On this scale of event, they would have had multiple operators dedicated to watching over particular areas in case of such a fault.
Many folks have commented that in an event this big it's pretty impressive that only one BSOD (or other failure) was noticed. If what you're saying is true, maybe, just maybe, all the operators WERE paying attention and there were a LOT of BSODs. So many that 1 got through all of the backups and redundancies.
You don't. Most do, as is evidenced by the comments here. It's always a mistake to think you are the rule rather than the exception. You need to listen to others.
Most don't. Users without problems don't complain. If most did have this problem, we'd see more like 200 million comments, not 20 or 30.
Current running firefoxes, all on Linux:
Firefox 3, i386, 2 tabs, 1 hour: 148MB (same as it was 30 minutes ago).
Firefox 2, amd64, 9 tabs, 12.38 days: 225MB (same as it was 30 minutes ago).
Firefox 2, i386, ? tabs, weeks?: 137MB
Firefox 2, i386, ? tabs, 1 day: 177MB
My experience and the numbers above confirm this is that 2GB of memory used by Firefox is rare. Also, I just don't believe the users that claim 20+ tabs with usage under 200MB.
I just tried opening a ton of tabs in FF3, 25 to be exact. After opening them I was up to 205MB, but then it flicked down to 203.5MB. So, I thought I'd report that, but it kept creeping down while I typed. Now it's 154.2MB. That's pretty cool.
After reading through all of the comments. You don't want to do this unless your really bored. It looks like he was having an affair with a VP that reports to him. Type "/ValleyWag" to find the comment with the informative link. (If you are using IE, user your circa 1983 find function.)
I'll just buy another 4 hard drives with the money I saved not buying Vista!
You may not have to. My Toshiba Satellite M45 has been running Ubuntu since Edgy, 6.10 and has a "Load_Cycle_Count" of 5,416. Maybe the default install does not have this issue? Maybe you have to install some other package to create the problem? It's not "laptop-mode-tools" because I have that installed. Do you have to be on battery power?
I'm not a consultant, but I play one on TV. My advice would be to save yourself a ton of money and go out and by a supported wireless card and then think nothing more of it. How much is your time truly worth? That Windows XP re-installation probably cost more time (and money) than researching the right card, buying it and putting it into the box.
It's interesting how we'll choose to fight to get the non-working component to work versus quickly replacing it with a card from a company you'd love to give your money to. I've done it many times. Sometimes it's 2:30AM and buying one isn't an option. (Unless your Walmart is 24hrs.)
Of course, if this was a laptop and the wireless was built-in and you had no PC Card slot, then you did what you could.
I didn't uninstall everything I'd screwed up over the months. It was basically AIGLX/Beryl, though. I did two ugrades, starting in the Knot 3 releases. One laptop did great. The other did pretty good, but the X setup was a bit screwed up. It took 3 or more power cycles for it to start X from a cold boot. Instead of trying to figure out laptop two, I did a clean install. It works great now. Of course, I didn't reinstall AIGLX/Beryl.
The above is my long way of saying, I'm too lazy to keep track of what things I change (screw up), but Ubuntu did a spectacular job on one upgrade and a OK job with the other. It never occurred to me to blame Ubuntu for this problem.
Yeah, but when you install a random application in Windows from a 3rd party vendor, it's unsupported.
Two things:
1) You didn't install a random 3rd party driver or application, you pointed your updates to some random 3rd party. Now, you are not guaranteed that you will even get all of the "supported" updates.
2) The computer did not break because you got the latest updates. You had to do something special to upgrade your OS. In the Windows world, the analogy would be to changing your hosts file in Windows so that the computer goes to "iwantamessedupcomputer.com" instead of "windowsupdate.com", then 4 months later going out and plucking $200 dollars on a Vista Upgrade.
Would this be Microsoft's fault as well? Or would you also blame Ubuntu for this problem as well?
There's one more thing about this Ubuntu release that everybody is overlooking. Ubuntu recommends sticking with Dapper for a solid, stable platform. Edgy is edgy. It's name is not just "cute", it's meaningful. This situation is funny because the biggest complaint is that Edgy is a bit rough around the edges.
I ask this seriously: what OSes have you been using that makes you think a clean install is the only "safe" upgrade?
I believe that if you upgrade Ubuntu from release to release you'll be fine. However, I didn't do that. I upgraded Dapper to Edgy Knot 2. It worked, but over time as the bug fixes came in, it became difficult for X to start. I often had to power cycle 5 or more times before it worked. I even went so far as to enter a bug in Ubuntu's launchpad for it. Well, I did a clean install of the RC and it's all fixed now. My best guess at the problem is a remnant configuration file or something that didn't get appropriately upgraded or removed in the initial Knot 2 dist-upgrade.
So, in other words, for patient people, you should never have to do a clean install. For us impatient freaks, well, I guess we should know what we're getting into.
On a side note, my crappy Celeron 2.4ghz laptop with an even crappier old Intel graphics chip can run the AIGLX and Beryl Window Manager pretty nicely. Cool (possibly excessive) 3d and transparency FX on a computer that Vista's install program laughs at.
If the first MP3 was made from a perfect uncompressed audio stream, then it's probably a pretty good MP3, but it's already lost some data. Uncompressing to a WAV can be no better than the MP3's audio data, so it's not as good as the original WAV. Now compressing to MP3 again will have to throw out bits to make it small. It does that by studying the audio stream and making excellent guesses. Unfortunately, on this second conversion it doesn't have as high quality input as the first. The guesses are not as good, and the final product is not as good. So, the 2nd MP3 will be degraded compared to the first.
Haven't you ever noticed the blurb included on DVDs and videos saying that public performance and unauthorised(sic) lending is prohibited?
Just throwing this out there, but that sounds more like a license agreement, doesn't it? Are there 2 copyrights out there for a movie, one for the theater that says, "Yes show it publicly, but give us money." and a second for the DVD purchaser that says, "Show this to yourself and only yourself. Oh, yeah, and give us money." ?
Download Size:
IE7: 14.8MB
FF1.5: 4.9MB
FF2RC3: 5.6MB HD Space Needed:
IE7: 87MB to 218MB*
FF1.5: 52MB
FF2RC3: 52MB**
*These values for IE7 are listed under the "Memory" title. Does it mean computer memory required or hard drive space? If it IS memory required, who has 87MB installed? Is MS just perpetuating the misunderstanding between hard drive space and memory?
**These values for FF2RC3 came from the same specs page as FF1.5, the FF2RC3 download page linked to it though.
Those that have been following this know that there never was a Flash 8 for Linux. So, Linux user have been unable to view Flash 8 sites and vidoes for a long time. I think well over a year. Also, note that originally, a Linux Flash 8 was planned, but then it became 8.5, then 9. Someone following this closely (or working on it) realizes that Flash 9 is finally catching Linux up to a release well over a year ago. They may even consider it the same product and thus the statement is very true to them. The quote is technically inaccurate, however, it's "real" meaning is true. We've been waiting for a long time to view sites that "require" Flash 8.
Slashdot Mirror
Let it be known now and henceforth, Google Chrome IS THE ONLY BROWSER USING V8. Safari's new stuff is SquirrelFish and Mozilla's is TraceMonkey.
Please know this before you write an article making yourself look foolish.
Another reason:
Avoid voting with terrorists and minorities. Vote with other Republicans, like you, on Wednesday, Nov. 5th.
But nobody hears it.
Both 8.04 (Hardy) and 8.10 (Intrepid) have Firefox 3.0.3.
As a quick test (nobody answer for him), how did you do the install without booting the LiveCD?
No, they don't want to concentrate on the server.
From the summary (emphasis mine):
A hypothetical does not a fact make.
Your entire premise is flawed.
You can't take out things on Windows, thus you can't prove
On this scale of event, they would have had multiple operators dedicated to watching over particular areas in case of such a fault.
Many folks have commented that in an event this big it's pretty impressive that only one BSOD (or other failure) was noticed. If what you're saying is true, maybe, just maybe, all the operators WERE paying attention and there were a LOT of BSODs. So many that 1 got through all of the backups and redundancies.
Type "w".
Current running firefoxes, all on Linux: Firefox 3, i386, 2 tabs, 1 hour: 148MB (same as it was 30 minutes ago).
Firefox 2, amd64, 9 tabs, 12.38 days: 225MB (same as it was 30 minutes ago).
Firefox 2, i386, ? tabs, weeks?: 137MB
Firefox 2, i386, ? tabs, 1 day: 177MB
My experience and the numbers above confirm this is that 2GB of memory used by Firefox is rare. Also, I just don't believe the users that claim 20+ tabs with usage under 200MB.
I just tried opening a ton of tabs in FF3, 25 to be exact. After opening them I was up to 205MB, but then it flicked down to 203.5MB. So, I thought I'd report that, but it kept creeping down while I typed. Now it's 154.2MB. That's pretty cool.
After reading through all of the comments. You don't want to do this unless your really bored. It looks like he was having an affair with a VP that reports to him. Type "/ValleyWag" to find the comment with the informative link. (If you are using IE, user your circa 1983 find function.)
Or, maybe, oops proxy has been abandoned for 4 years and doesn't work very well today. Last official release was Nov. 21, 2003. oops! downloads.
You may not have to. My Toshiba Satellite M45 has been running Ubuntu since Edgy, 6.10 and has a "Load_Cycle_Count" of 5,416. Maybe the default install does not have this issue? Maybe you have to install some other package to create the problem? It's not "laptop-mode-tools" because I have that installed. Do you have to be on battery power?
It's still 5,416.
I'm not a consultant, but I play one on TV. My advice would be to save yourself a ton of money and go out and by a supported wireless card and then think nothing more of it. How much is your time truly worth? That Windows XP re-installation probably cost more time (and money) than researching the right card, buying it and putting it into the box.
It's interesting how we'll choose to fight to get the non-working component to work versus quickly replacing it with a card from a company you'd love to give your money to. I've done it many times. Sometimes it's 2:30AM and buying one isn't an option. (Unless your Walmart is 24hrs.)
Of course, if this was a laptop and the wireless was built-in and you had no PC Card slot, then you did what you could.
whenever one of those has an electronic hiccup a pile of affected institutions and regulatory agencies are on it like flies on crap.
Flies are typically on crap in less than the 2 days the Diebold ATM at the corner Walgreens is down each week.
I didn't uninstall everything I'd screwed up over the months. It was basically AIGLX/Beryl, though. I did two ugrades, starting in the Knot 3 releases. One laptop did great. The other did pretty good, but the X setup was a bit screwed up. It took 3 or more power cycles for it to start X from a cold boot. Instead of trying to figure out laptop two, I did a clean install. It works great now. Of course, I didn't reinstall AIGLX/Beryl.
The above is my long way of saying, I'm too lazy to keep track of what things I change (screw up), but Ubuntu did a spectacular job on one upgrade and a OK job with the other. It never occurred to me to blame Ubuntu for this problem.
Yeah, but when you install a random application in Windows from a 3rd party vendor, it's unsupported.
Two things:
1) You didn't install a random 3rd party driver or application, you pointed your updates to some random 3rd party. Now, you are not guaranteed that you will even get all of the "supported" updates.
2) The computer did not break because you got the latest updates. You had to do something special to upgrade your OS. In the Windows world, the analogy would be to changing your hosts file in Windows so that the computer goes to "iwantamessedupcomputer.com" instead of "windowsupdate.com", then 4 months later going out and plucking $200 dollars on a Vista Upgrade.
Would this be Microsoft's fault as well? Or would you also blame Ubuntu for this problem as well?
There's one more thing about this Ubuntu release that everybody is overlooking. Ubuntu recommends sticking with Dapper for a solid, stable platform. Edgy is edgy. It's name is not just "cute", it's meaningful. This situation is funny because the biggest complaint is that Edgy is a bit rough around the edges.
I ask this seriously: what OSes have you been using that makes you think a clean install is the only "safe" upgrade?
I believe that if you upgrade Ubuntu from release to release you'll be fine. However, I didn't do that. I upgraded Dapper to Edgy Knot 2. It worked, but over time as the bug fixes came in, it became difficult for X to start. I often had to power cycle 5 or more times before it worked. I even went so far as to enter a bug in Ubuntu's launchpad for it. Well, I did a clean install of the RC and it's all fixed now. My best guess at the problem is a remnant configuration file or something that didn't get appropriately upgraded or removed in the initial Knot 2 dist-upgrade.
So, in other words, for patient people, you should never have to do a clean install. For us impatient freaks, well, I guess we should know what we're getting into.
On a side note, my crappy Celeron 2.4ghz laptop with an even crappier old Intel graphics chip can run the AIGLX and Beryl Window Manager pretty nicely. Cool (possibly excessive) 3d and transparency FX on a computer that Vista's install program laughs at.
You'd lose quality.
If the first MP3 was made from a perfect uncompressed audio stream, then it's probably a pretty good MP3, but it's already lost some data. Uncompressing to a WAV can be no better than the MP3's audio data, so it's not as good as the original WAV. Now compressing to MP3 again will have to throw out bits to make it small. It does that by studying the audio stream and making excellent guesses. Unfortunately, on this second conversion it doesn't have as high quality input as the first. The guesses are not as good, and the final product is not as good. So, the 2nd MP3 will be degraded compared to the first.
Haven't you ever noticed the blurb included on DVDs and videos saying that public performance and unauthorised(sic) lending is prohibited?
Just throwing this out there, but that sounds more like a license agreement, doesn't it? Are there 2 copyrights out there for a movie, one for the theater that says, "Yes show it publicly, but give us money." and a second for the DVD purchaser that says, "Show this to yourself and only yourself. Oh, yeah, and give us money." ?
Download Size:
IE7: 14.8MB
FF1.5: 4.9MB
FF2RC3: 5.6MB
HD Space Needed:
IE7: 87MB to 218MB*
FF1.5: 52MB
FF2RC3: 52MB**
*These values for IE7 are listed under the "Memory" title. Does it mean computer memory required or hard drive space? If it IS memory required, who has 87MB installed? Is MS just perpetuating the misunderstanding between hard drive space and memory?
**These values for FF2RC3 came from the same specs page as FF1.5, the FF2RC3 download page linked to it though.
Those that have been following this know that there never was a Flash 8 for Linux. So, Linux user have been unable to view Flash 8 sites and vidoes for a long time. I think well over a year. Also, note that originally, a Linux Flash 8 was planned, but then it became 8.5, then 9. Someone following this closely (or working on it) realizes that Flash 9 is finally catching Linux up to a release well over a year ago. They may even consider it the same product and thus the statement is very true to them. The quote is technically inaccurate, however, it's "real" meaning is true. We've been waiting for a long time to view sites that "require" Flash 8.
Replying to myself.
The do provide the other numbers that show the numbers in pretty graphs.