You could also cap your upload (and even download) bandwidth at the router to 90-95% of your maximum WAN connection speed. This helps packets catch up when your connection is saturated, reducing dropped packets when your connection is saturated.
Generally you don't want to fully saturate your WAN download or upload connection, as it typically causes everything to slow to a halt. If you use cap your bandwidth to give the router some extra head room, you don't have the timeout issues.
Or you could beat the big box stores for any hardware by not buying the windows license at all. Especially if you don't use it.
The story is "66% of All Windows Users Still Use Windows XP". This discussion is about average Joe computer breaking, and they need to fix or buy a new computer. The majority of average Joes wants Windows. You're clearly not the target audience.
That's only true if you're trying to build are trying to build a super-low end computer. ($400 budget) You can usually beat the big box stores up to the point where you need to buy the Windows license. They get those for $20-30 a piece, while you can't buy an OEM copy for less than $100, so in the end your build is more expensive, usually by about $50.
When your budget expands to an $800 machine, it's very easy to beat the big box stores and price and performance.
I'm not missing the point. There was no point being made by the OP.
OP never asked for something "cheaper, better", just an open source alternative (or in his words, a replacement). Somebody above me replied to OP about OO.org Base, OP ignored him and continued to rant about how there are no alternatives.
Who cares? PostgreSQL isn't trying to convert Access users. They're two different market shares. There aren't any Access like front ends for Access because that's not the market share they are trying to capture.
As other people have pointed out, if you really wanted to, you can still use Access to connect to a PostgreSQL database with ODBC already, or use OpenOffice Base, a usable open source alternative which you seemed to have conveniently ignored. Access may still be better for those users, but Base is usable. Before you rebuttal with "I still like Access better", that's great, use what you like best. Base is still usable for those who want to use it. Now go astroturf somewhere else.
PS: Because of lack of Linux support (which they promised) I'll put Valve/steam in the sh*t tier category now. (pity I was willing to buy even more from them provided a native client)
You're confusing LGPL and the GPL. The LGPL has a linking exception, the GPL does not. You cannot distribute code linking to GPL code without using a GPL compatible license. If you link to code distributed under the LGPL, you're fine. The only thing you need to distribute is the the actual library you linked to, if you made any changes, but not the rest of your codebase.
Wordpress is GPL, so linking to any of the Wordpress codebase requires distributing your code under the terms of the GPL. I don't see how you can make a useful Wordpress theme/template without making a Wordpress call somewhere. Printing out a post, or comment is going to require a function call to some GPLed code.
I believe the creator is correct, as long as Wordpress remains pure GPL, most non-GPL themes and plugins are going to break the license. It is entirely possible to create a non-GPL plugin, as long as you don't need to make any calls to Wordpress functions or internals.
Interpreted vs compiled, there is no difference in the interpretation of the license. Linking in an interpreted language is treated the same as linking in a compiled language.
I've used Zimbra and the interface was very good. In some ways Zimbra was better than Gmail, in other ways Gmail is better.
For instance, tagging, archiving, and searching on Gmail on better, however Zimbra has a better composer, better navigation, and has contextual (right-click) menus, and tabs. Arguably the conversation view on Gmail is better than the way Zimbra does it (grouping related messages together)
Yep,/. cut off my post. There was something there after the quote, but it's not anymore. Strangely enough, it was in the preview. I don't care enough to re-type it out.
I hope this doesn't encourage would-be censors to restrict the kinds of content allowed in non-xxx domains. Not all content fits neatly into an XXX designation, and even if it did it is simply not right to restrict XXX content to XXX domains. Having an XXX domain has always struck me as either pointless (insofar as XXX content might continue to be hosted on non-XXX domains) or otherwise a really bad idea (insofar as no XXX content may be allowed outside of XXX domains).
Nobody will use it. Using.xxx will allow every administrator to just wildcard block the.xxx domain, and I doubt its in the adult industry's best interest to use it.
It's almost baffling that the "oh, think of the children" crowd doesn't want this. I would think it would be of their interest to "force" (which I doubt could ever happen) adult companies to use the.xxx domains to allow this "dirty content" to be easily censored, and create a "red light district" of the internet, which you could just easily block with a simple wildcard filter. Fortunately, most of the censors are idiots and would rather put their head in the sand than acknowledge it exists and there is no way to get rid of it, since there will always be demand.
Either way, whatever ICANN approves or disapproves the usage of.xxx domains, it won't make a difference either way. The internet will be full of porn, everybody who wants it will be able to get it, and.xxx will continue to be unused, whether it's available or not.
Similarly, there's no point in having babies, going to work, reading a book, sleeping in a house, eating dinner, watching movies, or putting up wallpaper.
Generally, people go to work so they can buy food and other things needed to live. If you grew your own food, you would need money for land (also requiring you to work). If you tried to sell food for money (to buy land), that would be your job (work). So there is definitely a point to going to work.
No, it's not at all like electricity. The electric company can turn on and off generators to meet spikes in demand, or use excess capacity to pump water into a reservoir to sell later during peak hours. The amount it costs to generate electricity at any point in time is proportional to the amount of electricity generated. When demand increases, it costs more to run. When demand goes down, it costs less to run. Sure, they need to build enough capacity to meet peak demand, but operational costs will fluctuate based on demand, and so will their income. Power generation is also very centralized, and the power itself pooled across the entire network. Factories can use power from the power plant during the day, and then that power can shift to residential areas at night when demand changes.
Bandwidth is different. The operational costs are going to be exactly the same no matter how much you use it. It costs the same amount of money during peak and low demand. You can't turn equipment off to stop generating bandwidth, it just doesn't scale like that. You can't pool bandwidth, you need to build capacity to every single endpoint to meet peak demands at any given time. You can't just shift unused bandwidth across town when usage shifts around.
Power plants can push power across hundreds of miles to meet peak demands. If really needed, the east coast can push unused power out night out towards the west coast to meet daytime demands on the west coast. You can't just push unused bandwidth out west, it just sits there on the east coast, unused.
The economics of the two are very, very, very different. Power is very centralized, and operational cost is based on usage, but bandwidth is very localized, where operational cost is based purely on capacity.
I'm sure within a few months of the game launch somebody will come up with a quasi Battle.NET server that you can run on your PC or your friends PC to simulate LAN play.
Yes, it would be somewhat more annoying than having it done the "right" way, but there is little doubt in my mind that there won't be a homebrew workaround in the future.
This existed with the original StarCraft game, so it wouldn't surprise me to see it a second time.
Steam is DRM. It may not be very intrusive for most people, but it's still DRM.
I use Steam, I'm happy with the service and Valve, but I know it's DRM and what I'm getting into.
I don't know why you'd have to immerse the entire blades in cooling.
Couldn't you just use tube liquid cooling, found in many enthusiast machines? You could make one pump/heat exchanger per blade enclosure, with a custom valve/fitting connecting the blade to the enclosure to pass the cooling around. I'm sure a clever engineer could easily come up with a design for redundant heat exchangers/pumps in the enclosure, even hot swappable.
The benefits of liquid cooling (low noise, lower temperatures) with less or no mess. I'd also imagine it would be cheaper than this method as well.
Walk over to the nearest properly mounted rack array you have, and shake it. Does it move visibly? If so, problem identified. Most racks are built to hold things up. They aren't built with much structural integrity beyond what is absolutely needed. I've seldom seen a rack with any kind of proper cross bracing, and this makes them prone to vibration transfer. You make a valid point that this is presented as a "buy this product to improve your servers" kinda thing. However, the issues with vibrations have long been ignored, and maybe that needs to change.
My personal anecdote is: Working for a small company dealing in terabytes of data (7 years ago), they got their first disk array. Previous to that, they were using desktops to store everything around the network. So, after months of pleading, they got me the disk array I wanted, and the failure rate was atrocious. Averaged to 1 disk per 90 days. The SAN we used sat on a flimsy filing cabinet right next to a high speed printer. Not touching, but close. After a while of trying to figure out the problem, I finally sold the bosses on the idea of turning one of the closets into a server room. I installed a rack, mounted it to the wall with dampeners, and installed the SAN into it. Along with 2 1au servers, and another brand new NAS. The failure rate plummeted. The original SAN so prone to killing disks worked it's ass off for 2 more years before any of the drives failed again. As far as I know it's only had 3 disks replaced in the 5 years since then. Seems reasonable to me to assume that vibration not only plays a role in performance, but in lifetime as well.
Maybe you had a bad batch of hard drives. By the time you moved it to a real rack, all the bad drives had failed.
It's quite possible the vibrations had something to do with it, but I'm more likely to believe you simply had a bad batch of hard drives
No, I don't see the flaw. You always do processing server side.
You can do sanity checking client side if you'd like, but you still need to do it server side.
Nagios + Check_Mk + PNP + NagVis has worked well for us as a platform.
Nagios for notifications
Check_MK is a monitoring plugin for Nagios. It does a bit better job than something like NRPE, it creates only one active check per server, and all the other services become passive checks. Increases performance, and does a lot of auto configuration for you.
PNP4Nagios for RRD graphs/trending. It integrates well with nagios for performance data.
NagVis is what the OP might be looking for. It allows you to upload pictures, and put some XY coordinates on it for each server. So you can upload a photograph of your server rack, and put little check boxes for each server transposed on the picture (healthy/not healthy) with labels and everything too.
Because Intel sells motherboards and chipsets too. They don't want to sell you just a new processor, they want to sell you a new processor and a motherboard.
If Intel thought they could make more money by keeping their stuff backwards compatible, they would, but I'm sure the bean counters figured the amount of sales lost to AMD would be less than the profits they could make by forcing you to buy new motherboards too, and I would tend to agree with that.
I don't like it, I don't think it's good for consumers, but it makes sense from Intel's perspective.
Slashdot Mirror
You could also cap your upload (and even download) bandwidth at the router to 90-95% of your maximum WAN connection speed. This helps packets catch up when your connection is saturated, reducing dropped packets when your connection is saturated.
Generally you don't want to fully saturate your WAN download or upload connection, as it typically causes everything to slow to a halt. If you use cap your bandwidth to give the router some extra head room, you don't have the timeout issues.
So, he wasn't talking about pirating windows? Isn't that what I said?
The last bit, "Especially if you don't use it." implies he was talking about people pirating it...
Nice job reading between the lines, eh?
Or he was implying he uses Linux, considering his username is dmesg0 . Good job "reading between the lines".
Or you could beat the big box stores for any hardware by not buying the windows license at all. Especially if you don't use it.
The story is "66% of All Windows Users Still Use Windows XP". This discussion is about average Joe computer breaking, and they need to fix or buy a new computer. The majority of average Joes wants Windows. You're clearly not the target audience.
That's only true if you're trying to build are trying to build a super-low end computer. ($400 budget) You can usually beat the big box stores up to the point where you need to buy the Windows license. They get those for $20-30 a piece, while you can't buy an OEM copy for less than $100, so in the end your build is more expensive, usually by about $50.
When your budget expands to an $800 machine, it's very easy to beat the big box stores and price and performance.
I guess that means he can have 28 chicks at once!
It's sad that I know what quote you are referencing. I need to get out more.
I'm not missing the point. There was no point being made by the OP.
OP never asked for something "cheaper, better", just an open source alternative (or in his words, a replacement). Somebody above me replied to OP about OO.org Base, OP ignored him and continued to rant about how there are no alternatives.
Who cares? PostgreSQL isn't trying to convert Access users. They're two different market shares. There aren't any Access like front ends for Access because that's not the market share they are trying to capture.
As other people have pointed out, if you really wanted to, you can still use Access to connect to a PostgreSQL database with ODBC already, or use OpenOffice Base, a usable open source alternative which you seemed to have conveniently ignored. Access may still be better for those users, but Base is usable. Before you rebuttal with "I still like Access better", that's great, use what you like best. Base is still usable for those who want to use it. Now go astroturf somewhere else.
PS: Because of lack of Linux support (which they promised) I'll put Valve/steam in the sh*t tier category now. (pity I was willing to buy even more from them provided a native client)
[Citation Needed]
You can get better IOPs and throughput with 8-2.5" drives vs 5-3.5" drives in a disk array.
You're confusing LGPL and the GPL. The LGPL has a linking exception, the GPL does not. You cannot distribute code linking to GPL code without using a GPL compatible license. If you link to code distributed under the LGPL, you're fine. The only thing you need to distribute is the the actual library you linked to, if you made any changes, but not the rest of your codebase.
Wordpress is GPL, so linking to any of the Wordpress codebase requires distributing your code under the terms of the GPL. I don't see how you can make a useful Wordpress theme/template without making a Wordpress call somewhere. Printing out a post, or comment is going to require a function call to some GPLed code.
I believe the creator is correct, as long as Wordpress remains pure GPL, most non-GPL themes and plugins are going to break the license. It is entirely possible to create a non-GPL plugin, as long as you don't need to make any calls to Wordpress functions or internals.
Interpreted vs compiled, there is no difference in the interpretation of the license. Linking in an interpreted language is treated the same as linking in a compiled language.
I've used Zimbra and the interface was very good. In some ways Zimbra was better than Gmail, in other ways Gmail is better.
For instance, tagging, archiving, and searching on Gmail on better, however Zimbra has a better composer, better navigation, and has contextual (right-click) menus, and tabs. Arguably the conversation view on Gmail is better than the way Zimbra does it (grouping related messages together)
Yep, /. cut off my post. There was something there after the quote, but it's not anymore. Strangely enough, it was in the preview. I don't care enough to re-type it out.
I hope this doesn't encourage would-be censors to restrict the kinds of content allowed in non-xxx domains. Not all content fits neatly into an XXX designation, and even if it did it is simply not right to restrict XXX content to XXX domains. Having an XXX domain has always struck me as either pointless (insofar as XXX content might continue to be hosted on non-XXX domains) or otherwise a really bad idea (insofar as no XXX content may be allowed outside of XXX domains).
Nobody will use it. Using .xxx will allow every administrator to just wildcard block the .xxx domain, and I doubt its in the adult industry's best interest to use it.
It's almost baffling that the "oh, think of the children" crowd doesn't want this. I would think it would be of their interest to "force" (which I doubt could ever happen) adult companies to use the .xxx domains to allow this "dirty content" to be easily censored, and create a "red light district" of the internet, which you could just easily block with a simple wildcard filter. Fortunately, most of the censors are idiots and would rather put their head in the sand than acknowledge it exists and there is no way to get rid of it, since there will always be demand.
Either way, whatever ICANN approves or disapproves the usage of .xxx domains, it won't make a difference either way. The internet will be full of porn, everybody who wants it will be able to get it, and .xxx will continue to be unused, whether it's available or not.
Similarly, there's no point in having babies, going to work, reading a book, sleeping in a house, eating dinner, watching movies, or putting up wallpaper.
Generally, people go to work so they can buy food and other things needed to live. If you grew your own food, you would need money for land (also requiring you to work). If you tried to sell food for money (to buy land), that would be your job (work). So there is definitely a point to going to work.
How does it solve it for text-based browsers? It cannot in principle.
I too, am I waiting to stream YouTube videos with ELinks over SSH. If only people stopped using flash I'd be able to view the web properly.
No, it's not at all like electricity. The electric company can turn on and off generators to meet spikes in demand, or use excess capacity to pump water into a reservoir to sell later during peak hours. The amount it costs to generate electricity at any point in time is proportional to the amount of electricity generated. When demand increases, it costs more to run. When demand goes down, it costs less to run. Sure, they need to build enough capacity to meet peak demand, but operational costs will fluctuate based on demand, and so will their income. Power generation is also very centralized, and the power itself pooled across the entire network. Factories can use power from the power plant during the day, and then that power can shift to residential areas at night when demand changes.
Bandwidth is different. The operational costs are going to be exactly the same no matter how much you use it. It costs the same amount of money during peak and low demand. You can't turn equipment off to stop generating bandwidth, it just doesn't scale like that. You can't pool bandwidth, you need to build capacity to every single endpoint to meet peak demands at any given time. You can't just shift unused bandwidth across town when usage shifts around.
Power plants can push power across hundreds of miles to meet peak demands. If really needed, the east coast can push unused power out night out towards the west coast to meet daytime demands on the west coast. You can't just push unused bandwidth out west, it just sits there on the east coast, unused.
The economics of the two are very, very, very different. Power is very centralized, and operational cost is based on usage, but bandwidth is very localized, where operational cost is based purely on capacity.
I'm sure within a few months of the game launch somebody will come up with a quasi Battle.NET server that you can run on your PC or your friends PC to simulate LAN play. Yes, it would be somewhat more annoying than having it done the "right" way, but there is little doubt in my mind that there won't be a homebrew workaround in the future. This existed with the original StarCraft game, so it wouldn't surprise me to see it a second time.
Steam is DRM. It may not be very intrusive for most people, but it's still DRM. I use Steam, I'm happy with the service and Valve, but I know it's DRM and what I'm getting into.
I don't know why you'd have to immerse the entire blades in cooling.
Couldn't you just use tube liquid cooling, found in many enthusiast machines? You could make one pump/heat exchanger per blade enclosure, with a custom valve/fitting connecting the blade to the enclosure to pass the cooling around. I'm sure a clever engineer could easily come up with a design for redundant heat exchangers/pumps in the enclosure, even hot swappable.
The benefits of liquid cooling (low noise, lower temperatures) with less or no mess. I'd also imagine it would be cheaper than this method as well.
Walk over to the nearest properly mounted rack array you have, and shake it. Does it move visibly? If so, problem identified. Most racks are built to hold things up. They aren't built with much structural integrity beyond what is absolutely needed. I've seldom seen a rack with any kind of proper cross bracing, and this makes them prone to vibration transfer. You make a valid point that this is presented as a "buy this product to improve your servers" kinda thing. However, the issues with vibrations have long been ignored, and maybe that needs to change.
My personal anecdote is: Working for a small company dealing in terabytes of data (7 years ago), they got their first disk array. Previous to that, they were using desktops to store everything around the network. So, after months of pleading, they got me the disk array I wanted, and the failure rate was atrocious. Averaged to 1 disk per 90 days. The SAN we used sat on a flimsy filing cabinet right next to a high speed printer. Not touching, but close. After a while of trying to figure out the problem, I finally sold the bosses on the idea of turning one of the closets into a server room. I installed a rack, mounted it to the wall with dampeners, and installed the SAN into it. Along with 2 1au servers, and another brand new NAS. The failure rate plummeted. The original SAN so prone to killing disks worked it's ass off for 2 more years before any of the drives failed again. As far as I know it's only had 3 disks replaced in the 5 years since then. Seems reasonable to me to assume that vibration not only plays a role in performance, but in lifetime as well.
Maybe you had a bad batch of hard drives. By the time you moved it to a real rack, all the bad drives had failed.
It's quite possible the vibrations had something to do with it, but I'm more likely to believe you simply had a bad batch of hard drives
No, I don't see the flaw. You always do processing server side. You can do sanity checking client side if you'd like, but you still need to do it server side.
PNP4Nagios for RRD graphs/trending. It integrates well with nagios for performance data.
Because Intel sells motherboards and chipsets too. They don't want to sell you just a new processor, they want to sell you a new processor and a motherboard.
If Intel thought they could make more money by keeping their stuff backwards compatible, they would, but I'm sure the bean counters figured the amount of sales lost to AMD would be less than the profits they could make by forcing you to buy new motherboards too, and I would tend to agree with that.
I don't like it, I don't think it's good for consumers, but it makes sense from Intel's perspective.