...get it configured as an ethernet switch, rather than a Layer 3 router.
The poster didn't say how he had the cards connected together. My understanding is that he could make a layer 2 switch by bridging all the ethernet interfaces. It'd cut down on all the IP routing overhead. Still, I'd recommend getting a dedicated Gigabit switch. The PCI bus just wasn't meant to handle this amount of traffic.
Lets see... 2000g = 19.6Km/s/s acceleration. So imagine car travelling at 19.6Km/s (43843.951 miles per hour) and braking to a stop within one second. But considering that these CF cards only weigh probably < 50 grams, the actual forces and energies involved would not be nearly so great.
So would this "repeater" category include a box containing a WiFi node, a decoder for lossy audio, a DAC, and a low-power FM transmitter?
It could. I don't really see the point in a device like that however. My point was that this transmitter is most likely hooked up to the line-out connection on the DVD player with wires. So calling it "wireless" is at most only half correct. And there's nothing really special about one of these low-power FM transmitters. They've been around for a decade or more, ever since people wanted to play CDs in their CD playerless cars. I've got one lying around on a shelf somewhere along with a cassette adaptor.
Yes, calling it a wireless transmitter is at least confusing, if not outright incorrect. If it's totally wireless, then it's a repeater. Otherwise it's a simple transmitter. It seems that "wireless" has become a new buzzword. And to think that radios used to be referred to as the wireless...
I've always wondered about the real speed difference between MySQL and PostgreSQL. You said that you were able to take out a lot of code because PostgreSQL was to do more fo the checks for you, and the stored procedures handled the remaining high-level details. Back in the day, the MySQL developers publically trashed the idea of transactions, instead recommending people emulate similar functionality in their client-side code. And that they did.
Now, consider two similar DB-based applications. One is connecting to MySQL with all sorts of client-side code to emulate transactions and referential integrity (foreign keys, etc). The other is connecting to PostgreSQL where most of the work is done in the DB engine. Foreign keys are used, as are transactions and stored procedures. Thus the number of app->db requests will be far fewer than the client-heavy MySQL app. Now, even though the MySQL server may beat the PostgreSQL server in raw speed from simple selects, how would that change when you factor in the extra work that the MySQL app has to do? And what about more complex queries? I've found that PostgreSQL can handle complex queries (sub-selects, unions, aggregrates, etc) very well. It's much more efficient to do a single big multi-row query than lots of single-row queries. It probably takes longer for the programmer to write the query, but once that's done the optimizer gobbles it up and produces a plan that gives you all your data at once. Very nice.
I'd bet that all or most of the MySQL/PostgreSQL benchmarks don't take into account the very different ways these two DB's are used in real apps. MySQL is traditionally used as a simple data store with an SQL interface. Whereas PostgreSQL can become a more intergral part of the application, with stored procedures, triggers, foreign keys, etc.
I think the Python work would be interesting. I'm a long-time Perl coder and Python looks interesting. But IMHO, PHP would be a waste of time. Part of the reason CPAN is so huge is that perl5 is coming up to its 10th anniversary. The perl5 language has remained very stable over that time. But PHP5 has just been released and from what I've heard it's another major change to the language. But if it's got namespaces and/or sane package management like everyone's been begging for, then PEAR might start to really pick up. I guess we'll see in another 10 years. Either PEAR will be huge success, or programmers will reminisce "Remember PHP? I think someone's coded up a Parrot compiler for that old language":)
I may be wrong, but my understanding of cable TV here in Australia has been that our population is simply too sparse to support wide-spread roll outs. Foxtel and a few other operators have cable around the big three cities (Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane... what about Perth and Adelaide?) but everywhere else requires satellite. And satellite is an extra hassle, and I'm guessing is more expensive for the operator.
But I think you're also right about us not being "real heavy tv watchers". I used to get Foxtel when I lived in Sydney and while it had some good things from time to time, it never really engrossed me to a great deal. With the internet, computer games, Triple J radio, a good collection of DVD's, and several gigs of ripped MP3/Vorbis music, the five FTA channels are entertaining enough for me. I never find myself thinking "geez I'm bored and what I'd really like to do right now is flick through 500 channels of crap and vegetate".
...EAL levels run from 1 to 7. EAL1 basically means that the vendor showed up for the meeting. EAL7 means that key parts of the system have been rigorously verified in a mathematical way. EAL4 means that the design documents were reviewed using non-challenging criteria. This is sort of like having an accounting audit where the auditor checks that all of your paperwork is there and your business practice standards are appropriate, but never actually checks that any of your numbers are correct. An EAL4 evaluation is not required to examine the software at all.
EAL doesn't really mean much. At least, not until you get up to the higher levels. It's basically so that government departments can have a check-list requirement for any software they buy or comission.
IMNSHO, it just shows that MS and Adobe can't use a simple Open Source reference library. There should be no excuse about it being difficult to implement. It's already implemented! And from reading the simple license, it appears to be BSD-like. So there should be none the worries or problems that commercial outfits seem to have with the GNU GPL. Where's the problem?
Oh, and if you want to complain about an elephantine feature-laden monstrosity, check out PNG's cousin - MNG
Wow, what a clueless rant. Here's some suggestions:
OpenOffice can write both MSWord files and PDF files. Where's the supposed incompatability?
Just about every Linux distro nowadays uses DHCP to find network parameters.
Local proxy problems are an issue with the local network setup. Any competant network admin should set up transparent HTTP proxying and/or allow direct connections anyway.
Here's a recent eWeek article about setting up Samba to work in an AD domain. Admittedly, it is hard to find docs for Samba that are useful and up to date. AD support is, of course, rather bleeding edge.
Email? You couldn't just email the document to an account?
FTP? A lot of places have some sort of FTP space for students. And it's easy to setup an FTP server in Linux.
A USB thumb drive. Hell, a lot of other devices also use the USB mass storage device spec - digital cameras, MP3 players, mobile/cell phones, etc. Linux has no problems with either mounting the FAT filesystem or using Mtools directly.
A CDR/RW disc? I've heard that this sort of support is almost a no-brainer nowadays under Mandrake or SuSE.
And lastly, Explore2fs allows a windows machine to read an e2fs filesystem.
But hey, thanks for your dramatic little piece of fiction. Your cluelessness is only surpassed by your ability to blow things out of proportion, to make a mountain out of a molehill. Perhaps you should go into politics.
Perhaps just as important as the licensing issue is that of performance. Zend makes (or made, not sure now with PHP5) a PHP compiler and optimizer. Just buy the Zend product and make your PHP site faster and more efficient! But what about the free version? Would they cripple the performance of the free version just to sell more copies of the compiler/optimizer? Perhaps not. But I wouldn't be surprised to find them simply neglecting peformance problems in the free version.
I'll stick with Perl, thankyouverymuch. Python's looking interesting as well...
What are you talking about? Companies like Red Hat, SuSE, Caldera, and IBM have been employing F/OSS coders for years. RH employed Alan Cox to continue work on the kernel. SuSE employed quite a few coders who were working on various projects (like ALSA). It doesn't seem to have created any sort of jealousy or resentment amongst the other coders. We all manage to get by. Some of us are employed, some aren't. And the really good/lucky ones get employed to continue working on what we are interested in.
Nah, down here in the southern states it's kangaroos that roam the streets. Down in Tasmania they have the tazzie devils snapping up any bunny rabbits or roadrunners that stray too close. Up north we have Steve Erwin and his kids to keep the crocs in check:)
But really, half your income goes to the government, and what you're left with doesn't go as far, cause an iPod costs six hundred bloody dollars here, and... and... you have to say "bloody" in casual conversation... and "eh", sometimes, too...
Bloody 'ell mate, Canada is starting to sound a lot like Australia!
Re:Changed the view of the US?
on
Bobby Fischer Found
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Ok, IANAE (I am not an economist), but from what I understand the "trickle down effect" just doesn't work the way people want it to. Firstly, The rich are already spending a lot of money. Giving them even more isn't going to make as big an impact as doing the same to a poorer person. Secondly, the rich still only make up a small percentage of the world's/US's population. So giving a tax cut to the poor instead of the rich will affect many more people. And lastly, the money spent by a rich person doesn't really trickle down to the needy. When they buy up-market products, the money will very quickly "leave" the local area since it's likely to be imported (no matter where they live). The money goes to some company, and executive pay is almost universally improportionate to the worker's pay. So it's basically the rich paying the rich, with very little actually trickling down.
If Bush Jr really wanted to encourage the economy, a tax cut for the poor would have made a much better and longer lasting impact to many more people. People could pay off debts, get a better education, spend more time with the kids, start a small business, etc. He could have given people living on or near the povety line the opportunity to pick themselves up off the floor and make something of themselves. That would really help the economy. But instead he just gave the rich more of what they already have too much of.
From memory, the MS system has a mechanism for key recovery and/or an admin back-door. This makes sense in an office situation (e.g someone leaves or is fired) but it still leaves me wondering about other backdoors. It doesn't sound like paranoid-tinfoil-hat-crowd level encryption to me.
dm-crypt was introduced in kernel 2.6.4. This uses the new device-mapper API to encrypt a file or device. From what I've read, it's a much cleaner implementation than cryptoloop.
Unfortunately there is no in-filesystem encryption, yet. It's still a little clunky to encrypt a whole filesystem at a time. It'd be much more efficient to be able to mark a directory (and all its children) as being encrypted with a certain key. I believe some people are working on this, so we might see it eventually.
About virtual terminals: I gather that most distros now use gdm, kdm, or even good old xdm to provide an all-graphical login. None of this clunky startx stuff. Much more prettier looking as well:)
About user switching: I think KDE recently (last year?) added a "switch user" feature. I'm a Gnome user, so I'm not really sure. I know I've seen it recently, but I can't find it in the Gnome foot menu here. So it's probably in KDE.
Look at the timestamps, genius. The second post was written two hours after the first. Your reply however, is only 6 minutes after that. A little soon to be slaging off at slashdot. And it's got (Score:3,Insightful) now anyway. Have a little patience.
Simply code a form for contacting you via email and let PHP or whatever send it to you behind the scenes
...and watch as the spammers use your form to send millions of spams to other people!
Remember people, be careful with email forms. They may reduce the spam to you, but can contribute to the global spam problem. And if you want to send legitimate email from that machine as well, good luck getting off of the RBL's.
What ZDNet is implying is this: "People don't like Microsoft because it's a monopoly. But they don't dislike ARM, which is also a monopoly. That's inconsistent and illogical."
Agreed. My first impression upon reading the blurb was oh look, MS-friendly ZDnet is trying to reinforce the notion that all us MS-bashers attack MS simply because they're big and we're jealous. By acting "surprised", they are mocking any other explanations by implication. Any evidence of Microsoft's abuse of their monopoly position (like you cited) is forgotten, and the possibility that we might have valid motives is inconsequential next to their belief that MS is doing good.
IIRC, the kernel already had to be re-entrant in a way for SMP. And that work was laid down in 2.2 and 2.4. Kernel 2.0 had one big lock for the whole kernel. The later kernels broke that up into seperate locks for different sub-systems, and more. My understanding is that the work to make the kernel pre-emptive re-used a lot of the SMP work.
This and other issues (the whole Minix FUD) makes me think that Mr Russinovich is spewing a whole lot of crap for the MS-sycophant crowd. We know that a lot of what he's saying is wrong, but they don't. They'll just repeat it ad-nauseum (with even more misconceptions and flights of fancy) to the PHB's of the world. And that's the scary part.
Rule of Modularity: the 'simple parts' are not so simple- take any linux distribution and type 'man ls' and see how long that is, it will work for anything substituted for ls, certainly not simple.
The unix philosophy is One tool does one task, and does it well. ls lists the contents of a directory. There are some options for sorting and selecting what information to show. But it's still just listing the contents of a directory. If ls also checked your email (jwz's rule) or something like that, you'd have a point. But you don't. You're just confusing options and complexity.
Rule of Composition: Most new linux apps are not desined to be connected (through a pipe) to anything else-- they are either programs written with curses or for X and that means that they are not connectable.
Don't confuse applications and tools. Apps are big monolithic programs like web browsers and media players. The little unix tools that populate/bin and/usr/bin are the things that are meant to be used with pipes and other shell constructs. It doesn't usually make sense to pipe the output of an app to much besides a log file.
And a pipe doesn't always have to be STDOUT or something. When working locally X11 goes through a pipe, a named pipe. DXPC, the Differential X Protocol Compressor, uses named pipes to send X11 messages to another host in an efficient compressed form. This program doesn't need to modify X or libx11 or anything else to do what it does. It's all through the magic of pipes!
(I originally thought SSH used the same method to forward+compress+encrypt X11 traffic, but it looks like it binds on local TCP ports instead)
Rule of Parsimony: use ls -l/path/to/program of ls -R/path/to/source and check the size column. Or check the man page. Or start the program and look. There are not many small linux programs- especially because of its open-source nature. Linux (kernel) itself is also pretty big,
Boy, you're not making much sense there. The linux kernel is actually pretty small. Most apps are quite a deal larger than the kernel. My 2.6.7 kernel here is 1.3M, compressed. My XFree86 4.3.0 X server is 1.7M. Mozilla is close to 20M. And ls, your previous "complex" example, is all of 71K. Apps are big, tools are small. On any OS. Simple.
Slashdot Mirror
The poster didn't say how he had the cards connected together. My understanding is that he could make a layer 2 switch by bridging all the ethernet interfaces. It'd cut down on all the IP routing overhead. Still, I'd recommend getting a dedicated Gigabit switch. The PCI bus just wasn't meant to handle this amount of traffic.
Lets see... 2000g = 19.6Km/s/s acceleration. So imagine car travelling at 19.6Km/s (43843.951 miles per hour) and braking to a stop within one second. But considering that these CF cards only weigh probably < 50 grams, the actual forces and energies involved would not be nearly so great.
It could. I don't really see the point in a device like that however. My point was that this transmitter is most likely hooked up to the line-out connection on the DVD player with wires. So calling it "wireless" is at most only half correct. And there's nothing really special about one of these low-power FM transmitters. They've been around for a decade or more, ever since people wanted to play CDs in their CD playerless cars. I've got one lying around on a shelf somewhere along with a cassette adaptor.
Yes, calling it a wireless transmitter is at least confusing, if not outright incorrect. If it's totally wireless, then it's a repeater. Otherwise it's a simple transmitter. It seems that "wireless" has become a new buzzword. And to think that radios used to be referred to as the wireless...
I've always wondered about the real speed difference between MySQL and PostgreSQL. You said that you were able to take out a lot of code because PostgreSQL was to do more fo the checks for you, and the stored procedures handled the remaining high-level details. Back in the day, the MySQL developers publically trashed the idea of transactions, instead recommending people emulate similar functionality in their client-side code. And that they did.
Now, consider two similar DB-based applications. One is connecting to MySQL with all sorts of client-side code to emulate transactions and referential integrity (foreign keys, etc). The other is connecting to PostgreSQL where most of the work is done in the DB engine. Foreign keys are used, as are transactions and stored procedures. Thus the number of app->db requests will be far fewer than the client-heavy MySQL app. Now, even though the MySQL server may beat the PostgreSQL server in raw speed from simple selects, how would that change when you factor in the extra work that the MySQL app has to do? And what about more complex queries? I've found that PostgreSQL can handle complex queries (sub-selects, unions, aggregrates, etc) very well. It's much more efficient to do a single big multi-row query than lots of single-row queries. It probably takes longer for the programmer to write the query, but once that's done the optimizer gobbles it up and produces a plan that gives you all your data at once. Very nice.
I'd bet that all or most of the MySQL/PostgreSQL benchmarks don't take into account the very different ways these two DB's are used in real apps. MySQL is traditionally used as a simple data store with an SQL interface. Whereas PostgreSQL can become a more intergral part of the application, with stored procedures, triggers, foreign keys, etc.
I think the Python work would be interesting. I'm a long-time Perl coder and Python looks interesting. But IMHO, PHP would be a waste of time. Part of the reason CPAN is so huge is that perl5 is coming up to its 10th anniversary. The perl5 language has remained very stable over that time. But PHP5 has just been released and from what I've heard it's another major change to the language. But if it's got namespaces and/or sane package management like everyone's been begging for, then PEAR might start to really pick up. I guess we'll see in another 10 years. Either PEAR will be huge success, or programmers will reminisce "Remember PHP? I think someone's coded up a Parrot compiler for that old language " :)
I may be wrong, but my understanding of cable TV here in Australia has been that our population is simply too sparse to support wide-spread roll outs. Foxtel and a few other operators have cable around the big three cities (Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane... what about Perth and Adelaide?) but everywhere else requires satellite. And satellite is an extra hassle, and I'm guessing is more expensive for the operator.
But I think you're also right about us not being "real heavy tv watchers". I used to get Foxtel when I lived in Sydney and while it had some good things from time to time, it never really engrossed me to a great deal. With the internet, computer games, Triple J radio, a good collection of DVD's, and several gigs of ripped MP3/Vorbis music, the five FTA channels are entertaining enough for me. I never find myself thinking "geez I'm bored and what I'd really like to do right now is flick through 500 channels of crap and vegetate".
Besides, there's always the D1 Home Media Centre as well as DIY MythTV and Freevo boxen.
Check out this link: Understanding the Windows EAL4 Evaluation
EAL doesn't really mean much. At least, not until you get up to the higher levels. It's basically so that government departments can have a check-list requirement for any software they buy or comission.
ObSouthpark: Simpsons did it!
IMNSHO, it just shows that MS and Adobe can't use a simple Open Source reference library. There should be no excuse about it being difficult to implement. It's already implemented! And from reading the simple license, it appears to be BSD-like. So there should be none the worries or problems that commercial outfits seem to have with the GNU GPL. Where's the problem?
Oh, and if you want to complain about an elephantine feature-laden monstrosity, check out PNG's cousin - MNG
Does the silicone gel in implants count?
Wow, what a clueless rant. Here's some suggestions:
But hey, thanks for your dramatic little piece of fiction. Your cluelessness is only surpassed by your ability to blow things out of proportion, to make a mountain out of a molehill. Perhaps you should go into politics.
Perhaps just as important as the licensing issue is that of performance. Zend makes (or made, not sure now with PHP5) a PHP compiler and optimizer. Just buy the Zend product and make your PHP site faster and more efficient! But what about the free version? Would they cripple the performance of the free version just to sell more copies of the compiler/optimizer? Perhaps not. But I wouldn't be surprised to find them simply neglecting peformance problems in the free version.
I'll stick with Perl, thankyouverymuch. Python's looking interesting as well...
They're percentages of three different quantities - new servers, office infrastructure, and school computer labs. Of course they don't add up to 100%.
What are you talking about? Companies like Red Hat, SuSE, Caldera, and IBM have been employing F/OSS coders for years. RH employed Alan Cox to continue work on the kernel. SuSE employed quite a few coders who were working on various projects (like ALSA). It doesn't seem to have created any sort of jealousy or resentment amongst the other coders. We all manage to get by. Some of us are employed, some aren't. And the really good/lucky ones get employed to continue working on what we are interested in.
Nah, down here in the southern states it's kangaroos that roam the streets. Down in Tasmania they have the tazzie devils snapping up any bunny rabbits or roadrunners that stray too close. Up north we have Steve Erwin and his kids to keep the crocs in check :)
Bloody 'ell mate, Canada is starting to sound a lot like Australia!
Ok, IANAE (I am not an economist), but from what I understand the "trickle down effect" just doesn't work the way people want it to. Firstly, The rich are already spending a lot of money. Giving them even more isn't going to make as big an impact as doing the same to a poorer person. Secondly, the rich still only make up a small percentage of the world's/US's population. So giving a tax cut to the poor instead of the rich will affect many more people. And lastly, the money spent by a rich person doesn't really trickle down to the needy. When they buy up-market products, the money will very quickly "leave" the local area since it's likely to be imported (no matter where they live). The money goes to some company, and executive pay is almost universally improportionate to the worker's pay. So it's basically the rich paying the rich, with very little actually trickling down.
If Bush Jr really wanted to encourage the economy, a tax cut for the poor would have made a much better and longer lasting impact to many more people. People could pay off debts, get a better education, spend more time with the kids, start a small business, etc. He could have given people living on or near the povety line the opportunity to pick themselves up off the floor and make something of themselves. That would really help the economy. But instead he just gave the rich more of what they already have too much of.
About encrypted filesystems on Linux:
Unfortunately there is no in-filesystem encryption, yet. It's still a little clunky to encrypt a whole filesystem at a time. It'd be much more efficient to be able to mark a directory (and all its children) as being encrypted with a certain key. I believe some people are working on this, so we might see it eventually.
About virtual terminals: I gather that most distros now use gdm, kdm, or even good old xdm to provide an all-graphical login. None of this clunky startx stuff. Much more prettier looking as well :)
About user switching: I think KDE recently (last year?) added a "switch user" feature. I'm a Gnome user, so I'm not really sure. I know I've seen it recently, but I can't find it in the Gnome foot menu here. So it's probably in KDE.
Look at the timestamps, genius. The second post was written two hours after the first. Your reply however, is only 6 minutes after that. A little soon to be slaging off at slashdot. And it's got (Score:3,Insightful) now anyway. Have a little patience.
Remember people, be careful with email forms. They may reduce the spam to you, but can contribute to the global spam problem. And if you want to send legitimate email from that machine as well, good luck getting off of the RBL's.
Agreed. My first impression upon reading the blurb was oh look, MS-friendly ZDnet is trying to reinforce the notion that all us MS-bashers attack MS simply because they're big and we're jealous. By acting "surprised", they are mocking any other explanations by implication. Any evidence of Microsoft's abuse of their monopoly position (like you cited) is forgotten, and the possibility that we might have valid motives is inconsequential next to their belief that MS is doing good.
*yawn* Perl.
:)
IIRC, the kernel already had to be re-entrant in a way for SMP. And that work was laid down in 2.2 and 2.4. Kernel 2.0 had one big lock for the whole kernel. The later kernels broke that up into seperate locks for different sub-systems, and more. My understanding is that the work to make the kernel pre-emptive re-used a lot of the SMP work.
This and other issues (the whole Minix FUD) makes me think that Mr Russinovich is spewing a whole lot of crap for the MS-sycophant crowd. We know that a lot of what he's saying is wrong, but they don't. They'll just repeat it ad-nauseum (with even more misconceptions and flights of fancy) to the PHB's of the world. And that's the scary part.
The unix philosophy is One tool does one task, and does it well. ls lists the contents of a directory. There are some options for sorting and selecting what information to show. But it's still just listing the contents of a directory. If ls also checked your email (jwz's rule) or something like that, you'd have a point. But you don't. You're just confusing options and complexity.
Don't confuse applications and tools. Apps are big monolithic programs like web browsers and media players. The little unix tools that populate /bin and /usr/bin are the things that are meant to be used with pipes and other shell constructs. It doesn't usually make sense to pipe the output of an app to much besides a log file.
And a pipe doesn't always have to be STDOUT or something. When working locally X11 goes through a pipe, a named pipe. DXPC, the Differential X Protocol Compressor, uses named pipes to send X11 messages to another host in an efficient compressed form. This program doesn't need to modify X or libx11 or anything else to do what it does. It's all through the magic of pipes!
(I originally thought SSH used the same method to forward+compress+encrypt X11 traffic, but it looks like it binds on local TCP ports instead)
Boy, you're not making much sense there. The linux kernel is actually pretty small. Most apps are quite a deal larger than the kernel. My 2.6.7 kernel here is 1.3M, compressed. My XFree86 4.3.0 X server is 1.7M. Mozilla is close to 20M. And ls, your previous "complex" example, is all of 71K. Apps are big, tools are small. On any OS. Simple.