"that machine too, you gain no security from using a secure server and an insecure client."
That's not true. It's good protection against anyone attempting to break in from the outside without a connection initiated by me. By taking reasonable steps (such as keeping client software patched), the risk to my other machines is greatly reduced without me having to learn a whole new firewall etc.
It's not about being invulnerable, it's about having reasonable security without having to spend unreasonable amounts of time on it.
"I'm firmly in the 3 button camp (UNIX/Linux user) but two is better than none, and I can see why they're doing that - especially given Apple's "interesting" notions about mice."
I'm firmly in the 3 button camp and I'm a bloody Mac user.
For me to use the Apple mouse, it must:
have right clicking because I like context menus
have middle clicking because I like tabbed browsing
have a scroll wheel or equivilant because anything that scrolls sucks without one
not cost me more than a $20 Microsoft mouse that doen't look that bad and is built like a tank
"I doubt these walls will be able to withstand even a Kalashnikov bullet, much less an RPG..."
You could always pile dirt on them. Better yet, you could dig a hole, deploy the structure, then pile the dirt on it.
"Eventually -- maybe. But for now it is unlikely to be usable as a bunker, even if other military applications are possible -- the walls ought to be stronger than a tent's, for example."
In the case of something like a limited number of smaller explosions (like that car bomb in Iraq that blew up that cafeteria), I'd rather be in one of these than a tent, which is essentially transparent to the shockwave and debris. And if they've got kevlar or some other high-tensile material in them, they hopefully won't go completely to pieces even then. That is, they would hopefully just fall down rather than becoming more flying debris.
No more so than with Linux. Windows users have the same feelings of invulnerability experimenting with Linux.
Also, while I use Linux and MacOS X, anything of importance lives on my OpenBSD machine and I SSH there for anything important that I need to do. I know it inside out while my other machines are basically just desktop/client machines. I don't know them very well, and I'd be in trouble if I had to lock down my Linux box.
OpenBSD hasn't dropped VAX yet, so the Alpha version will be supported for a while and machines where you can actually buy new ones like HP-PA and SPARC will be supported long after we're all dead.
You can download some images for bootable media and then do a netinstall, or download the necessary files and make your own bootable install CD. Given that 99.95% of OpenBSD installations are for firewalls, or at least something that involves sitting on a big connection (hence the paranoia that makes OpenBSD necessary), these are popular options.
AOL doesn't read person-to-person communications? Conversations are never stored on AOL hard drives? I'm sure they've simply contracted some other company to do it.
Well those new Freescale chips aren't even out yet.
The only question is whether or not IBM can make a laptop optimized G5 before Freescale can release the MPC8641. Or rather, who did Apple believe could do it when the commited, which no doubt happened long ago.
DragonFlyBSD pretty much does that. They claim that it will improve performance, but they're still behind where FreeBSD 4.x was when they forked. They wanted to get it working before they optimized, so it's unclear what they'll be able to do when they get around to it.
The hardware won't change though. It has to support all the other OSes.
-laptop drives have a tendency to die a lot more than their desktop counterparts, it's best not to run them continuously
-your desktop power supply does not run at capacity all the time, it needs that to get it through surges in demand
-I don't know about the MP VIA boards, but the UP VIA boards are VERY cheap. You're not paying more for them, you're paying less
-for something like a small server or firewall, they're great. Those don't usually need lots of CPU power, so something smaller/cheaper/quieter is preferable, all else being equal
Intel and AMD are coming out with their own dual-core CPUs, at nearly the same time. If everyone gets the same boost at the same time, no one gets an advantage.
Besides, you can buy quad processor x86 systems right now, without dual-cores.
"Does anyone else find it a bit odd that 4.0p1 is listed as Minor Feature Enhancements, yet it gets a whole-digit version bump?"
The last release was 3.9. They simply rolled over to a new major number. Also, I think it's justified. Connection multiplexing was introduced in 3.9, but now it's had the major bugs fixed and so might be considered "stable". It's a big feature.
I agree, but I think it's a bit more precarious than that. This minority government isn't going to last very long. The Liberals can only be trusted so long as they're afraid of the next election. When they win next time, and they will, they're going to do a lot more of this stuff.
White dwarves are indeed chunks of the leftovers of fusion, but neutron stars are an entirely different phenomena. They're conglomerations of neutrons.
"This is why you should be using Solaris 10 on your servers;)"
hehe:)
Well no matter how new it is, I'd trust Solaris to stabalize over time. The issue with Linux is that it's as bad now as it was when 2.6.0 was released.
Optimizing at a level that low is counter-intuitive. An algorithm that's more "complicated" might take up less memory or have a more favorable memory access pattern. For example, and I have no idea of the difference between FLAC and ALAC so this is just an example, if a more complicated algorithm has a larger number of stages but they all fit in cache when they're running, it could easily perform better.
For example, Google for "AlphaSort". Basically, they made a mutli-phase sort where the initial stage fit entirely in the cache of the DEC Alpha computers they were using, and beat the crap out of the alternatives. By that I mean they beat a Cray Y-MP by a factor of 4.
"Well, perhaps Linux is maturing enough where it could be 2.6 forever."
If that were true, my CD drive would work.
Not a troll: libata doesn't work for PATA drives, but my kernel uses it anyway and reports the CD drive as not supported. Ultimately it proved easier to add a spare Promise ATA card than to fix the problem.
I've had plenty of problems like this with 2.6, but Linux wouldn't be acceptable as a desktop OS to me without the responsiveness of 2.6. It's the best alternative because Linux has better reliability/security than Windows and better desktop software support than BSD.
But there's no way I'd let a Linux 2.6 system touch a server. None of the distros that care about stability will touch 2.6 (Debian, Slackware, etc). If I couldn't use OpenBSD, those are the only Linuxes I would touch.
It's annoying because Linux 2.4 getting pretty long in tooth. This obsession with new features is keeping the kernel that already has lots of good features from being usable.
According to TFA this works by measuring the clock skew rate over a significant period (over a month is the example they give), so using something like NTP to keep your clock from deviating would completely screw it up.
Slashdot Mirror
"that machine too, you gain no security from using a secure server and an insecure client."
That's not true. It's good protection against anyone attempting to break in from the outside without a connection initiated by me. By taking reasonable steps (such as keeping client software patched), the risk to my other machines is greatly reduced without me having to learn a whole new firewall etc.
It's not about being invulnerable, it's about having reasonable security without having to spend unreasonable amounts of time on it.
I'm firmly in the 3 button camp and I'm a bloody Mac user.
For me to use the Apple mouse, it must:
"I doubt these walls will be able to withstand even a Kalashnikov bullet, much less an RPG..."
You could always pile dirt on them. Better yet, you could dig a hole, deploy the structure, then pile the dirt on it.
"Eventually -- maybe. But for now it is unlikely to be usable as a bunker, even if other military applications are possible -- the walls ought to be stronger than a tent's, for example."
In the case of something like a limited number of smaller explosions (like that car bomb in Iraq that blew up that cafeteria), I'd rather be in one of these than a tent, which is essentially transparent to the shockwave and debris. And if they've got kevlar or some other high-tensile material in them, they hopefully won't go completely to pieces even then. That is, they would hopefully just fall down rather than becoming more flying debris.
No more so than with Linux. Windows users have the same feelings of invulnerability experimenting with Linux.
Also, while I use Linux and MacOS X, anything of importance lives on my OpenBSD machine and I SSH there for anything important that I need to do. I know it inside out while my other machines are basically just desktop/client machines. I don't know them very well, and I'd be in trouble if I had to lock down my Linux box.
OpenBSD hasn't dropped VAX yet, so the Alpha version will be supported for a while and machines where you can actually buy new ones like HP-PA and SPARC will be supported long after we're all dead.
You can download some images for bootable media and then do a netinstall, or download the necessary files and make your own bootable install CD. Given that 99.95% of OpenBSD installations are for firewalls, or at least something that involves sitting on a big connection (hence the paranoia that makes OpenBSD necessary), these are popular options.
Maybe they should charge for netinstalls?
AOL doesn't read person-to-person communications? Conversations are never stored on AOL hard drives? I'm sure they've simply contracted some other company to do it.
"buy a bag of weed"
I'm allergic to weed...
*cries*
Well those new Freescale chips aren't even out yet.
The only question is whether or not IBM can make a laptop optimized G5 before Freescale can release the MPC8641. Or rather, who did Apple believe could do it when the commited, which no doubt happened long ago.
"It's going to damage Mac sales between now and probably the announement"
For two weeks? With all of that made up immediately in April?
Ah yes. Different quarter. Those bastards.
"So AMP must be possible. Right?"
DragonFlyBSD pretty much does that. They claim that it will improve performance, but they're still behind where FreeBSD 4.x was when they forked. They wanted to get it working before they optimized, so it's unclear what they'll be able to do when they get around to it.
The hardware won't change though. It has to support all the other OSes.
You have to boot up first.
-laptop drives have a tendency to die a lot more than their desktop counterparts, it's best not to run them continuously
-your desktop power supply does not run at capacity all the time, it needs that to get it through surges in demand
-I don't know about the MP VIA boards, but the UP VIA boards are VERY cheap. You're not paying more for them, you're paying less
-for something like a small server or firewall, they're great. Those don't usually need lots of CPU power, so something smaller/cheaper/quieter is preferable, all else being equal
er...
Intel and AMD are coming out with their own dual-core CPUs, at nearly the same time. If everyone gets the same boost at the same time, no one gets an advantage.
Besides, you can buy quad processor x86 systems right now, without dual-cores.
"Does anyone else find it a bit odd that 4.0p1 is listed as Minor Feature Enhancements, yet it gets a whole-digit version bump?"
The last release was 3.9. They simply rolled over to a new major number. Also, I think it's justified. Connection multiplexing was introduced in 3.9, but now it's had the major bugs fixed and so might be considered "stable". It's a big feature.
I agree, but I think it's a bit more precarious than that. This minority government isn't going to last very long. The Liberals can only be trusted so long as they're afraid of the next election. When they win next time, and they will, they're going to do a lot more of this stuff.
The price of oil has done wonders for the Calgary economy.
With compsci + MBA, you'll have headhunters tracking you down because they heard about you from someone else.
Not that I have either (close to a comp sci degree). I just know people that do.
If you know it's coming, it's easier to just move out of the way.
Magneting fields would not repel anything with enough force to prevent impacts.
That's not true.
White dwarves are indeed chunks of the leftovers of fusion, but neutron stars are an entirely different phenomena. They're conglomerations of neutrons.
"This is why you should be using Solaris 10 on your servers ;)"
:)
hehe
Well no matter how new it is, I'd trust Solaris to stabalize over time. The issue with Linux is that it's as bad now as it was when 2.6.0 was released.
Conversely, perhaps the author is trying to DOS Microsoft.
Optimizing at a level that low is counter-intuitive. An algorithm that's more "complicated" might take up less memory or have a more favorable memory access pattern. For example, and I have no idea of the difference between FLAC and ALAC so this is just an example, if a more complicated algorithm has a larger number of stages but they all fit in cache when they're running, it could easily perform better.
For example, Google for "AlphaSort". Basically, they made a mutli-phase sort where the initial stage fit entirely in the cache of the DEC Alpha computers they were using, and beat the crap out of the alternatives. By that I mean they beat a Cray Y-MP by a factor of 4.
"Well, perhaps Linux is maturing enough where it could be 2.6 forever."
If that were true, my CD drive would work.
Not a troll: libata doesn't work for PATA drives, but my kernel uses it anyway and reports the CD drive as not supported. Ultimately it proved easier to add a spare Promise ATA card than to fix the problem.
I've had plenty of problems like this with 2.6, but Linux wouldn't be acceptable as a desktop OS to me without the responsiveness of 2.6. It's the best alternative because Linux has better reliability/security than Windows and better desktop software support than BSD.
But there's no way I'd let a Linux 2.6 system touch a server. None of the distros that care about stability will touch 2.6 (Debian, Slackware, etc). If I couldn't use OpenBSD, those are the only Linuxes I would touch.
It's annoying because Linux 2.4 getting pretty long in tooth. This obsession with new features is keeping the kernel that already has lots of good features from being usable.
According to TFA this works by measuring the clock skew rate over a significant period (over a month is the example they give), so using something like NTP to keep your clock from deviating would completely screw it up.