They actually have all the authority they want to declare it a hoax or not. The question is, what effect does that declaration have?
It's to force elected officials to stop fucking about on an issue they are using as a political wedge and to do their fucking jobs based on the information that's started stacking up on Johnson's desk and hasn't gone away since. The time for comfortable fantasies is long gone.
We're talking about subject matters like paleoclimatology and the experts in the field who work on climate change. They know this shit.
That's the problem - sudoko puzzle writers, economists etc who are suggesting that the experts do not know their shit and that we should just ignore expertise in general. It's popular because Twilight style the reader can just insert themselves into the role of the economist or puzzle writer and pretend that they are more important than the experts as well. Of course it took a shitload of PR money to get that far but it's a pretty massive blight on society that will take a bit to recover from.
In use over the years in a variety of countries to deal with mosquitos that carry malaria. Some some weird reason people have decided to complicate the issue by making up stuff on gut feeling that did not happen. Maybe it makes them feel better if they think the people dealing with disease control are far more stupid than them.
Even though I disagree with RMS on many points I have to admit that his views on one issue are not necessarily the same as on a different issue. I suggest you address reality, which is bad enough, before indulging in pointless strawman construction which will get nothing done apart from vigourous public massaging of ego. He really does not appear to give a shit about hardware no matter what you would like him to think and how you would like to link issues together.
I really don't get why you are making such a big deal about what is really MIT staffroom politics that has escaped onto the net. Hardware is not his thing. He doesn't care about code burnt into eproms etc. Get over it and stop trying to put words into the mouth of someone who doesn't seem to care about the issue.
CAD started on *nix, so there are many very old and clunky "workstation" ones and a few modelled on PC CAD programs, such as "qcad" which has an open source version, and is definitely a step up from the expensive "lite" version of AutoCAD and on par with older versions of the full AutoCAD.
So you are attaching an idea to something ridiculous in order to make the idea look ridiculous? Don't you have some other sort of hobby you could be doing instead of insulting our intelligence?
Wow. Someone who thinks RMS is not unreasonable enough about open systems! Of course it's all just tediously boring strawman construction instead of an honest belief but hopefully you are having fun even if it's boring to watch.
That's a tiny connection so it's going to have a thin mini-HDMI cable plugged into it with maybe full sized HDMI at the other end. In mechanical terms that will make it very similar to a normal USB mouse.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at you now trying to reframe the discussion
Look at your post above. What is it doing other than attempting to reframe the discussion into a hypothetical world where they are both still small teaching tools?
try and keep up in future
Did you even read my post above? You've butted into a conversation and tried to drag it off into a fantasy land that neither myself or the above poster were discussing. You are not even in the race so there is nothing to keep up with, and you've ignored all my attempts to being it back to topic.
OK then, it's not a setup failure, but something is definitely wrong. It's probably to do with ZFS using 512 byte sector sizes which many disks lie about when they really have a 4k sector size.
in that it is not that good at handling many large files simultaneously
I'm using it for seismic data with a lot of multi-TB files being accessed simultaneously and it still saturates bonded gigabit links (better networking coming soon). Other stuff may be better but it's tasks like handling many large files simultaneously that filesytems are designed to do well these days. I'm not saying it's the best, but it's supposed to be at least fit for purpose so something is definitely wrong when performance is so bad. However the important thing is not using system X but getting the thing to go fast so maybe go with the XFS if it works better for you.
And now in 2015 we've still got computers running Win2k so that we've got something compatible with that 1990s VB environment to run such scientific VB scripts. It became abandonware. The VB you see now is in no way compatible with that old stuff, the VB between now and then was not only incompatible but it wrote over the libraries you needed to run the older stuff. VB in itself was not the problem - MS not supporting it was the problem. DLL hell turning it into a write once and then later port to a completely different language situation, where even current VB is unlikely to be able to use any of the existing code.
A more practical reason is by being a single vendor thing that VB you learn is not going to be the VB in use in a few years time. I've learned VB when it had BASIC syntax, VB when it was effectively Pascal and now it's more like java than anything else. Add in DLL hell and that old stuff can't run on new systems while something like python (and thankfully recent MS ".net" stuff like the current VB) is future proof. So while it's more viable now than it used to be it's still pretty low on the list of a very large number of choices. I'm not sure python is a fantastic choice for beginners either since whitespace has meaning.
Your comment above really has nothing to do with the post I commented on, about the current state of linux and minux instead of what happened in an alternative universe in your head so please stop pretending it is relevant.
If you wish to comment on things that were not said then I can't see how you can take so much offence at being laughed at. The bullying "grow up" shit is an added bit of noise. I suggest you start again instead of jumping into a conversation that you are not paying attention to. Either that or go back and look at the context and you'll see why I thought you had to be joking if you were attempting to class both linux in 2015 and minix in 2015 as "small teaching tools". It's a ridiculous comparison and can not in any way be taken seriously.
So what is the dog slow setup? A dozen disks in a single raidz2 vdev will be slow, splitting it into multiple vdevs will not, and mirrored disks (one vdev per two disks) should be very fast. It's not the same as RAID where the speed is proportional to the number of disks, the speed is proportional to the number of vdevs (virtual devices). Then there's the possibility of running 4k per sectors disks as if they are not and losing a lot of performance. So what did you do to get a speed slower than a single disk? Did any of my guesses match up or is something else wrong? I've got faster than that with a Pentium 4, eight year old IDE disks and 2GB memory.
With respect, if you'd spent as much time reading about the issue as you have writing you would understand the differences and we would not be having this discussion. It was done to death in many places, including here, a bit over a decade ago. However my main point is the suggestions that something that hasn't scaled is better at scaling than something that has scaled do not have any evidence at all to support them at this point. They are currently only wishful thinking and the efforts with the Hurd project have shown that it's not an easy thing to attempt to turn them into reality.
So while you may want it to be real it isn't as yet. If you are interested enough why don't you join in with the Hurd project and that way you can learn about microkernels and have something both interesting and true to say about them.
However, Windows 8 still rules if for no other reason than the easy OS reset/reinstall/wipeout feature
What about the applications which are the entire reason to use the computer in the first place? You've just thrown all of those away as a consequence of a vunerable system and they have to be set up again.
Even without malware infections I've had to re-install MS Office twice on a users MS Win8 machine due to it getting configuration information messed up. MS Win7 doesn't seem to have that problem, so it appears that there are even incompatibilities between the current MS Office and the current MS Windows!
The problem with alternate crap releases at MS is the common one of losing experienced people over time and the new people having to come up to speed. You see it in other industries with things like safety, where there are utterly ridiculous fuckups, then ten or more years of smooth running, then another utterly ridiculous fuckup because the people that had even heard of the earlier mistake are long gone.
The MS culture at one point meant the disposal of the weakest link in every team, no matter how good the team was, so that was a barrier to continuity. Apparently that has changed, but there appear to be a few practices in the place that still limit continuity so that every few years completely new teams have to learn how to reinvent wheels and make their mistakes in the process.
It's common in software in general and large software companies in paticular.
it's slow unless you through massive hardware at it
I've got some 32 bit stuff with 4GB of memory running ZFS that still can saturate gigabit if you ask it for a file. Not the sort of thing you want a few people hitting at once but still not slow even on crap hardware. In general terms a ZFS filesystem that is nearly full gets very slow but that's something that afflicts others as well. You have a point with send but it still shits all over rsync in terms of speed so if there's a rare chance of interruption it's tolerated.
While ZFS on linux is pretty good and I'm using it on a few things it's still a bit behind the other versions in speed and reliability. At the moment BSD is still a long way ahead if you have a lot of disks and want raidz or raidz2. I had a failure on every disk of a sixteen disk pool when setting up on linux late last year for example, just after I'd copied a few TB to it - there's still some edge cases where it falls over and dies. Reinstalled with BSD it was much faster, nearly twice as fast, and hasn't had any problems. Of course twice as fast doesn't always matter since it doesn't take much to saturate gigabit.
However you can set stuff on on BSD now for reliability and later you can just import those ZFS pools from BSD into linux with a one line command. I've done that with a web server I first setup in BSD, with mirrored disks in the pool, and then when I reinstalled as linux I just had to import the pool and I got all the contents back, all neatly mounted where they should be.
It probably won't take very long for ZFS on linux to catch up but for the moment BSD has some advantages. I love how ZFS will work even if you shove the disks into a different machine with different controllers and even a different operating system. No more worrying about whether you can get a replacement RAID card of the same model when things die.
Ask yourself this: why are they constantly revising the Linux kernel? Have the basic functional requirements for a kernel changed that much? No.
Put "automobile" in there instead of "kernel" and you may gain some understanding as to why it is not static and unchanging. As for the microkernel debate, see the Hurd project for an example as to why it's not trivial to do things that way either and how it hasn't "allowed growth while keeping the core functionality simple". It works for what it does, but I suggest you take a look at the current state of it and reconsider such a claim since reality seems to show it's still hard work to add more functionality over time. Since it's a software philosophy thing (not just at the kernel level) I suggest you argue with the Wayland folks instead of me - one monolithic thing in the aim of performance versus X which has lots of parts that communicate with each other that apparently has overheads the Wayland folks think they can avoid with time.
I thought this thing was done and dusted years ago. There are two main approaches at the kernel level but only one has major implementations at this point.
Ah - the pathetic age bluff. I am probably old enough that you could have been one of my students (even if you had graduated before this site went live) so that little weasel trick merely shows your own retained childishness. What exactly is the point of your attempt to compare what is now two very different things as if they are equivalent? Fernhout above is clearly someone who thinks microkernels are cool but does not appear to know enough out the topic to have heard of hurd - but what's your motivation for pretending that there is not a vast difference between the two projects at this point?
Wow. You really are confused if you think linux is still a small teaching tool and minux is no longer a small teaching tool. If you really are that confused and it's a serious suggestion why are you bothering to comment on this thread at all if it's so far beyond the realms of what you know? What motivates you to make noise with no substance in this situation?
decides to prop up the Communist Government at our expense
Why not? Republicans have been doing that by outsourcing to China haven't they? Who do you think gets most of the profits in China - little orphan Annie or Communist Party Officials?
Slashdot Mirror
It's to force elected officials to stop fucking about on an issue they are using as a political wedge and to do their fucking jobs based on the information that's started stacking up on Johnson's desk and hasn't gone away since.
The time for comfortable fantasies is long gone.
That's the problem - sudoko puzzle writers, economists etc who are suggesting that the experts do not know their shit and that we should just ignore expertise in general. It's popular because Twilight style the reader can just insert themselves into the role of the economist or puzzle writer and pretend that they are more important than the experts as well.
Of course it took a shitload of PR money to get that far but it's a pretty massive blight on society that will take a bit to recover from.
No, it is VERY SIMPLE:
In use over the years in a variety of countries to deal with mosquitos that carry malaria. Some some weird reason people have decided to complicate the issue by making up stuff on gut feeling that did not happen. Maybe it makes them feel better if they think the people dealing with disease control are far more stupid than them.
Even though I disagree with RMS on many points I have to admit that his views on one issue are not necessarily the same as on a different issue.
I suggest you address reality, which is bad enough, before indulging in pointless strawman construction which will get nothing done apart from vigourous public massaging of ego. He really does not appear to give a shit about hardware no matter what you would like him to think and how you would like to link issues together.
I really don't get why you are making such a big deal about what is really MIT staffroom politics that has escaped onto the net. Hardware is not his thing. He doesn't care about code burnt into eproms etc. Get over it and stop trying to put words into the mouth of someone who doesn't seem to care about the issue.
CAD started on *nix, so there are many very old and clunky "workstation" ones and a few modelled on PC CAD programs, such as "qcad" which has an open source version, and is definitely a step up from the expensive "lite" version of AutoCAD and on par with older versions of the full AutoCAD.
So you are attaching an idea to something ridiculous in order to make the idea look ridiculous? Don't you have some other sort of hobby you could be doing instead of insulting our intelligence?
Wow. Someone who thinks RMS is not unreasonable enough about open systems!
Of course it's all just tediously boring strawman construction instead of an honest belief but hopefully you are having fun even if it's boring to watch.
That's a tiny connection so it's going to have a thin mini-HDMI cable plugged into it with maybe full sized HDMI at the other end. In mechanical terms that will make it very similar to a normal USB mouse.
I've seen it being used in dictionary password attacks on an ssh honeypot so not at all.
Should be fine for playing with Python.
Look at your post above. What is it doing other than attempting to reframe the discussion into a hypothetical world where they are both still small teaching tools?
Did you even read my post above? You've butted into a conversation and tried to drag it off into a fantasy land that neither myself or the above poster were discussing. You are not even in the race so there is nothing to keep up with, and you've ignored all my attempts to being it back to topic.
I'm using it for seismic data with a lot of multi-TB files being accessed simultaneously and it still saturates bonded gigabit links (better networking coming soon). Other stuff may be better but it's tasks like handling many large files simultaneously that filesytems are designed to do well these days.
I'm not saying it's the best, but it's supposed to be at least fit for purpose so something is definitely wrong when performance is so bad. However the important thing is not using system X but getting the thing to go fast so maybe go with the XFS if it works better for you.
And now in 2015 we've still got computers running Win2k so that we've got something compatible with that 1990s VB environment to run such scientific VB scripts. It became abandonware. The VB you see now is in no way compatible with that old stuff, the VB between now and then was not only incompatible but it wrote over the libraries you needed to run the older stuff.
VB in itself was not the problem - MS not supporting it was the problem. DLL hell turning it into a write once and then later port to a completely different language situation, where even current VB is unlikely to be able to use any of the existing code.
A more practical reason is by being a single vendor thing that VB you learn is not going to be the VB in use in a few years time. I've learned VB when it had BASIC syntax, VB when it was effectively Pascal and now it's more like java than anything else. Add in DLL hell and that old stuff can't run on new systems while something like python (and thankfully recent MS ".net" stuff like the current VB) is future proof.
So while it's more viable now than it used to be it's still pretty low on the list of a very large number of choices. I'm not sure python is a fantastic choice for beginners either since whitespace has meaning.
Your comment above really has nothing to do with the post I commented on, about the current state of linux and minux instead of what happened in an alternative universe in your head so please stop pretending it is relevant.
If you wish to comment on things that were not said then I can't see how you can take so much offence at being laughed at. The bullying "grow up" shit is an added bit of noise. I suggest you start again instead of jumping into a conversation that you are not paying attention to. Either that or go back and look at the context and you'll see why I thought you had to be joking if you were attempting to class both linux in 2015 and minix in 2015 as "small teaching tools". It's a ridiculous comparison and can not in any way be taken seriously.
So what is the dog slow setup? A dozen disks in a single raidz2 vdev will be slow, splitting it into multiple vdevs will not, and mirrored disks (one vdev per two disks) should be very fast. It's not the same as RAID where the speed is proportional to the number of disks, the speed is proportional to the number of vdevs (virtual devices).
Then there's the possibility of running 4k per sectors disks as if they are not and losing a lot of performance.
So what did you do to get a speed slower than a single disk? Did any of my guesses match up or is something else wrong?
I've got faster than that with a Pentium 4, eight year old IDE disks and 2GB memory.
With respect, if you'd spent as much time reading about the issue as you have writing you would understand the differences and we would not be having this discussion. It was done to death in many places, including here, a bit over a decade ago.
However my main point is the suggestions that something that hasn't scaled is better at scaling than something that has scaled do not have any evidence at all to support them at this point. They are currently only wishful thinking and the efforts with the Hurd project have shown that it's not an easy thing to attempt to turn them into reality.
So while you may want it to be real it isn't as yet. If you are interested enough why don't you join in with the Hurd project and that way you can learn about microkernels and have something both interesting and true to say about them.
What about the applications which are the entire reason to use the computer in the first place? You've just thrown all of those away as a consequence of a vunerable system and they have to be set up again.
Even without malware infections I've had to re-install MS Office twice on a users MS Win8 machine due to it getting configuration information messed up. MS Win7 doesn't seem to have that problem, so it appears that there are even incompatibilities between the current MS Office and the current MS Windows!
The problem with alternate crap releases at MS is the common one of losing experienced people over time and the new people having to come up to speed.
You see it in other industries with things like safety, where there are utterly ridiculous fuckups, then ten or more years of smooth running, then another utterly ridiculous fuckup because the people that had even heard of the earlier mistake are long gone.
The MS culture at one point meant the disposal of the weakest link in every team, no matter how good the team was, so that was a barrier to continuity. Apparently that has changed, but there appear to be a few practices in the place that still limit continuity so that every few years completely new teams have to learn how to reinvent wheels and make their mistakes in the process.
It's common in software in general and large software companies in paticular.
I've got some 32 bit stuff with 4GB of memory running ZFS that still can saturate gigabit if you ask it for a file. Not the sort of thing you want a few people hitting at once but still not slow even on crap hardware. In general terms a ZFS filesystem that is nearly full gets very slow but that's something that afflicts others as well.
You have a point with send but it still shits all over rsync in terms of speed so if there's a rare chance of interruption it's tolerated.
While ZFS on linux is pretty good and I'm using it on a few things it's still a bit behind the other versions in speed and reliability. At the moment BSD is still a long way ahead if you have a lot of disks and want raidz or raidz2.
I had a failure on every disk of a sixteen disk pool when setting up on linux late last year for example, just after I'd copied a few TB to it - there's still some edge cases where it falls over and dies. Reinstalled with BSD it was much faster, nearly twice as fast, and hasn't had any problems. Of course twice as fast doesn't always matter since it doesn't take much to saturate gigabit.
However you can set stuff on on BSD now for reliability and later you can just import those ZFS pools from BSD into linux with a one line command. I've done that with a web server I first setup in BSD, with mirrored disks in the pool, and then when I reinstalled as linux I just had to import the pool and I got all the contents back, all neatly mounted where they should be.
It probably won't take very long for ZFS on linux to catch up but for the moment BSD has some advantages. I love how ZFS will work even if you shove the disks into a different machine with different controllers and even a different operating system. No more worrying about whether you can get a replacement RAID card of the same model when things die.
Put "automobile" in there instead of "kernel" and you may gain some understanding as to why it is not static and unchanging.
As for the microkernel debate, see the Hurd project for an example as to why it's not trivial to do things that way either and how it hasn't "allowed growth while keeping the core functionality simple". It works for what it does, but I suggest you take a look at the current state of it and reconsider such a claim since reality seems to show it's still hard work to add more functionality over time.
Since it's a software philosophy thing (not just at the kernel level) I suggest you argue with the Wayland folks instead of me - one monolithic thing in the aim of performance versus X which has lots of parts that communicate with each other that apparently has overheads the Wayland folks think they can avoid with time.
I thought this thing was done and dusted years ago. There are two main approaches at the kernel level but only one has major implementations at this point.
Ah - the pathetic age bluff. I am probably old enough that you could have been one of my students (even if you had graduated before this site went live) so that little weasel trick merely shows your own retained childishness.
What exactly is the point of your attempt to compare what is now two very different things as if they are equivalent? Fernhout above is clearly someone who thinks microkernels are cool but does not appear to know enough out the topic to have heard of hurd - but what's your motivation for pretending that there is not a vast difference between the two projects at this point?
Wow. You really are confused if you think linux is still a small teaching tool and minux is no longer a small teaching tool. If you really are that confused and it's a serious suggestion why are you bothering to comment on this thread at all if it's so far beyond the realms of what you know? What motivates you to make noise with no substance in this situation?
Why not? Republicans have been doing that by outsourcing to China haven't they? Who do you think gets most of the profits in China - little orphan Annie or Communist Party Officials?