Its already relatively easy. You don't need to know the PST format, you just need Outlook installed and a plugin to export the data, which there have been for YEARS.
This just means that someone can get data out of a PST with Outlook installed, which is going to be a pretty rare corner case.
Install old version of Outlook Configure GMAIL as an IMAP server in Outlook Drag messages to GMAIL
GMail was created by a company named Google, Google has this cool thing called a search engine. The search engine could have solved this problem for you years ago.
You don't need the PST to do that, nor do you want to touch it, Outlook will have it locked when Outlook is running. You'll use a Outlook plugin to do what you want, in which case you don't need to use a PST as a backing store anyway, you can use whatever you want. If you want to continue using the PST backing store or integrate/merge with existing Outlook supported servers (i.e. exchange) then you just use the Outlook Object Model or Exchange Client Plugin API to get what you want via Outlook.
There really is no reason to touch a PST directly unless you are importing data to something else and don't want to fire up Outlook to do so. Which I can see for backup apps and things like Thunderbird importing old data. Of course, you can get the address book entries already via the address book API, and mail is only important for people using POP which may not store their mail on the server.
Both of the cases you specified are very clearly extreme corner cases that apply to a very limited set of people, and both are solved by a very simple 'move it to a different WINDOWS machine'.
How many times do you plan on accessing a PST from Linux, Solaris or BSD? Exactly once, to dump the data into something useful. Its not like you're running a client on a non-windows machine that would be retarded enough to use a PST as its backing store, and if you are, you get what you deserve.
Don't use a COM plugin then, use an exchange client plugin. Not really sure how you'd stop that since its just a dll. Exchange client plugins have all the power of a COM Outlook Object Model plugin and they actually let you get at the good stuff.
The problems you are complaining about are because of the crappy equipment sold by X10.com. The X10 protocol (which is not 'owned' by X10.com) does not prevent status responses from being sent, but when you buy bargin basement crap from a website designed to leech your money, you get crappy hardware.
Do you complain when you get a e-machine and it doesn't have a PCI-E slot as well? Pay for quality and get quality (sometimes:), don't pay for quality and you probably won't get quality, unless they haven't yet figured out how they can make it cheaper and maximize their profits. You really do get what you pay for.
Not really sure what the outside temperature matters. If its 2 degrees outside, and my house is at a comfortable temp, theres no reason to turn on anything because of the outside temp.
It could be 62f outside, and 90f in my office due to the PCs in it, I expect the system to deal with that regardless of outside temp.
Time of day is not real useful as well. I have a thermostat that supports scheduling and what I've found is that I set the schedule to be the same all the time anyway, its cheaper to keep the house cool then to have the AC or heater run like hell to fix the problem before I get home, or to have a home thats uncomfortable because I came home early.
By the sound of it, your father over engineered the problem and wasted time and money. Its okay, as a geek, its an unwritten law, unless he worked for NASA, in which case he shouldn't work for NASA.
The real reason people don't do it? They don't see the need for it.
If you want your lights on as a security precaution, buy an alarm, its far more effective. Temps should generally remain consistent to provide comfort. I've considered setting up automation on several occasions and every time I've come to the conclusion that the additional complexity and lowered reliability and chance for it to screw up are far worse than any benefits, perceived or otherwise that would result from doing so. There just ISN'T that much stuff that needs automated. Even with things like your coffee in the morning. You've got to set the machine up with water and coffee the day before anyway, at which point you can push the button to turn it on automatically, and if you forget to add water, you don't burn your house down. A 5 minute wait for coffee is far better than a trip to the hospital burn unit or funeral home.
Why can't I call my car and tell it to start and run the heater or air?
Because you didn't get the remote start package for your car? Mine does it just fine, just push the button on the key fob while drinking my morning Mt Dew. (Or coffee for you masochists.)
Why can't I look outside, see that it's starting to rain, and call my car and have it roll the windows up?
Proper automation would alert you and if no response, roll them up on its own.
For that matter why can't I roll up the windows without the key in the "run" position?
I can, until I get out, in which case having a way to roll the windows down without the key in would make one hell of an easy way to get into the car. No need to slimjim the door, just get a cloths hanger, push the button on the power windows now just reach in and open the door. Perhaps you bought the wrong car/package.
Since when is the user executing arbitrary code a bug?
The attack vector requires that the user install and run something that is bad to start with. If you can do that, you've already done what you need to do.
Yes, you can trick someone into running bad code with this, you could just as easy replace any code they are going to run or use LD_PRELOAD.
To exploit this, you've already be compromised somehow.
The fix? Signed binaries and only allowing trusted code to run on the system.
If you're worried about this, you really don't have a very good grasp on security of operating systems in general.
The PST format is rather useless. You can already access all the data on a Windows machine (which you have already to create it anyway) using Outlook plugins, either a COM Outlook Object Model plugin or a Exchange client plugin, depending on what you need.
So okay, now things like Thunderbird can import the mail from Outlook, which is good for people who use POP3 I guess, IMAP and Exchange store the mail on the server so theirs no real need.
Products won't carry a 'Works with Outlook' sticker because of this, the file is locked when Outlook is open, you you have to use an Outlook plugin if you want to do anything useful with it for normal people who use Outlook.
As someone who writes Outlook plugins for a job, this is rather useless for much other than exporting data from a backup without reinstalling Outlook after a crash of your system.
I.E. useful only in a limited set of circumstances that are really a corner case.
This doesn't do anything for communicating with Exchange, which is really what you want.
You've got to be kidding? Super-easy installation and automatic security updates for all applications is 'awkward'?
On my mac, I just download the app. Run it. If the app supports auto updating, it just hooks in on first run.
No package manager required. No dependency tracking, it just works. When I want to uninstall it, I just delete it and it cleans itself up on its own, sometimes not completely until next login.
A great example of this is CrossOver for Mac.
A package manager is nice for finding apps however, but trying to say that Apples system is bad in comparison is just silly. When you get a bunch of commercial vendor together, putting them all on the same 'repository' gets to be a bitch, they fight too much. This is why its rare for commercial software unless they can buy their way to the front of the display list.
No one is suggesting it be hard to find, not even Apple, which is why they have their own site with the common Mac software you can buy or download if its free or has a trial.
You can't compare Linux package managers which are practically designed to be anti-commercial to a commercial environment. Its just not the same ballgame.
Contrary to popular and extremely ignorant belief, slaves got paid. However, that 'pay' was generally only in the form of bad food and really crappy housing, with an occasional side does of ass beating towards the end of it.
Running 10.6 is hardly 'bleeding edge'. It would have been bleeding edge a year or so ago when the first developer seeds of it went out now.
Any app that hasn't patched for 10.6 at this point is a neglected app.
Do yourself a favor, use Sketsa instead. It actually produces standard SVG files. Using Inkscape to produce SVGs is like using Word to make HTML, you end up with a half assed, full of proprietary tags, mess chunk of an SVG that won't render right in just about any standard SVG display system if its more complex than a smiley face.
Yes, Sketsa is commercial, but the price is well worth the difference. Inkscape is crap.
Considering how few PPC apps in use now days, it seems logical.
I've only been a mac user for a few months, but I've never seen a PPC binary, with the exception of the one 'hello world' universal binary I made just to see what would happen.
You realize that DragonflyBSD is just an older FreeBSD with a different installer for all intents and purposes, right? Not exactly a funny FS interface considering its shared with 4 other OSes, one of which is dead.
And block level checksumming, and RAID5 with single and double parity, and mirroring, and compression, and sharing freespace between mount points.
SSDs can be used as read only cache in a zpool to speed up random access.
While you're sitting there crying about the no mechanical failures you had, but with a corrupted drive because of a controller failure on the drive, I'll just replace the drive and move on... with my snapshots too.
The FreeBSD people still haven't been able to run and integrate it reliably.
Where did you get that from? I've got a machine thats been up since a few days after FBSD 7.2 was released that only has ZFS and serves data constantly. Its been moving filling my gigabit ethernet links for about 8 hours today alone, and this isn't the first time its done a lot of IO for me.
I admit, I don't really 'stress' the system, but the only problem with ZFS on FBSD is its inability to cope with low memory situations. FBSD 64 bit with 4 gigs of ram and you won't see a problem unless you screw with the ARC and mess it up.
ZFS DOES have multiple layers of redundancy. Including block level checksuming. Why can no desktop mac have that? Two drives, mirrored vdev, turn on checksuming, set copies=2. You now have three layers of protection and correction against bit rot and failure. Any of those layers detect a problem during a read and they pull the data from a new place. Have you actually read anything about ZFS from someone who knew what they were talking about?
I'm not sure what you mean by 'doesn't handle it magically' but I've pulled a drive out of a zraid vdev, written random data to a random location and it was happy to detect it and correct it on the fly, letting me know it happened in syslog.
I don't think you actually know anything about ZFS, but then again, I am a self admitting ZFS fanboy.
Warning: I have become a ZFS fanboy, my statements may not be entirely rational.
Use ZFS for a week on something like a file server, you'll be more than willing to ignore traditional Unix logic (which I firmly believe in) in order to use the goodness that is ZFS.
I'll admit, I'm a ZFS fanboy now, and I've only used it on FBSD 7.2, which is using a much older version of ZFS (v6, current is 13 I think). In 7.2 its not considered production ready and its still awesome to work with for me.
I shoved 4 PATA and 4 SATA drivers in a case, 2 gigs of ram (really the minimum for FBSD and ZFS on a 64 bit machine, which is where it sings). The 4 SATA drivers are in the zraid vdev, 2 of the PATA drives are in another mirrored vdev, and the final 2 in a second mirror vdev. So all the drives have redundancy and they are all in one big zpool with the total space available as one big chunk.
Now thats all well and good, but heres where it gets awesome. Want more space? Add some drives, create a new vdev, add it too the pool, instant space available. Okay, so thats not that impressive in and of itself. I can also add in a SSD as a 'cache' drive, which the ZFS system will then populate with a read only copy of data that gets accessed often in a random way, for a speed increase for your random IO needs.
Okay, so I've got a few terabytes of data available, but I need a to create a share for backup using TimeMachine on my Mac. Well time machine will be happy to consume all the space on the drive. No problem, create a new mount point in the zpool, limit it to 1TB. It will only consume up to 1TB, IF space is available in the zpool. I can also reserve the space if I want to ensure its there for the backups. You can use the same system for quotas of individual users.
I also have a bunch of ISOs with uncompressed data on them that I mount from virtual machines for various reasons, full of essentially text data. Welp, for that create another mountpoint on the same zpool, turn on compression, now my 5TB of text gets compressed into a few hundred gigs automatically and transparently. Its read only, and very important. I have backups, but they are in another state and transfering them back would be a painfully slow process which would cost me a lot of time. So I set the mount point to read only and set copies=2. Now the mount point is read only, and the data is stored twice, on 2 different vdevs. So not only is the data on a raid or a mirror, its on BOTH. If I was really worried I could set copies=3 and it would be on all the vdevs, so as long as one is usable I have my data, assuming all the vdevs have enough space to store the data. One of them doesn't, so copies=2 is the only useful option to me.
I also have a software archive of all my commercial windows software, I want to keep it safe from any sort of infection or modification, so I set that mount point readonly.
So far, I've done nothing that can't be done already with existing methods, but what I've done it across a common shared data pool. Free space is shared across all of them.
I thought ZFS was a waste of time until I started using it. I am by no means a ZFS master, but I've learned that it can do some pretty powerful things. My setup is small, I only use it at home until FBSD 8 is released, which will have what is considered to be a production ready implementation, but I will be moving to it at that point in our internal office servers.
I know I haven't listed any life changing reasons to use it, but its turned me into a fanboy.
Technically, it IS modular, even if it doesn't have well defined zones. If you look at ZFS in a slight different way, it can be just one layer of the system. You can create virtual devices in a zpool and treat them as a block device (its just another/dev entry). Just to see how it worked, I created a virtual device on top of the zpool, formatted it with UFS, put some files on it, expanded the virtual device, ran growfs and had a larger UFS mount point.
RC just means no new code will be added at that point, so no new testing is needed, as
Yes, but new code WAS added BEFORE the RC was cut, which means you DO need more testing, and in fact MAY need to add more code to it. Thats kind of why you cut an RC, to say 'okay, we think we're done, lets give it a whirl and see what happens'
RTM IS NOT AN RC. RTM IS the final product. It is the exact same thing you buy on the shelves. It just goes to the manufactures and distributors so everyone can be ready, together, on the official release day.
Dear god please tell me you didn't learn how to develop from Wikipedia or consider yourself a professional developer. If you work on any public projects or for a company that sells software please tell me who/what it is so I can avoid it like the plague.
You realize that a SP for Windows is just a collection of hot fixes that are already available right? Its a roll up package of everything previous after it has been well tested. 9 times out of 10 installing a service pack on a fully patched Windows machine does very little other than say you've installed the service pack and fix some existing hotfixes.
Right, because 8.04LTS has been out as long as XP, and it also will be supported as long as XP...
wait... wait...
No, XP was out first and XP will be supported for longer than Ubuntu 8.04LTS... 8.04 was released 5 years later and support ends nearly 3 years earlier for the desktop version and at least 6 months earlier than XP.
If you want to install 10.x LTS, which isn't anywhere release, and isn't planned to be for at least another 6 months, then you can get support for the server version for about a year and a half after XP support ends. Desktop support STILL ends at least 6 months before XP does.
The MS mentality of everyone must always run the newest version of everything or else you won't be protected or get new features is pure crap. That doesn't have to happen in open source, when they aren't trying to force you to constantly upgrade to help their revenue cycle.
Really, 8.04 supports the newest features? So what does 9.x have that 8.x doesn't? Let me give you a dose of reality, Ubuntu may support some things for a little while, but nothing in Linux has long term support, it is a CONSTANT upgrade cycle. Just because you don't 'pay for upgraded software' doesn't mean there is no cost. When will you people get that?
I'm sorry, what was your point again, I was so blown away by how disconnected from reality you are that I forgot.
Slashdot Mirror
Its already relatively easy. You don't need to know the PST format, you just need Outlook installed and a plugin to export the data, which there have been for YEARS.
This just means that someone can get data out of a PST with Outlook installed, which is going to be a pretty rare corner case.
Install old version of Outlook
Configure GMAIL as an IMAP server in Outlook
Drag messages to GMAIL
GMail was created by a company named Google, Google has this cool thing called a search engine. The search engine could have solved this problem for you years ago.
Which hasn't been an issue if you installed updates that were 5 years old or more at this point.
And the size was 2G, not one.
Just for reference, the PST size issue hasn't been an issue for a good 5 years. Outlook 2k7/2k10 never had the issue and 2k3 was patched long ago.
You don't need the PST to do that, nor do you want to touch it, Outlook will have it locked when Outlook is running. You'll use a Outlook plugin to do what you want, in which case you don't need to use a PST as a backing store anyway, you can use whatever you want. If you want to continue using the PST backing store or integrate/merge with existing Outlook supported servers (i.e. exchange) then you just use the Outlook Object Model or Exchange Client Plugin API to get what you want via Outlook.
There really is no reason to touch a PST directly unless you are importing data to something else and don't want to fire up Outlook to do so. Which I can see for backup apps and things like Thunderbird importing old data. Of course, you can get the address book entries already via the address book API, and mail is only important for people using POP which may not store their mail on the server.
Both of the cases you specified are very clearly extreme corner cases that apply to a very limited set of people, and both are solved by a very simple 'move it to a different WINDOWS machine'.
How many times do you plan on accessing a PST from Linux, Solaris or BSD? Exactly once, to dump the data into something useful. Its not like you're running a client on a non-windows machine that would be retarded enough to use a PST as its backing store, and if you are, you get what you deserve.
Don't use a COM plugin then, use an exchange client plugin. Not really sure how you'd stop that since its just a dll. Exchange client plugins have all the power of a COM Outlook Object Model plugin and they actually let you get at the good stuff.
The problems you are complaining about are because of the crappy equipment sold by X10.com. The X10 protocol (which is not 'owned' by X10.com) does not prevent status responses from being sent, but when you buy bargin basement crap from a website designed to leech your money, you get crappy hardware.
Do you complain when you get a e-machine and it doesn't have a PCI-E slot as well? Pay for quality and get quality (sometimes :), don't pay for quality and you probably won't get quality, unless they haven't yet figured out how they can make it cheaper and maximize their profits. You really do get what you pay for.
Not really sure what the outside temperature matters. If its 2 degrees outside, and my house is at a comfortable temp, theres no reason to turn on anything because of the outside temp.
It could be 62f outside, and 90f in my office due to the PCs in it, I expect the system to deal with that regardless of outside temp.
Time of day is not real useful as well. I have a thermostat that supports scheduling and what I've found is that I set the schedule to be the same all the time anyway, its cheaper to keep the house cool then to have the AC or heater run like hell to fix the problem before I get home, or to have a home thats uncomfortable because I came home early.
By the sound of it, your father over engineered the problem and wasted time and money. Its okay, as a geek, its an unwritten law, unless he worked for NASA, in which case he shouldn't work for NASA.
The real reason people don't do it? They don't see the need for it.
If you want your lights on as a security precaution, buy an alarm, its far more effective. Temps should generally remain consistent to provide comfort. I've considered setting up automation on several occasions and every time I've come to the conclusion that the additional complexity and lowered reliability and chance for it to screw up are far worse than any benefits, perceived or otherwise that would result from doing so. There just ISN'T that much stuff that needs automated. Even with things like your coffee in the morning. You've got to set the machine up with water and coffee the day before anyway, at which point you can push the button to turn it on automatically, and if you forget to add water, you don't burn your house down. A 5 minute wait for coffee is far better than a trip to the hospital burn unit or funeral home.
Because you didn't get the remote start package for your car? Mine does it just fine, just push the button on the key fob while drinking my morning Mt Dew. (Or coffee for you masochists.)
Proper automation would alert you and if no response, roll them up on its own.
I can, until I get out, in which case having a way to roll the windows down without the key in would make one hell of an easy way to get into the car. No need to slimjim the door, just get a cloths hanger, push the button on the power windows now just reach in and open the door. Perhaps you bought the wrong car/package.
Since when is the user executing arbitrary code a bug?
The attack vector requires that the user install and run something that is bad to start with. If you can do that, you've already done what you need to do.
Yes, you can trick someone into running bad code with this, you could just as easy replace any code they are going to run or use LD_PRELOAD.
To exploit this, you've already be compromised somehow.
The fix? Signed binaries and only allowing trusted code to run on the system.
If you're worried about this, you really don't have a very good grasp on security of operating systems in general.
Reality check:
The PST format is rather useless. You can already access all the data on a Windows machine (which you have already to create it anyway) using Outlook plugins, either a COM Outlook Object Model plugin or a Exchange client plugin, depending on what you need.
So okay, now things like Thunderbird can import the mail from Outlook, which is good for people who use POP3 I guess, IMAP and Exchange store the mail on the server so theirs no real need.
Products won't carry a 'Works with Outlook' sticker because of this, the file is locked when Outlook is open, you you have to use an Outlook plugin if you want to do anything useful with it for normal people who use Outlook.
As someone who writes Outlook plugins for a job, this is rather useless for much other than exporting data from a backup without reinstalling Outlook after a crash of your system.
I.E. useful only in a limited set of circumstances that are really a corner case.
This doesn't do anything for communicating with Exchange, which is really what you want.
Which OS does this happen on? Not Windows, Linux, OS X, *BSD ...
They ALL have DLL hell for closed source apps. If your solution is no closed source apps, then you live in a fantasy world.
On my mac, I just download the app. Run it. If the app supports auto updating, it just hooks in on first run.
No package manager required. No dependency tracking, it just works. When I want to uninstall it, I just delete it and it cleans itself up on its own, sometimes not completely until next login.
A great example of this is CrossOver for Mac.
A package manager is nice for finding apps however, but trying to say that Apples system is bad in comparison is just silly. When you get a bunch of commercial vendor together, putting them all on the same 'repository' gets to be a bitch, they fight too much. This is why its rare for commercial software unless they can buy their way to the front of the display list.
No one is suggesting it be hard to find, not even Apple, which is why they have their own site with the common Mac software you can buy or download if its free or has a trial.
You can't compare Linux package managers which are practically designed to be anti-commercial to a commercial environment. Its just not the same ballgame.
Contrary to popular and extremely ignorant belief, slaves got paid. However, that 'pay' was generally only in the form of bad food and really crappy housing, with an occasional side does of ass beating towards the end of it.
Running 10.6 is hardly 'bleeding edge'. It would have been bleeding edge a year or so ago when the first developer seeds of it went out now.
Any app that hasn't patched for 10.6 at this point is a neglected app.
Do yourself a favor, use Sketsa instead. It actually produces standard SVG files. Using Inkscape to produce SVGs is like using Word to make HTML, you end up with a half assed, full of proprietary tags, mess chunk of an SVG that won't render right in just about any standard SVG display system if its more complex than a smiley face.
Yes, Sketsa is commercial, but the price is well worth the difference. Inkscape is crap.
Considering how few PPC apps in use now days, it seems logical.
I've only been a mac user for a few months, but I've never seen a PPC binary, with the exception of the one 'hello world' universal binary I made just to see what would happen.
Citation needed.
HFS+J case sensitive is essentially a modified UFS2.
You realize that DragonflyBSD is just an older FreeBSD with a different installer for all intents and purposes, right? Not exactly a funny FS interface considering its shared with 4 other OSes, one of which is dead.
And block level checksumming, and RAID5 with single and double parity, and mirroring, and compression, and sharing freespace between mount points.
SSDs can be used as read only cache in a zpool to speed up random access.
While you're sitting there crying about the no mechanical failures you had, but with a corrupted drive because of a controller failure on the drive, I'll just replace the drive and move on ... with my snapshots too.
And just for reference:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=zfs+encryption&aq=0&oq=zfs+encr&aqi=g5g-m3
Its got encryption.
Where did you get that from? I've got a machine thats been up since a few days after FBSD 7.2 was released that only has ZFS and serves data constantly. Its been moving filling my gigabit ethernet links for about 8 hours today alone, and this isn't the first time its done a lot of IO for me.
I admit, I don't really 'stress' the system, but the only problem with ZFS on FBSD is its inability to cope with low memory situations. FBSD 64 bit with 4 gigs of ram and you won't see a problem unless you screw with the ARC and mess it up.
ZFS DOES have multiple layers of redundancy. Including block level checksuming. Why can no desktop mac have that? Two drives, mirrored vdev, turn on checksuming, set copies=2. You now have three layers of protection and correction against bit rot and failure. Any of those layers detect a problem during a read and they pull the data from a new place. Have you actually read anything about ZFS from someone who knew what they were talking about?
I'm not sure what you mean by 'doesn't handle it magically' but I've pulled a drive out of a zraid vdev, written random data to a random location and it was happy to detect it and correct it on the fly, letting me know it happened in syslog.
I don't think you actually know anything about ZFS, but then again, I am a self admitting ZFS fanboy.
Warning: I have become a ZFS fanboy, my statements may not be entirely rational.
Use ZFS for a week on something like a file server, you'll be more than willing to ignore traditional Unix logic (which I firmly believe in) in order to use the goodness that is ZFS.
I'll admit, I'm a ZFS fanboy now, and I've only used it on FBSD 7.2, which is using a much older version of ZFS (v6, current is 13 I think). In 7.2 its not considered production ready and its still awesome to work with for me.
I shoved 4 PATA and 4 SATA drivers in a case, 2 gigs of ram (really the minimum for FBSD and ZFS on a 64 bit machine, which is where it sings). The 4 SATA drivers are in the zraid vdev, 2 of the PATA drives are in another mirrored vdev, and the final 2 in a second mirror vdev. So all the drives have redundancy and they are all in one big zpool with the total space available as one big chunk.
Now thats all well and good, but heres where it gets awesome. Want more space? Add some drives, create a new vdev, add it too the pool, instant space available. Okay, so thats not that impressive in and of itself. I can also add in a SSD as a 'cache' drive, which the ZFS system will then populate with a read only copy of data that gets accessed often in a random way, for a speed increase for your random IO needs.
Okay, so I've got a few terabytes of data available, but I need a to create a share for backup using TimeMachine on my Mac. Well time machine will be happy to consume all the space on the drive. No problem, create a new mount point in the zpool, limit it to 1TB. It will only consume up to 1TB, IF space is available in the zpool. I can also reserve the space if I want to ensure its there for the backups. You can use the same system for quotas of individual users.
I also have a bunch of ISOs with uncompressed data on them that I mount from virtual machines for various reasons, full of essentially text data. Welp, for that create another mountpoint on the same zpool, turn on compression, now my 5TB of text gets compressed into a few hundred gigs automatically and transparently. Its read only, and very important. I have backups, but they are in another state and transfering them back would be a painfully slow process which would cost me a lot of time. So I set the mount point to read only and set copies=2. Now the mount point is read only, and the data is stored twice, on 2 different vdevs. So not only is the data on a raid or a mirror, its on BOTH. If I was really worried I could set copies=3 and it would be on all the vdevs, so as long as one is usable I have my data, assuming all the vdevs have enough space to store the data. One of them doesn't, so copies=2 is the only useful option to me.
I also have a software archive of all my commercial windows software, I want to keep it safe from any sort of infection or modification, so I set that mount point readonly.
So far, I've done nothing that can't be done already with existing methods, but what I've done it across a common shared data pool. Free space is shared across all of them.
I thought ZFS was a waste of time until I started using it. I am by no means a ZFS master, but I've learned that it can do some pretty powerful things. My setup is small, I only use it at home until FBSD 8 is released, which will have what is considered to be a production ready implementation, but I will be moving to it at that point in our internal office servers.
I know I haven't listed any life changing reasons to use it, but its turned me into a fanboy.
Technically, it IS modular, even if it doesn't have well defined zones. If you look at ZFS in a slight different way, it can be just one layer of the system. You can create virtual devices in a zpool and treat them as a block device (its just another /dev entry). Just to see how it worked, I created a virtual device on top of the zpool, formatted it with UFS, put some files on it, expanded the virtual device, ran growfs and had a larger UFS mount point.
Technically its not one click.
Windows 7 has the same ability, not one click here either.
In my experience however, you're better off starting from scratch than migrating from one type to another.
Yes, but new code WAS added BEFORE the RC was cut, which means you DO need more testing, and in fact MAY need to add more code to it. Thats kind of why you cut an RC, to say 'okay, we think we're done, lets give it a whirl and see what happens'
RTM IS NOT AN RC. RTM IS the final product. It is the exact same thing you buy on the shelves. It just goes to the manufactures and distributors so everyone can be ready, together, on the official release day.
Dear god please tell me you didn't learn how to develop from Wikipedia or consider yourself a professional developer. If you work on any public projects or for a company that sells software please tell me who/what it is so I can avoid it like the plague.
You realize that a SP for Windows is just a collection of hot fixes that are already available right? Its a roll up package of everything previous after it has been well tested. 9 times out of 10 installing a service pack on a fully patched Windows machine does very little other than say you've installed the service pack and fix some existing hotfixes.
Right, because 8.04LTS has been out as long as XP, and it also will be supported as long as XP ...
wait ... ...
wait
No, XP was out first and XP will be supported for longer than Ubuntu 8.04LTS ... 8.04 was released 5 years later and support ends nearly 3 years earlier for the desktop version and at least 6 months earlier than XP.
If you want to install 10.x LTS, which isn't anywhere release, and isn't planned to be for at least another 6 months, then you can get support for the server version for about a year and a half after XP support ends. Desktop support STILL ends at least 6 months before XP does.
The 'long term' part of LTS is a freaking joke.
Source:
http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu/serveredition/benefits/lifecycle
Really, 8.04 supports the newest features? So what does 9.x have that 8.x doesn't? Let me give you a dose of reality, Ubuntu may support some things for a little while, but nothing in Linux has long term support, it is a CONSTANT upgrade cycle. Just because you don't 'pay for upgraded software' doesn't mean there is no cost. When will you people get that?
I'm sorry, what was your point again, I was so blown away by how disconnected from reality you are that I forgot.