it primarily for you to flash the firmware of your Cisco product like a router or switch, if you cant hook up a serial cable that is. tftp is lightweight compared to regular ftp in that there is less functionality and what not. Its much smaller because it has to fit in a very small amount of memory. They transfer it udp because its simple and less overhead.
If you changed UDP to have error correction, you basically reinvent TCP.
I beg to differ with your assumptions. I have administered both Windows and Unix (and NCR and IBM and DEC) servers for over 20 years. If you have the courage to expose your arguments, then by all means please do so.
Highly doubtful with some of the things you said. Besides a windows server platform hasnt been around for 20 years. The fact that you're too stuck on the Unix platform agenda means you havent really played with a Windows server OS.
I take offense to your statement that I don't know operating system mechanics. Having seen computers evolve from punch card systems with switches and lights into the modern GUI systems, I have a very good understanding of what operating systems do (manage access to resources), what utility programs do (manage the OS and resources), and what applications programs do (utilize resources), and have very strong opinions based on years of solving problems where those lines should be drawn. The one most important lesson learned is that less is more when it comes to a computer system, the simplest means to get the job done is cheaper and more efficient to operate in the long run. I have had numerous independant security audits run on both Unix and Windows servers over the last 10 years, and have always received excellent ratings.
Thats nice you received ratings but its the kernel that allows you to destroy the operating system and not the software. The software is just a means not the reason. It also as I stated before depends on the user level, if you're logging in as administrator doing things you can do as an unprivilaged user then you deserve what you get.
I was not railing against Microsoft quality or security, only presenting an opinion that MS nees to break their OS up a little better. I did not say not to include IE in their OS offering, but to provide means for those systems that do not need the functionality to remove it. I hardly call that a troll. As a sys admin, I (and my cohorts) should decide whether or not a GUI interface such as Windows or X11 is needed, not Microsoft.
No...its their product, not yours, they do what they want to do. That is called "Free Will", what they may do is tune the GUI to make their users a little happy, but removing the GUI would make windows basically almost a unix clone, which is against what they're trying to do. If you noticed Microsoft is trying to tout themselves as being different from Unix and better (even though to be honest I prefer unix but thats personal preference). Maybe you should go read what a comment troll is because thats basically what you tried to do in your original post.
I dare anyone to point out any troll in my prior post. It was factually based with reasoned arguments without any emotional attachement. (OK, the 'Period' statement in the first paragraph was a little strong, sorry if it offended anyone.)
a little strong? try nearly offensive and I really dont like Microsoft products. I just defended them because they have atleast done a few things right in their new server OS, which 2000 was a step above NT4 I'll admit that. Your previous posts werent factual, as I said in a previous post go pick up a book about Windows 2003 Server and read it before claiming to know Windows Servers. There was a saying that someone onces told me, "Ask a windows sys admin to admin a unix box and they wont be able to do it, ask a unix sys admin to administer a windows server and they can muddle around", obviously you're still muddling around.
On a more personal note, Slashdot is not for the meek and timid posters. If you truly have good arguments, I would love to hear them. But only if you are open minded enough to hear mine. Otherwise, you are no better than a Jehovah's Witness or Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints member at my door. Arguing with them is the best way to get rid of them too, they don't like to hear about alternatives and will never come back.
Sooner or later some cosmic event is going to turn our planet into extra-crispy toast and I don't want to be here when it happens.
Or atleast the exploration will help develop technologies for an early warning system that'll allow us to use some new weapon to destroy the incoming rock. Thats my view on things
You know what...I had a nice long drawn out counter arguement for you. I decided that it would be wasted because you obviously are too stuck in your ways to be open minded. Fact is you dont know anything about Windows. Everything you've brought up could be countered. The truth of the matter is some of the things you say also shows that you dont know operating system mechanics. I suggest you go read a book on how to administrate a windows box because you have a lot of preconceptions that are flat out wrong. Lets for instance take your "the browser is a security risk". The question I have for you is, do you log into your unix/linux boxes as root to do things that dont require it? Well same goes for Windows, you dont login as an administrator to play on yahoo games or surf the web. It all boils down to who is the system administrator and how dumb can they be. Which frankly I wouldnt trust you with any systems at my work, even the unix/linux ones. Go troll somewhere else, I'm done arguing with you.
This is one of the things Microsoft doesn't get. When I build a Sun or Linux production server, the only software on it is the software needed to provide the services the server was built for. Web servers don't neeed GUIs, browsers, or media playsers. Database servers don't need GUIs, , browsers, or media playsers. Application servers don't need GUIs, browsers, or media playsers. I might use a GUI to attach and manage them, but the servers themselves don't need one.
Me thinks you never used Windows 2003 Server. Windows 2003 Server comes locked down to begin with...So the browser cant go anywhere except trusted sites. It, last time I played with it, didnt come with media player (but even if it did you got issues if thats your problem with the server). If you're playing movies on your servers then maybe someone should talk to your boss about having too much time on your hands. Generally servers sit in a data center where its meant to be rarely used at the console. There is a GUI because its called "Windows" not "Text".
This type of thinking will continue to be Microsoft's security and performance nightmare. If there is a security hole in Mozilla, I don't need to worry about it on my production servers because it ain't there. If there is a security problem with Apache, I don't need to worry about it except on the webserver because it ain't on the app server or DB server. It doesn't take up memory, diskspace or CPU cycles either.
You do have some good points here...but what about OpenSSH? Thats on all your boxes and that has vulnerablities...or what about a Kernel vulnerablity? If you dont get what I mean, those two things are comparable to what you said to windows. Granted windows has a lot more ports open for more exploits but IIS isnt installed at all unless you install it on Windows 2003. I'll grant you that the Unix/Linux operating systems have less vulnerablities when compared to Windows. I could then make the case that Unix and Linux are both crappy software when it comes to vulnerablities when I compare it to like OS/2 or MacOS 9.
Even offloaded CPU cycles take up CPU cycles at some point, either to issue the instructions or to move on to the next ones. Something has to tell the server the mouse just oved over that pretty icon and to use a few CPU cycles to tell the graphic card to make it flutter in the breeze.
Yeah maybe for a desktop, but as its been with Microsoft's latest products, they dont use the nice eye candy for their server operating system, only the desktops.
I dont want to sound like I'm starting a war with you, but reading your post I can make a fairly educated guess that you've only used their desktop operating systems and not the Server versions (or atleast just Windows 2000) otherwise you'd know what I'm talking about.
If Sun wants to know about 3d user interfaces, look in 3d games. They have 3d engines readily available but they still use 2d interfaces? KISS
Problem is a game engine is always making calculations, thus the power of the CPU is drained if you want to run other applications. They're doing it this way to make it so its not so hard on the CPU.
Last I heard, Clinton wasnt impeached...his second term was up. They TRIED to build a case to impeach him a couple of times, but they never had enough to convict him. The only recent president, as in past 80 years, to be impeached was Nixon and that was for the watergate scandal.
Yes, Europeans hate Americans because they think Americans think they're superior to Europens. Americans hate Europeans because they suspect Europeans know they're superior to Americans. And around it goes...
Oh yeah I suppose Linux must have ripped off FreeBSD's shitty SMPng to enable it to run on 512 CPU systems, right?
If there were a real need for 512 CPUs then you could get FreeBSD working with it if you wanted to compile it and modify it for that specific architecture, considering that architecture is not i386.
Yes sir, FreeBSD is really creating a big steaming pile of shit since branching FreeBSD 5 oh, about 5 years ago. Yep, they've basically been going backwards in terms of speed and scalability and stability for the entire life of FreeBSD 5.
With the fear of feeding a troll, first off the 5 branch has only been around for like 2 years. And on top of that FreeBSD is more stable then Linux in the fact that when I type "reboot" after rebuilding the Kernel, I know that FreeBSD will boot back up while Linux its more of cross your fingers and pray.
I don't know if you call that chugging along or not. I rather thing it is the collective egos of the FreeBSD team bloating, splintering and imploding. They've alienated most of their capable developers, and the only people left sit around all day and brag to each other about how much better they are than Linux.
They dont only sit around and brag, but they have earned the right to brag since they made a rock solid kernel.
I've had decent reliability with Maxtors (my only problem was tied into me not quite getting the IDE cable plugged in all the way), but every WD I've had has died. I have NEVER had a single problem with Seagate drives, though.
My current system has a 4.3GB Quantum (now Maxtor) Bigfoot CY as/home, and an 8.4GB Seagate (out of an old HP supermarket-grade box) as/.
As I said only one issue with Western Digital and other drives I've had never had any issues. I currently run a 100 gig in my home computer with a 160 gig slave drive, both western digital. In my FreeBSD personal server I run a 100 gig western digital drive too (been that way for 2 years). The other box I have that is running FreeBSD is using an 80 gig Seagate Drive, but that was because CompUSA was having a sale. I've used Quantum disk drives before, and currently I use one 6 gig in an old FreeBSD box, before that I had ran FreeBSD on 4 120 meg Quantum Fireballs back in 1997, but that was out of not having the money to buy new parts though.
I bought four 80 gig IBM Deskstars a couple of years ago and *all* of them died within 12 months.
I still have working Seagate drives five years after purchasing them.
These days i buy Maxtor - very quiet and (so far) reliable. And yes, all the IBM's started clicking just before they died. I managed to salvage the data on one by putting it in a ziplock bag in the freezer overnight. It worked for another 2 hours and then clicked out.
I've never used IBM disk drives. All I can say is Seagate and Western Digital are among the best, in my opinion, out there in reliablity. Even when I did have a western digital with a motor problem, had to hit it with a spoon sometimes to make the motor kick in (no kidding either), when I finally had it replaced it wasnt a hassle to get it to do so. I now am using a 100 gig western digital drive for like a couple of years now, still going with no issues. Same with Seagate, I use them for some of the other computers I use.
As for Maxtor, I've always had issues with them were not as reliable and they usually have problems. Granted I do still have a 3 gig maxtor that I replaced with a western digital because it had bad sectors, but if I plug it in I still can access data (I pulled a file off the drive when it was sitting there without being used in 4 years).
I'm not sure if I would buy a Maxtor drive now, but I've stuck with what has been proven to me:D
Its not just women...You'll see women make the careless mistakes and guys will make the reckless mistakes. For instance, one time my father almost got side swiped by a car on a highway, reason you ask? Woman wasnt paying attention and tried to lane shift with a car on the left of her.
However, one time I was driving home from work and a guy decided to pass an old lady on the solid yellow lines and nearly had a front on collision with me.
As for the parent poster talking only about SUVs, all I have to say is they're dangerous in any vehicle as long as they have the careless mentality.
Hmmm, so you were in the military? You know exactly what was going on? You actually witnessed these events? Media is a double edged sword, it can work for you or against you. You have no idea what the situation is like in War. As for those trucks, how do you know they werent trying to ram the road block? How do you know that they werent armed? As for teh rest of your comments, remember this isnt a convential war where both armies build trenches and fight with rifles. This is urban and guerilla warfare, so the enemy will dress up in civilian clothes so that way to make it look like the Americans are killing innocent people.
I dont know what you're talking about the New york police that way. If you're going to pull stuff that makes no sense in what we're talking about, how about I call you an ignorant pot smoker because of the 420 in your name and how you pretty much dont know what is going on because you only read some of the news reports (Which probably is that way because you're too busy smoking pot).
See what I mean? Stay on topic and stop talking about plugs...You might learn something that way.
The US killed millions in all its little "police actions" it likes to take around the world...
Ah so those alleged millions, how many percent of that do think you were in self defense because some national was firing at the soldiers??? Remember one thing, US soldiers will not kill you if you leave them alone. If you walk up to them with a gun and shooting it off at them, then you can expect to be one of he deaths that accumulates in the supposive "Police Actions". Lets put it this way, lets say you're in New York City, you start to fire at a Police Officer. What do you think will happen? He'll construct a committee to figure out why you're firing at him? No, he'll take your knee cap off (If you're lucky), hand cuff you, and then he may ask why.
Err... you seem to be contradicting yourself. The USSR were as hell-bent as destroying the US as the US was USSR. That, surely, evens the playing field. The US can't have the upper hand, either ethically or morally. You have proved your argument false by the very logic you employed to defend it. Ironic, really.
I'm sorry you studied tactics where??? Last time I checked, when someone is attacking you, you either attack back or surrender. If you choose to attack back, you continue until either you surrender or they surrender. The objective in a fight is to win. Ethics and Morales dont have anything to do with having the upper hand. Its a war and you win by any means nessecary. Hence why we did this little stuff instead of nuking USSR. If we launched nukes at them, they would launch back and stalemate for both countries.
Why are ridiculous patents so amazing in a country where a woman can sue a restaurant (marginally) for making coffee too hot?
Yeah its sad because most people still believe in taking responsiblity for your own actions. If I had a *HOT* coffee and burned my own crotch by using my legs as a cup holder, I feel that I should be responsible for that. That is why there is an invention called "The Cup Holder". Some people out there are just want to blame someone else and make money off it.
As for patents. It just seems to me that the patent office has ditched the reject stamp and just used the granted stamp.
Nope, Internet was originally called ARPA net in the beginning till it was changed in like mid or late 80s. At that point DARPA had made a new network for Advance Research Projects, mostly due to commercial companies sitting on the old ARPA net, which they viewed as a potential security risk. Please re-read your history of the Internet:)
Excuse me sir. You're CO2 is contributing to global warming, lets persecute you too for living.
As for smokers throwing the plastic wrap on the ground, there is something called "Littering" and they can be fined. The butts, well cant throw them in the garbage while they're still lit otherwise it'll cause a fire.
First off, I take it you're not a smoker, so you dont know the addiction first hand. I suggest you get a first hand experience with the addiction before you say "they need a kick in the ass". But before you can say that you have to smoke for atleast 10 yrs. Let me know how easy it is to quit then. Most of the people smoking started back in the 50s/60s when they were told it wasnt addicting.
You remind me of a southpark episode when the kids goto a tolerance museam(sp?) and the tour guide goes on and on how something is so terrible in the world because there wasnt tolerance and when they see a smoker on the stairs outside the building, the guide yells at him like you did in your first sentence.
I'm sure you have habits that would look bad to others too. Show tolerance and patience to others and you'll get it in return.
yeah, pkg_add is good, but that's only for external packages. debian doesn't differentiate between base and extras, and so any part can be updated with apt-get.
Yeah someone was working on a project called FreeBSD update which would be a binary update for the base install.
with bsd, if its part of the base system and not the ports, you still have to go through the whole cvsup stuff. though like you say you can automate much of it with perl scripts, its still not as qukck and easy as apt-get as the oirignal poster said
It really all depends on what you're updating. As I said, if it were just the kernel, then you could easily distribute it out. As for other things it might be a little tedious.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit. TCP may have error correction and everything built in but it can also be done in UDP. Do you think Cisco (you know that small networking startup in San Jose) would use tftp instead of regular ftp if there wasn't a way to transfer using udp without the file being scrambled.
Go read about TFTP. Its designed for small file transfers between hosts on a network (think same subnet). Cisco uses it primarily for you to flash the firmware of your Cisco product like a router or switch, if you cant hook up a serial cable that is. tftp is lightweight compared to regular ftp in that there is less functionality and what not. Its much smaller because it has to fit in a very small amount of memory. They transfer it udp because its simple and less overhead.
If you changed UDP to have error correction, you basically reinvent TCP.
I beg to differ with your assumptions. I have administered both Windows and Unix (and NCR and IBM and DEC) servers for over 20 years. If you have the courage to expose your arguments, then by all means please do so.
Highly doubtful with some of the things you said. Besides a windows server platform hasnt been around for 20 years. The fact that you're too stuck on the Unix platform agenda means you havent really played with a Windows server OS.
I take offense to your statement that I don't know operating system mechanics. Having seen computers evolve from punch card systems with switches and lights into the modern GUI systems, I have a very good understanding of what operating systems do (manage access to resources), what utility programs do (manage the OS and resources), and what applications programs do (utilize resources), and have very strong opinions based on years of solving problems where those lines should be drawn. The one most important lesson learned is that less is more when it comes to a computer system, the simplest means to get the job done is cheaper and more efficient to operate in the long run. I have had numerous independant security audits run on both Unix and Windows servers over the last 10 years, and have always received excellent ratings.
Thats nice you received ratings but its the kernel that allows you to destroy the operating system and not the software. The software is just a means not the reason. It also as I stated before depends on the user level, if you're logging in as administrator doing things you can do as an unprivilaged user then you deserve what you get.
I was not railing against Microsoft quality or security, only presenting an opinion that MS nees to break their OS up a little better. I did not say not to include IE in their OS offering, but to provide means for those systems that do not need the functionality to remove it. I hardly call that a troll. As a sys admin, I (and my cohorts) should decide whether or not a GUI interface such as Windows or X11 is needed, not Microsoft.
No...its their product, not yours, they do what they want to do. That is called "Free Will", what they may do is tune the GUI to make their users a little happy, but removing the GUI would make windows basically almost a unix clone, which is against what they're trying to do. If you noticed Microsoft is trying to tout themselves as being different from Unix and better (even though to be honest I prefer unix but thats personal preference). Maybe you should go read what a comment troll is because thats basically what you tried to do in your original post.
I dare anyone to point out any troll in my prior post. It was factually based with reasoned arguments without any emotional attachement. (OK, the 'Period' statement in the first paragraph was a little strong, sorry if it offended anyone.)
a little strong? try nearly offensive and I really dont like Microsoft products. I just defended them because they have atleast done a few things right in their new server OS, which 2000 was a step above NT4 I'll admit that. Your previous posts werent factual, as I said in a previous post go pick up a book about Windows 2003 Server and read it before claiming to know Windows Servers. There was a saying that someone onces told me, "Ask a windows sys admin to admin a unix box and they wont be able to do it, ask a unix sys admin to administer a windows server and they can muddle around", obviously you're still muddling around.
On a more personal note, Slashdot is not for the meek and timid posters. If you truly have good arguments, I would love to hear them. But only if you are open minded enough to hear mine. Otherwise, you are no better than a Jehovah's Witness or Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints member at my door. Arguing with them is the best way to get rid of them too, they don't like to hear about alternatives and will never come back.
I quit arguing because you're too old to have you
Sooner or later some cosmic event is going to turn our planet into extra-crispy toast and I don't want to be here when it happens.
Or atleast the exploration will help develop technologies for an early warning system that'll allow us to use some new weapon to destroy the incoming rock. Thats my view on things
You know what...I had a nice long drawn out counter arguement for you. I decided that it would be wasted because you obviously are too stuck in your ways to be open minded. Fact is you dont know anything about Windows. Everything you've brought up could be countered. The truth of the matter is some of the things you say also shows that you dont know operating system mechanics. I suggest you go read a book on how to administrate a windows box because you have a lot of preconceptions that are flat out wrong. Lets for instance take your "the browser is a security risk". The question I have for you is, do you log into your unix/linux boxes as root to do things that dont require it? Well same goes for Windows, you dont login as an administrator to play on yahoo games or surf the web. It all boils down to who is the system administrator and how dumb can they be. Which frankly I wouldnt trust you with any systems at my work, even the unix/linux ones. Go troll somewhere else, I'm done arguing with you.
This is one of the things Microsoft doesn't get. When I build a Sun or Linux production server, the only software on it is the software needed to provide the services the server was built for. Web servers don't neeed GUIs, browsers, or media playsers. Database servers don't need GUIs, , browsers, or media playsers. Application servers don't need GUIs, browsers, or media playsers. I might use a GUI to attach and manage them, but the servers themselves don't need one.
Me thinks you never used Windows 2003 Server. Windows 2003 Server comes locked down to begin with...So the browser cant go anywhere except trusted sites. It, last time I played with it, didnt come with media player (but even if it did you got issues if thats your problem with the server). If you're playing movies on your servers then maybe someone should talk to your boss about having too much time on your hands. Generally servers sit in a data center where its meant to be rarely used at the console. There is a GUI because its called "Windows" not "Text".
This type of thinking will continue to be Microsoft's security and performance nightmare. If there is a security hole in Mozilla, I don't need to worry about it on my production servers because it ain't there. If there is a security problem with Apache, I don't need to worry about it except on the webserver because it ain't on the app server or DB server. It doesn't take up memory, diskspace or CPU cycles either.
You do have some good points here...but what about OpenSSH? Thats on all your boxes and that has vulnerablities...or what about a Kernel vulnerablity? If you dont get what I mean, those two things are comparable to what you said to windows. Granted windows has a lot more ports open for more exploits but IIS isnt installed at all unless you install it on Windows 2003. I'll grant you that the Unix/Linux operating systems have less vulnerablities when compared to Windows. I could then make the case that Unix and Linux are both crappy software when it comes to vulnerablities when I compare it to like OS/2 or MacOS 9.
Even offloaded CPU cycles take up CPU cycles at some point, either to issue the instructions or to move on to the next ones. Something has to tell the server the mouse just oved over that pretty icon and to use a few CPU cycles to tell the graphic card to make it flutter in the breeze.
Yeah maybe for a desktop, but as its been with Microsoft's latest products, they dont use the nice eye candy for their server operating system, only the desktops.
I dont want to sound like I'm starting a war with you, but reading your post I can make a fairly educated guess that you've only used their desktop operating systems and not the Server versions (or atleast just Windows 2000) otherwise you'd know what I'm talking about.
If Sun wants to know about 3d user interfaces, look in 3d games. They have 3d engines readily available but they still use 2d interfaces? KISS
Problem is a game engine is always making calculations, thus the power of the CPU is drained if you want to run other applications. They're doing it this way to make it so its not so hard on the CPU.
Last I heard, Clinton wasnt impeached...his second term was up. They TRIED to build a case to impeach him a couple of times, but they never had enough to convict him. The only recent president, as in past 80 years, to be impeached was Nixon and that was for the watergate scandal.
Sure, just let me get my credit card...
Yes, Europeans hate Americans because they think Americans think they're superior to Europens. Americans hate Europeans because they suspect Europeans know they're superior to Americans. And around it goes...
Ahem...who saved who in the great wars??????
Oh yeah I suppose Linux must have ripped off FreeBSD's shitty SMPng to enable it to run on 512 CPU systems, right?
If there were a real need for 512 CPUs then you could get FreeBSD working with it if you wanted to compile it and modify it for that specific architecture, considering that architecture is not i386.
Yes sir, FreeBSD is really creating a big steaming pile of shit since branching FreeBSD 5 oh, about 5 years ago. Yep, they've basically been going backwards in terms of speed and scalability and stability for the entire life of FreeBSD 5.
With the fear of feeding a troll, first off the 5 branch has only been around for like 2 years. And on top of that FreeBSD is more stable then Linux in the fact that when I type "reboot" after rebuilding the Kernel, I know that FreeBSD will boot back up while Linux its more of cross your fingers and pray.
I don't know if you call that chugging along or not. I rather thing it is the collective egos of the FreeBSD team bloating, splintering and imploding. They've alienated most of their capable developers, and the only people left sit around all day and brag to each other about how much better they are than Linux.
They dont only sit around and brag, but they have earned the right to brag since they made a rock solid kernel.
I've had decent reliability with Maxtors (my only problem was tied into me not quite getting the IDE cable plugged in all the way), but every WD I've had has died. I have NEVER had a single problem with Seagate drives, though. My current system has a 4.3GB Quantum (now Maxtor) Bigfoot CY as /home, and an 8.4GB Seagate (out of an old HP supermarket-grade box) as /.
As I said only one issue with Western Digital and other drives I've had never had any issues. I currently run a 100 gig in my home computer with a 160 gig slave drive, both western digital. In my FreeBSD personal server I run a 100 gig western digital drive too (been that way for 2 years). The other box I have that is running FreeBSD is using an 80 gig Seagate Drive, but that was because CompUSA was having a sale. I've used Quantum disk drives before, and currently I use one 6 gig in an old FreeBSD box, before that I had ran FreeBSD on 4 120 meg Quantum Fireballs back in 1997, but that was out of not having the money to buy new parts though.
I bought four 80 gig IBM Deskstars a couple of years ago and *all* of them died within 12 months.
:D
I still have working Seagate drives five years after purchasing them.
These days i buy Maxtor - very quiet and (so far) reliable. And yes, all the IBM's started clicking just before they died. I managed to salvage the data on one by putting it in a ziplock bag in the freezer overnight. It worked for another 2 hours and then clicked out.
I've never used IBM disk drives. All I can say is Seagate and Western Digital are among the best, in my opinion, out there in reliablity. Even when I did have a western digital with a motor problem, had to hit it with a spoon sometimes to make the motor kick in (no kidding either), when I finally had it replaced it wasnt a hassle to get it to do so. I now am using a 100 gig western digital drive for like a couple of years now, still going with no issues. Same with Seagate, I use them for some of the other computers I use.
As for Maxtor, I've always had issues with them were not as reliable and they usually have problems. Granted I do still have a 3 gig maxtor that I replaced with a western digital because it had bad sectors, but if I plug it in I still can access data (I pulled a file off the drive when it was sitting there without being used in 4 years).
I'm not sure if I would buy a Maxtor drive now, but I've stuck with what has been proven to me
Its not just women...You'll see women make the careless mistakes and guys will make the reckless mistakes. For instance, one time my father almost got side swiped by a car on a highway, reason you ask? Woman wasnt paying attention and tried to lane shift with a car on the left of her.
However, one time I was driving home from work and a guy decided to pass an old lady on the solid yellow lines and nearly had a front on collision with me.
As for the parent poster talking only about SUVs, all I have to say is they're dangerous in any vehicle as long as they have the careless mentality.
Do not blame the blackout on Canadians. It was the U.S. fault. Read the joint task force report.
yes....this time...it wasnt canada's fault. There were the blackouts in the 50s and 60s.
So if there is a blackout, its because someone in Canada is using Kazaa?
Hmmm, so you were in the military? You know exactly what was going on? You actually witnessed these events? Media is a double edged sword, it can work for you or against you. You have no idea what the situation is like in War. As for those trucks, how do you know they werent trying to ram the road block? How do you know that they werent armed? As for teh rest of your comments, remember this isnt a convential war where both armies build trenches and fight with rifles. This is urban and guerilla warfare, so the enemy will dress up in civilian clothes so that way to make it look like the Americans are killing innocent people.
I dont know what you're talking about the New york police that way. If you're going to pull stuff that makes no sense in what we're talking about, how about I call you an ignorant pot smoker because of the 420 in your name and how you pretty much dont know what is going on because you only read some of the news reports (Which probably is that way because you're too busy smoking pot).
See what I mean? Stay on topic and stop talking about plugs...You might learn something that way.
The US killed millions in all its little "police actions" it likes to take around the world...
Ah so those alleged millions, how many percent of that do think you were in self defense because some national was firing at the soldiers??? Remember one thing, US soldiers will not kill you if you leave them alone. If you walk up to them with a gun and shooting it off at them, then you can expect to be one of he deaths that accumulates in the supposive "Police Actions". Lets put it this way, lets say you're in New York City, you start to fire at a Police Officer. What do you think will happen? He'll construct a committee to figure out why you're firing at him? No, he'll take your knee cap off (If you're lucky), hand cuff you, and then he may ask why.
Err... you seem to be contradicting yourself. The USSR were as hell-bent as destroying the US as the US was USSR. That, surely, evens the playing field. The US can't have the upper hand, either ethically or morally. You have proved your argument false by the very logic you employed to defend it. Ironic, really.
I'm sorry you studied tactics where??? Last time I checked, when someone is attacking you, you either attack back or surrender. If you choose to attack back, you continue until either you surrender or they surrender. The objective in a fight is to win. Ethics and Morales dont have anything to do with having the upper hand. Its a war and you win by any means nessecary. Hence why we did this little stuff instead of nuking USSR. If we launched nukes at them, they would launch back and stalemate for both countries.
BTW parent post was right and you were wrong.
Why are ridiculous patents so amazing in a country where a woman can sue a restaurant (marginally) for making coffee too hot?
Yeah its sad because most people still believe in taking responsiblity for your own actions. If I had a *HOT* coffee and burned my own crotch by using my legs as a cup holder, I feel that I should be responsible for that. That is why there is an invention called "The Cup Holder". Some people out there are just want to blame someone else and make money off it.
As for patents. It just seems to me that the patent office has ditched the reject stamp and just used the granted stamp.
They blew up because in the 24th centuary they dont have fuses.
Nope, Internet was originally called ARPA net in the beginning till it was changed in like mid or late 80s. At that point DARPA had made a new network for Advance Research Projects, mostly due to commercial companies sitting on the old ARPA net, which they viewed as a potential security risk. Please re-read your history of the Internet :)
Excuse me sir. You're CO2 is contributing to global warming, lets persecute you too for living.
As for smokers throwing the plastic wrap on the ground, there is something called "Littering" and they can be fined. The butts, well cant throw them in the garbage while they're still lit otherwise it'll cause a fire.
First off, I take it you're not a smoker, so you dont know the addiction first hand. I suggest you get a first hand experience with the addiction before you say "they need a kick in the ass". But before you can say that you have to smoke for atleast 10 yrs. Let me know how easy it is to quit then. Most of the people smoking started back in the 50s/60s when they were told it wasnt addicting.
You remind me of a southpark episode when the kids goto a tolerance museam(sp?) and the tour guide goes on and on how something is so terrible in the world because there wasnt tolerance and when they see a smoker on the stairs outside the building, the guide yells at him like you did in your first sentence.
I'm sure you have habits that would look bad to others too. Show tolerance and patience to others and you'll get it in return.
That was the most lunatic thing I've read in years. I can't believe I read it all either
You read it all? I couldnt even make it half way through.
They say it was bulletproof, yet it disabled the system...?
Dont know why they said it disabled the system but if you read the article it does not mention anything about it being disabled.
yeah, pkg_add is good, but that's only for external packages. debian doesn't differentiate between base and extras, and so any part can be updated with apt-get.
Yeah someone was working on a project called FreeBSD update which would be a binary update for the base install. with bsd, if its part of the base system and not the ports, you still have to go through the whole cvsup stuff. though like you say you can automate much of it with perl scripts, its still not as qukck and easy as apt-get as the oirignal poster said
It really all depends on what you're updating. As I said, if it were just the kernel, then you could easily distribute it out. As for other things it might be a little tedious.