The article seems to come out in favour of the new VM code. It makes it sound like it works much more effectively. So, why does Alan Cox continue with the old VM code? There must be some reason why he thinks it's better, or why go through the effort of continually patching the old code into the newer kernel?
Basicly because nether of them are good in all conditions. Each of them is better than the
other in some situations. eg, big systems, little systems or whatever. While i am on the kernel mailing list i haven't been following the discussions closely enough to say any more than that, but it's the gist of it. Also for a while Alan continuing to run the Rik VM gave people a way to run a later version kernel without being lab rats for the new VM, which really hadn't had much testing in 2.4.10/11.
I think that this article overrates the AA VM by a large margin. It cant really be said to have solved the linux VM woes, which is what it implies.
I have now used both of the.13 kernels and personally found the -ac vm to be better for my needs. On the other hand, since i brought 768MB of RAM today, my needs have just changed.
You have a valid point, but i think you are forgetting something very
important.
Real progress can be defined as whether the secretary,
farmer, mechanic, CEO, or whoever else who isn't a card-carrying geek
was able to be more productive and feel better about using than computer
than they were with the last version.
If I, as a card carrying geek find that a new version increases my
productivity or enjoyment when using the system, then it can be marked
down as positive progress.
Creating a desktop environment which computer-illiterate people can use
is a wonderful thing to do, and I am sure that most people here would
rejoice. But it's not the only measure of success.
There are many reasons for developing Open Source Software, but
non-UNIX-user satisfaction doesn't rate all that highly for me. Current
user satisfaction and developer satisfaction seem at least as
important. Something that many people seem to forget is that
stealing users from other OSs (any other OS) isn't - or at least
shouldn't be - the goal.
A shared source licence is nothing new at all, basicly, it's an OpenSource licence minus the important part, Permission to Modify.
Darren Reids licence on IPF for example, is (from what i can tell) shared source, because it doesn't allow the distribution of modifued versions...
I guess that microsoft dont want people to distribute any versions, but thats beside the point. The important part of OpenSource (as i see it) is the ability to modify. However being close without allowing that, is nothing new.
Sorry Redhat but most IT manangers would choose MS in such a situation.
Right now, I doubt very much that Red Hat is aiming for or expects to get "most" IT managers buying their products. What thay _are_ aiming for is to get _more_ IT managers buying their products.
That is something which this development probably will do. I have very little doubt that RH will develop nice happy GUI interfaces etc for configuring RHDB, and that combined with Postgres not being crap, will result in more people using it.
Interestingly, this has already shown how powerful email is. I not received the email myself, but was told from icq, heard about it on the radio after some happy jedi faxed them, and have seen it on the evening [TV] news. It's really funny. And since only 8000 people need to right 'Jedi' to have an affect, it's probably going to happen.
From my limited understanding of pgp/gpg there id little to no point in not using your ISP's server, especially if you have already found someway of not having clear text addressing. It's not like it can be easily cracked.
As for "encryption algorithms used must be arbitrary, multiple, and unidentified." that is just a wast of time. Just use one which is good.
For a dialup situation, which admittedly is becoming less of an issue as people get DSL and such like, using the ISP smarthost is a Very Good Thing from the getting-the-mail-there point of view. Otherwise the dialin user might go offline, and not have the ability to retry if the remote host (however it is defined) is down or inaccessible.
True, sometimes convenience has to be sacrificed for security, but really, the address that you are sending to is not that important in the vast majority of cases, so really with gpg, there isn't that much of a problem.
i dont know what MoBo is in it, but the IBM Netfinnity 5600 series do have 64bit pci. The board in these machines is a dual processor one, though they normaly only come with one chip.
Slashdot Mirror
Basicly because nether of them are good in all conditions. Each of them is better than the
other in some situations. eg, big systems, little systems or whatever. While i am on the kernel mailing list i haven't been following the discussions closely enough to say any more than that, but it's the gist of it. Also for a while Alan continuing to run the Rik VM gave people a way to run a later version kernel without being lab rats for the new VM, which really hadn't had much testing in 2.4.10/11.
I think that this article overrates the AA VM by a large margin. It cant really be said to have solved the linux VM woes, which is what it implies.
I have now used both of the
You have a valid point, but i think you are forgetting something very important.
If I, as a card carrying geek find that a new version increases my productivity or enjoyment when using the system, then it can be marked down as positive progress.
Creating a desktop environment which computer-illiterate people can use is a wonderful thing to do, and I am sure that most people here would rejoice. But it's not the only measure of success.
There are many reasons for developing Open Source Software, but non-UNIX-user satisfaction doesn't rate all that highly for me. Current user satisfaction and developer satisfaction seem at least as important.
Something that many people seem to forget is that stealing users from other OSs (any other OS) isn't - or at least shouldn't be - the goal.
tim
So what they are saying, is that they have installed snort by default?
What a deal!
A shared source licence is nothing new at all, basicly, it's an OpenSource licence minus the important part, Permission to Modify. Darren Reids licence on IPF for example, is (from what i can tell) shared source, because it doesn't allow the distribution of modifued versions...
I guess that microsoft dont want people to distribute any versions, but thats beside the point. The important part of OpenSource (as i see it) is the ability to modify. However being close without allowing that, is nothing new.
Sorry Redhat but most IT manangers would choose MS in such a situation.
Right now, I doubt very much that Red Hat is aiming for or expects to get "most" IT managers buying their products. What thay _are_ aiming for is to get _more_ IT managers buying their products.
That is something which this development probably will do. I have very little doubt that RH will develop nice happy GUI interfaces etc for configuring RHDB, and that combined with Postgres not being crap, will result in more people using it.
I wouldn't look to hard for python2 in debian stable (potato), it's not there. I assume that you mean unstable, otherwise known as 'sid'.
Kernel Panic: You have been eaten by a Grue
Then they would already have seen this here a couple of weeks ago.
Now thats tempting.... if only we could get more than 8000 of each....
MWAHAhahahahahaha
It's really funny. And since only 8000 people need to right 'Jedi' to have an affect, it's probably going to happen.
Bow to Yoda!
Yes is the short answer. If you aren't worried about people reading the screen, then you will be fine.
ssh2 is better, but ssh1 is secure.
As for "encryption algorithms used must be arbitrary, multiple, and unidentified." that is just a wast of time. Just use one which is good.
For a dialup situation, which admittedly is becoming less of an issue as people get DSL and such like, using the ISP smarthost is a Very Good Thing from the getting-the-mail-there point of view. Otherwise the dialin user might go offline, and not have the ability to retry if the remote host (however it is defined) is down or inaccessible.
True, sometimes convenience has to be sacrificed for security, but really, the address that you are sending to is not that important in the vast majority of cases, so really with gpg, there isn't that much of a problem.
All we need to do is convince people to use it.
i dont know what MoBo is in it, but the IBM Netfinnity 5600 series do have 64bit pci. The board in these machines is a dual processor one, though they normaly only come with one chip.