Yes, Sun publishes an HCL. So does RedHat. RedHat's list is longer.
I went in to compare RedHat EL3 to Solaris 9 x86. But at first I was distracted by all the "somebody reported that this worked once" stuff.
Bottom line:
1) RHEL3(x86) is certified on over 200 servers. Over 20 Dell servers. Basically, across Dell's entire current PowerEdge server line, and probably similarly for all the other major manufacturers, as well as a bunch of smaller manufacturers.
2) Solaris 9(x86) is certified on 7 servers, 5 of which are the ones they make. One Dell, the PE2650 is in that list.
Now, admittedly, if a PE2650 works, it's very likely that the 1650 and maybe even the 1750 works, too. Who knows about the 2850 and 1850, though... And is "somebody made a similar server work once" good enough for an enterprise buying a server to run that OS? If you go beyond certifications all the way down into the "somebody says this ran for them once" category, you get a bunch more Dell Servers (17), but not the latest (2850 and 1850) at all, and not some of the less popular models (ie, 650) at all, either.
Even if you compare Sun's Solaris x86 Servers and Workstations that are certified, tested or somebody once made it run on one list, the list is shorter (149) than RHEL3's Server only list. Over 250 if you count RHEL3's Workstation list and Server list.
I don't know how to easily do a fairer comparison, which should really involve splitting Solaris x86 support into separate workstation and server lists and taking the union of RedHat's RHEL3 and RHEL2.1 lists. (can't just blindly add the RHEL3 and RHEL2.1 numbers together, since there's a lot of overlap).
You are I are both busy people though, so if you know how a Sun v40z is better, prey tell!
Go look at page 7 and 9 of this PDF about the v40z and v20z architecture. The diagram is basically the same as for HP's Opteron servers, or any Opteron server worth talking about. Compare to page 25 and 26 of this Intel board layout. Note that Intel's 800MHz FSB moves about 6.4GB/sec. (And remember that a 400Mhz 128-bit path moves as much data as a 64-bit 800Mhz path, hence the need to compare in terms of GB/sec, not Mhz) Ignore the "Service Processor" and all the lines from it on the Sun diagrams.
Intel's Front Side Bus architecture has a single 800MHz (6.4GB/sec) point where all access to I/O and RAM goes through that single 800MHz point. This effectively serializes your CPUs (they can only all be doing something simultaneously when one of them is working out of cache; otherwise they have to wait for the 800Mhz FSB to be available) That FSB ties to a controller that has some I/O hanging off of it (PCI/E), RAM and an I/O controller. Then, the slowest I/O is off of an I/O controller off of that one.
Then compare to the architecture of a v20z. Each CPU has its own bank of RAM with a 5.3GB/sec bus to it. Then there's a 6.4GB/sec connection between the two CPUs. So, typically, your CPUs can work on totally independent tasks without needing to share the FSB just to get to their RAM. When one CPU needs access to RAM on the other, it does tie up the RAM access for both CPUs, but with a proper process scheduler and most tasks that's avoidable, besides, all that's done is reduce you to the temporary equivalent of a 5.3GB/sec FSB. Then, on the V20z, I/O is on a 6.4GB/sec path to an I/O controller, and from there it all looks pretty similar to the Intel I/O arrangement, with slower I/O off of that, etc.
Add a couple of CPUs and things look even worse for Intel and better for Opteron. Intel just sticks all the CPUs on the same FSB. Opterons each get their own bank of RAM, and I/O access is now split between two of the CPUs (the other two have direct access to each other and one of the CPUs with I/O on it.) Absolute worst case for a 4-way opteron (when your process scheduler fails or your particular task makes life hard on the process schedule) is that the I/O for 3 CPUs is tied up when something is accessed. This is still better than on an Intel board where the best case is I/O for all CPUs being tied up any time one CPU accesses I/O or RAM.
(In other words, give me NUMA over a FSB any day of the week)
Besides, Opteron systems are getting pretty commodity (at least, compared to Xeons). Shouldn't be any driver support issues; they're actually using some pretty similar chipsets for everything (LSI RAID, Broadcom or Intel NIC, etc.) as what Dell has. Price quotes we've been getting back from Sun are reasonably comptetive with Dell Xeon quotes for similarly configured servers (though, given the NUMA architecture and strong 64-bit CPUs, it'd be fairer to compare to IBM PowerPC based servers) Last I checked, IBM's Opteron offerings were a little lacking in the "enterprise" features we wanted (redundant power, specifically), but HP had very similar offerings to Sun's (same basic mobo layout, different specific offerings.) and there's a lot of "Whitebox" vendors with similar offerings, as well. To be fair, though, I work for an educational institution and Sun's got some pretty aggressive discounts available for us, especially on certain packages.
Do be careful when looking into Opteron servers from the smaller vendors. Once you get into 2 or more CPUs, some motherboard manufacturers cut corners by sticking all the RAM onto one bank tied to one CPU, which eliminates all the cool NUMA advantages. Dell doesn't offer any AMD CPUs primarily because they have a deal with Intel that gets them bett
I'm pretty sure that Sun's trying to get everybody to take Solaris x86 seriously so that they'll buy an Opteron server (Sun v40z or Sun v20z) from Sun, not so that anybody will really use Solaris x86 on, say, a Dell.
Solaris x86 will always support anything you can buy from Sun in one of their Opteron boxes, and probably have lousy hardware support for running on anything else. (drivers for common non-Sun NICs and storage controllers will be missing, etc...)
And I think they're going the Opteron route because Opterons have gotten to the point where they're a better CPU than UltraSPARC, but with a similar NUMA architecture, enabling for excellent throughput. When our Sun sales team (sales rep, an engineer, etc.) came out for the biyearly onsite slideshow, they were really bragging on about how the HyperTransport bus was all part of some technology-sharing plan with AMD, implying that it's basically the same thing as the bus arrangement in some of their current UltraSPARC offerings. (In other words, Solaris x86 on an Opteron might be cheaper and faster than Solaris on an UltraSPARC...)
I think we're even gonna buy some Opteron servers from Sun this fiscal year. To run Linux on, though. A couple v40z servers should make a great database cluster.
I really love most of Ani DiFranco's music, but the one very confusing thing with her is that while her CD cases basically give permission to copy her music, her label is still a member of the RIAA.
( http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp -- "Righteous Babe" is on the list.)
I'm terribly curious why a label started by a successful and totally independent artist feels the need to be a member of a customer-hating semi-evil organization like the RIAA.
[...]
I'm not sure that voting software *needs* to be open source, because there is value in securing the source code itself.
You're missing the point. The point is democracy.
The biggest reason for making the source open for voting software isn't security. The biggest reason is accountability. With a paper-based system, anybody (the losing candidate in a close race?) can audit the results by looking at the materials, seeing where the marks or punches or whatever are and counting. The components of the voting system are understandable and open.
With closed-source voting software, the single largest, most complicated and most important component of the voting system is a "black box". There's no way to know for sure what it's doing, other than to test that when you do A the proper response B happens and not C. Because it is software, it'd be remarkably trivial to write code designed to pass the tests but still bias the vote in a real election.
It's not just about hiding bugs, it's about hiding intentional flaws.
An independent code review is mostly a sideways step only slightly in the right direction. It's still not accountable to the public, only to a larger secret-holding group. It decreases the odds of conspiracy by increasing the number of people who'd need to be "in on it". You can't totally eliminate the possibility of conspiracy until we're all in on it.
And democracy is all about everybody being "in on it". Anything that reduces knowledge of decisions or accountability reduces democracy.
In theory there's ways to get nice, printable output from DocBook. Either the PostScript+jadetex (or openjadetex) methods, or some sort of LaTeX intermediate form... This involves some sort of XSL or DSSSL stuff...
Unfortunately, in practice, understanding how to do it is hard... For my most recent related project, it started out that it'd live in print, but now it's becoming increasingly important to have a nice online version (preferably broken up into separate sections, etc.) with print being secondary.
A lot of the ugliness is that the people who put together the stylesheets don't have somebody in their group as anal about typography as LaTeX has.
(IOW: yeah, if beauty of print is what's important and nothing else, LaTeX is probably still the best option)
As to — probably overzealousness on the part of the HTML security bits. At least & works...
I've some stuff with LaTeX, including documents that get rendered to HTML and to PDF (and PS), complete with links in both, etc. But DocBook can be a better format, and DocBook/XML is probably more "future-proof" and easier to deal with than DocBook/SGML.
(it's just too hard to get a LaTeX document automatically converted to some formats, where DocBook can do it much more easily, partially because it's less tied to print than LaTeX)
Well, yes and no... You can use exchange 2000 without IIS, but certain key features will be unavailable.
The "Outlook Web Access" for one. SMTP for another. (yes, SMTP runs as some sort of part of the IIS service or something wacked like that, with exchange somehow tieing into it)
There's also ftp and nntp that exchange can, I think, use. At least POP and IMAP seem to be handled by Exchange 2000 directly.
Memory on embedded devices is kept low, yes, partially because RAM costs $$, but more because RAM costs watts, and watts cost time (as in, less run-time) or weight+size (as in a bigger battery).
Often the type of RAM that uses less power is also bigger and more expensive than high-power-use cheap ram.
Your keychain device can afford the power-consumption, which comes from the wall where power is cheap. Also, your keychain device can go head and use that power-sucking RAM, 'cause it's got access to that wall-socket.
Actually, the event was done as a local LUG event.
I'd agree that most of our events have more content, but a lot of people were interested in this event: we had almost 3 times our usual turnout. Luckily we were able to use the opportunity to plug a few of our upcoming events.
RedHat's declared goal was to "find out the state of Linux in America" or something like that; IOW they were interested in what questions got asked, etc. The real interesting bits were after the main event when we all went to the local brewpub and drank beer, ate pizza (RedHat paid for both, and for the pre-arrival pizza, too) and generally chatted about whatever. I ended up talking with one of them for a while about some of why I prefer Debian on servers over RedHat.
iBook can come in under $2000 quite fully loaded; I've got a 40GB HD, 640MB RAM, 802.11b, DVD/CD-RW, etc. (got the RAM elsewhere, though; Apple's own price was too high).
Trying to spec out one of those Dell Latitude X200s to a similarly usable configuration gets you up near $3000; add in tax and shipping and you're probably over $3000.
Besides, those little Dells aren't as easy to get Linux onto as the iBook. Though with a little research it does look like somebody managed to pull it off a month ago; didn't end up on linux-laptop.net quite yet, though.
Also, on the iBook I get over 4 hours of battery life pretty regularly; the Dell you're talking about gets only about 2 unless you add a nice heavy (well, about one pound, so it's still under 5 pounds) and kinda bulky battery.
(In other words, $2000 base config (or barely under $2000 bare bones). And $1000 is $1000.
Except if you're looking for hardware that's already a bit "weird" in the intel market, such as a laptop under 5 pounds.
I was looking around for a laptop that met a somewhat pick list of criteria:
reasonably light; under 5 pounds; light enough to toss in a backpack and carry around.
reasonably small; no 15" screens; small enough not to be squished into said backpack or other bag. But still big enough to have a keyboard I could type on.
reasonably inexpensive (under $2,000), because while my home computer did finally lose the magic smoke, I didn't have the money for a fancy fully equiped box
reasonably capable; didn't want an ancient P100 laptop with 8MB of RAM, I wanted something with more than 500Mhz of power and at least 128MB of RAM.
Linux capable; had to be able to run Linux.
resilience; something that doesn't have a reputation for falling apart easily; if I'm gonna toss a computer in my backpack or otherwise carry it around with me, it's inevitably going to get dropped a few inches now and then.
The capabilities issue is resolve simply by shopping for new hardware, not used hardware; besides, laptops don't seem to go down in price as much as desktops.
So, I looked around; I looked at Dell, Sony and IBM; all have laptops that meet my size and weight criteria, but they're expensive; or they have laptops that meet my modest performance criteria, but they're heavy bricks.
And after some research, I found that it's actually easier to get Linux going on an iBook with its relatively standardized hardware (except for the radeon mobility video card) that it is to get Linux going on the Sony Vaio of the month with different (linux incompatible) hardware every month or two.
I talked to a couple of people with different models of the sexy little Sony Vaio laptops; they all said they were great computers, but you couldn't get X, Y or Z to work under Linux because nothing else on the planet uses their variety of stuff and they seemed to have a problem with falling apart when dropped (more than other equipment).
So, I ended up buying a Mac because it was cheaper than the proprietary intel based laptops.
(Of course, I've got Debian on there but I've mostly been using MacOS/X which turns out to be quite painless to use; download their devel kit, add fink and it's kinda like Linux with a bit of commercial application support)
I help run a Linux Users Group. There certainly are a lot of people who put together a second computer to use Linux on, but in my experience the *serious* Linux users have their biggest and best machine running Linux. That's certainly the way I have it at work: the newest, best machine with all the hard drive space and CPU and RAM runs Linux and the infrequently uses Windows 2000 box is the older slower one that I mostly access with VNC.
However, amongst gamers you'd be right: gamers use Windows. they might dual-boot to Linux now and then or have a second little box thrown together from spare parts with Linux on it, but their primary OS is Windows because their primary task is games and the primary OS for games is Windows.
No, MAC address based firewall rules won't solve the security problem, either. They'll raise the barrier slightly, but it's fairly easy with most 802.11b cards (and with regular Ethernet cards, for that matter) to use a different MAC address than the one assigned to your device. Under Linux it's "ifconfig eth0 hw ether [new MAC address here]". Not nearly difficult enough.
Re:Paying for _community_ content?
on
Slashdot Updates
·
· Score: 2
IIRC, Slashdot lasted years as Taco and Hemo's only job. This sudden need for money seems to go back to the Andover takeover; it's entirely a business decision. But unlike Salon, this isn't a business venture that requires huge amounts of effort, because the content is provided by users.
You seem to forget about the major change in the business environment/. exists in since that point in time. Back when they ran it by themselves, the "unfounded exuberance" about all things Internet made advertising revenues quite high. These days the cost of banner ads has dropped down to something reasonable for advertisers, but not even enough for websites to keep running on. The Andover takeover was right before the end of all that exuberance and ridiculously high ad-banner prices.
Also, of course, there's the aspect that/. has expanded since then, so there's more resources needed to run the site. (More people, more servers, more bandwidth to pay for, etc.)
Use the key (RSA or DSA) authentication as your normal method of authentication. Heck, if you set up the ssh agent it's even more convenient than password based authentication.
And I did a quick check (tcpdump in one window, ssh in in another window) and there's no packet sent for each stroke of my password, one packet is sent when I hit <enter> at the end of my password. I suppose length could probably still be figured out from those packets, though. I'm running OpenSSH 2.5.2p2 (the version that came from RedHat with RH 7.1)
SciFi channel shows repeats Wednesday during the day. I already saw all 23 episodes or so when it was first airing on whatever network that was back in 1995. Still worth watching when sitting around at home unemployed and you want to avoid writing the next cover letter for an hour, though.
Farscape; already mentioned by CmdrTaco, but this one is probably the best out there right now; and the muppets are done quite well.
Lexx; sucks, but seems to have improved a bit this season
Outer Limits; SciFi carries this, but it used to also show on CBS and Showtime. I think SciFi's run is ending. Individual 1-hour long stories that aren't connected. (okay, sometimes they're connected, and references to other episodes sometimes pop up) Quite good, sort of a "Twilight Zone" feel.
Earth: Final Conflict; been watching this on our local FOX affiliate. Quite good, actually. SciFi is starting a run of this from the beginning on Monday; I'll be watching, as I missed the beginning of the series.
Andromeda; this and EFC above are both based on ideas from Gene Roddenberry. Think "300 years after the Federation from Star Trek has fallen", except with enough things changed that it doesn't quite look like Star Trek and with a single ship that survived from that era (trapped next to a black hole) and her crew trying to rebuild the "Commonwealth". If only it didn't involve Kevin Sorbo...
Exposure; on SciFi, it's just independent short films; some are *very* well done.
Stargate SG-1; also playing on my local FOX affiliate, but originally from Showtime (new episodes are on Showtime, year later or so they end up on FOX); haven't been new episodes this summer, but this show is surprisingly good. *Far* better than the movie it's based on, except the special effects budget is smaller. Looking at the Showtime listing, they're still doing new ones, so I fully expect to see new-to-me ones on FOX starting again in the fall.
The Chronicle; just started on SciFi on Saturday nights; basic premise is they're the National Enquirer and all the stories (Zombie Maggots from Outer Space eat dog-girl's brain!) are real. Worth programming the VCR for; not worth staying home on Saturday night for.
In fact, there's so much SciFi on TV these days that I can't keep up. There's also a "Witchblade" show on TNT (more Fantasy than SciFi) that's not bad. "Now and Again" is starting on SciFi on Monday; cancelled show from one of the major networks that I never saw, but I'm sure I'll check out a few episodes.
The instant I'm paying for it and I didn't ask for it, it's spam. Yes, even if it's about human rights abuses in China.
Star Trek similarities unsurprising.
on
Andromeda
·
· Score: 5
A big reason this show has all those similarities to Star Trek is that it's a Gene Roddenberry concept being dealt with by Majel Roddenberry.
Andromeda is based on a concept of Gene Roddenberry's originally intended for the Star Trek universe. It's 300 years after the Federation has fallen.
I guess Paramount wasn't interested, so somebody else did it.
(In case there are a few people that don't realize it, Gene Roddenberry is the creator of Star Trek. Majel is his widow, the voice of most computers and Deanna Troi's mother.)
"Talk to your lawyer" is the good advice that most people don't take. You're *probably* okay if you read the contract and understand all of it.
If it "turns off" the prospective employer, it's a prospective employer that's trying to pull a fast one on you. Prospective employers that seem "turned off" by you wanting to review your contract are the ones you really should hire a lawyer to review the contract before working for.
In other words, if the prospective employer has any kind of problem with you reviewing the contract or having your lawyer go off, that should set off all sorts of warning bells in your head.
If you don't have a contract then you have the default employment. Work you do for the company is a "work for hire" that they own. (including owning the copyright) Whether they can fire you without cause depends on what state you're in.
My employment contract includes the ability for them to let go of me at any time for any reason. Since it also doesn't specify any kind of notification period for me quitting, I don't have a problem with that. And there's no non-compete clause. For that matter, it explicitely mentions that anything I do on my own time with no use of any company resources I own. Since I'm salaried, without a contract stating otherwise, that can be an issue.
I can't say I'm all that thrilled to be working for a dating site, actually. However, we do have a free trial period (2 weeks). We don't ever give you the email address of the chick; we provide pseudonymous email proxying and she can give you her email address if she wants (Or if you just annoy her, she can block you from sending her email). We don't cost $30 unless you want more than a month of service. I think if you pay by credit card with auto-renew, it's $10/month. In fact, I think if you signup and choose to pay before your trial period is up, we have an offer where $30 gets you a year of service. We do have an https server.
Also, I'm not a hooknose rat, though the marketing and "traffic development" parts of the company might be. I'm just a programmer.
What's a flargbronter?
(I might be wrong about those prices; I'm not involved in that end of things)
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, Sun publishes an HCL. So does RedHat. RedHat's list is longer.
I went in to compare RedHat EL3 to Solaris 9 x86. But at first I was distracted by all the "somebody reported that this worked once" stuff.
Bottom line:
1) RHEL3(x86) is certified on over 200 servers. Over 20 Dell servers. Basically, across Dell's entire current PowerEdge server line, and probably similarly for all the other major manufacturers, as well as a bunch of smaller manufacturers.
2) Solaris 9(x86) is certified on 7 servers, 5 of which are the ones they make. One Dell, the PE2650 is in that list.
Now, admittedly, if a PE2650 works, it's very likely that the 1650 and maybe even the 1750 works, too. Who knows about the 2850 and 1850, though... And is "somebody made a similar server work once" good enough for an enterprise buying a server to run that OS? If you go beyond certifications all the way down into the "somebody says this ran for them once" category, you get a bunch more Dell Servers (17), but not the latest (2850 and 1850) at all, and not some of the less popular models (ie, 650) at all, either.
Even if you compare Sun's Solaris x86 Servers and Workstations that are certified, tested or somebody once made it run on one list, the list is shorter (149) than RHEL3's Server only list. Over 250 if you count RHEL3's Workstation list and Server list.
I don't know how to easily do a fairer comparison, which should really involve splitting Solaris x86 support into separate workstation and server lists and taking the union of RedHat's RHEL3 and RHEL2.1 lists. (can't just blindly add the RHEL3 and RHEL2.1 numbers together, since there's a lot of overlap).
Go look at page 7 and 9 of this PDF about the v40z and v20z architecture. The diagram is basically the same as for HP's Opteron servers, or any Opteron server worth talking about. Compare to page 25 and 26 of this Intel board layout. Note that Intel's 800MHz FSB moves about 6.4GB/sec. (And remember that a 400Mhz 128-bit path moves as much data as a 64-bit 800Mhz path, hence the need to compare in terms of GB/sec, not Mhz) Ignore the "Service Processor" and all the lines from it on the Sun diagrams.
Intel's Front Side Bus architecture has a single 800MHz (6.4GB/sec) point where all access to I/O and RAM goes through that single 800MHz point. This effectively serializes your CPUs (they can only all be doing something simultaneously when one of them is working out of cache; otherwise they have to wait for the 800Mhz FSB to be available) That FSB ties to a controller that has some I/O hanging off of it (PCI/E), RAM and an I/O controller. Then, the slowest I/O is off of an I/O controller off of that one.
Then compare to the architecture of a v20z. Each CPU has its own bank of RAM with a 5.3GB/sec bus to it. Then there's a 6.4GB/sec connection between the two CPUs. So, typically, your CPUs can work on totally independent tasks without needing to share the FSB just to get to their RAM. When one CPU needs access to RAM on the other, it does tie up the RAM access for both CPUs, but with a proper process scheduler and most tasks that's avoidable, besides, all that's done is reduce you to the temporary equivalent of a 5.3GB/sec FSB. Then, on the V20z, I/O is on a 6.4GB/sec path to an I/O controller, and from there it all looks pretty similar to the Intel I/O arrangement, with slower I/O off of that, etc.
Add a couple of CPUs and things look even worse for Intel and better for Opteron. Intel just sticks all the CPUs on the same FSB. Opterons each get their own bank of RAM, and I/O access is now split between two of the CPUs (the other two have direct access to each other and one of the CPUs with I/O on it.) Absolute worst case for a 4-way opteron (when your process scheduler fails or your particular task makes life hard on the process schedule) is that the I/O for 3 CPUs is tied up when something is accessed. This is still better than on an Intel board where the best case is I/O for all CPUs being tied up any time one CPU accesses I/O or RAM.
(In other words, give me NUMA over a FSB any day of the week)
Besides, Opteron systems are getting pretty commodity (at least, compared to Xeons). Shouldn't be any driver support issues; they're actually using some pretty similar chipsets for everything (LSI RAID, Broadcom or Intel NIC, etc.) as what Dell has. Price quotes we've been getting back from Sun are reasonably comptetive with Dell Xeon quotes for similarly configured servers (though, given the NUMA architecture and strong 64-bit CPUs, it'd be fairer to compare to IBM PowerPC based servers) Last I checked, IBM's Opteron offerings were a little lacking in the "enterprise" features we wanted (redundant power, specifically), but HP had very similar offerings to Sun's (same basic mobo layout, different specific offerings.) and there's a lot of "Whitebox" vendors with similar offerings, as well. To be fair, though, I work for an educational institution and Sun's got some pretty aggressive discounts available for us, especially on certain packages.
Do be careful when looking into Opteron servers from the smaller vendors. Once you get into 2 or more CPUs, some motherboard manufacturers cut corners by sticking all the RAM onto one bank tied to one CPU, which eliminates all the cool NUMA advantages. Dell doesn't offer any AMD CPUs primarily because they have a deal with Intel that gets them bett
I'm pretty sure that Sun's trying to get everybody to take Solaris x86 seriously so that they'll buy an Opteron server (Sun v40z or Sun v20z) from Sun, not so that anybody will really use Solaris x86 on, say, a Dell.
Solaris x86 will always support anything you can buy from Sun in one of their Opteron boxes, and probably have lousy hardware support for running on anything else. (drivers for common non-Sun NICs and storage controllers will be missing, etc...)
And I think they're going the Opteron route because Opterons have gotten to the point where they're a better CPU than UltraSPARC, but with a similar NUMA architecture, enabling for excellent throughput. When our Sun sales team (sales rep, an engineer, etc.) came out for the biyearly onsite slideshow, they were really bragging on about how the HyperTransport bus was all part of some technology-sharing plan with AMD, implying that it's basically the same thing as the bus arrangement in some of their current UltraSPARC offerings. (In other words, Solaris x86 on an Opteron might be cheaper and faster than Solaris on an UltraSPARC...)
I think we're even gonna buy some Opteron servers from Sun this fiscal year. To run Linux on, though. A couple v40z servers should make a great database cluster.
I really love most of Ani DiFranco's music, but the one very confusing thing with her is that while her CD cases basically give permission to copy her music, her label is still a member of the RIAA.
( http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp -- "Righteous Babe" is on the list.)
I'm terribly curious why a label started by a successful and totally independent artist feels the need to be a member of a customer-hating semi-evil organization like the RIAA.
lemon and/or lime, I believe.
The biggest reason for making the source open for voting software isn't security. The biggest reason is accountability. With a paper-based system, anybody (the losing candidate in a close race?) can audit the results by looking at the materials, seeing where the marks or punches or whatever are and counting. The components of the voting system are understandable and open.
With closed-source voting software, the single largest, most complicated and most important component of the voting system is a "black box". There's no way to know for sure what it's doing, other than to test that when you do A the proper response B happens and not C. Because it is software, it'd be remarkably trivial to write code designed to pass the tests but still bias the vote in a real election.
It's not just about hiding bugs, it's about hiding intentional flaws.
An independent code review is mostly a sideways step only slightly in the right direction. It's still not accountable to the public, only to a larger secret-holding group. It decreases the odds of conspiracy by increasing the number of people who'd need to be "in on it". You can't totally eliminate the possibility of conspiracy until we're all in on it.
And democracy is all about everybody being "in on it". Anything that reduces knowledge of decisions or accountability reduces democracy.
AOL for MacOS/X and the page that shows I'm not talking out my butt.
(it's okay; you can keep your Duke Nukem beta footage; I already saw the beta footage of Duke Nukem Forever on the Atari 2600...
In theory there's ways to get nice, printable output from DocBook. Either the PostScript+jadetex (or openjadetex) methods, or some sort of LaTeX intermediate form... This involves some sort of XSL or DSSSL stuff...
Unfortunately, in practice, understanding how to do it is hard... For my most recent related project, it started out that it'd live in print, but now it's becoming increasingly important to have a nice online version (preferably broken up into separate sections, etc.) with print being secondary.
A lot of the ugliness is that the people who put together the stylesheets don't have somebody in their group as anal about typography as LaTeX has.
(IOW: yeah, if beauty of print is what's important and nothing else, LaTeX is probably still the best option)
As to — probably overzealousness on the part of the HTML security bits. At least & works...
(it's just too hard to get a LaTeX document automatically converted to some formats, where DocBook can do it much more easily, partially because it's less tied to print than LaTeX)
Well, yes and no... You can use exchange 2000 without IIS, but certain key features will be unavailable.
The "Outlook Web Access" for one. SMTP for another. (yes, SMTP runs as some sort of part of the IIS service or something wacked like that, with exchange somehow tieing into it)
There's also ftp and nntp that exchange can, I think, use. At least POP and IMAP seem to be handled by Exchange 2000 directly.
It's called "power consumption".
Memory on embedded devices is kept low, yes, partially because RAM costs $$, but more because RAM costs watts, and watts cost time (as in, less run-time) or weight+size (as in a bigger battery).
Often the type of RAM that uses less power is also bigger and more expensive than high-power-use cheap ram.
Your keychain device can afford the power-consumption, which comes from the wall where power is cheap. Also, your keychain device can go head and use that power-sucking RAM, 'cause it's got access to that wall-socket.
So, what's the moral?
Actually, the event was done as a local LUG event.
I'd agree that most of our events have more content, but a lot of people were interested in this event: we had almost 3 times our usual turnout. Luckily we were able to use the opportunity to plug a few of our upcoming events.
RedHat's declared goal was to "find out the state of Linux in America" or something like that; IOW they were interested in what questions got asked, etc. The real interesting bits were after the main event when we all went to the local brewpub and drank beer, ate pizza (RedHat paid for both, and for the pre-arrival pizza, too) and generally chatted about whatever. I ended up talking with one of them for a while about some of why I prefer Debian on servers over RedHat.
now go compare to iBook configs.
iBook can come in under $2000 quite fully loaded; I've got a 40GB HD, 640MB RAM, 802.11b, DVD/CD-RW, etc. (got the RAM elsewhere, though; Apple's own price was too high).
Trying to spec out one of those Dell Latitude X200s to a similarly usable configuration gets you up near $3000; add in tax and shipping and you're probably over $3000.
Besides, those little Dells aren't as easy to get Linux onto as the iBook. Though with a little research it does look like somebody managed to pull it off a month ago; didn't end up on linux-laptop.net quite yet, though.
Also, on the iBook I get over 4 hours of battery life pretty regularly; the Dell you're talking about gets only about 2 unless you add a nice heavy (well, about one pound, so it's still under 5 pounds) and kinda bulky battery.
(In other words, $2000 base config (or barely under $2000 bare bones). And $1000 is $1000.
I was looking around for a laptop that met a somewhat pick list of criteria:
The capabilities issue is resolve simply by shopping for new hardware, not used hardware; besides, laptops don't seem to go down in price as much as desktops.
So, I looked around; I looked at Dell, Sony and IBM; all have laptops that meet my size and weight criteria, but they're expensive; or they have laptops that meet my modest performance criteria, but they're heavy bricks.
And after some research, I found that it's actually easier to get Linux going on an iBook with its relatively standardized hardware (except for the radeon mobility video card) that it is to get Linux going on the Sony Vaio of the month with different (linux incompatible) hardware every month or two.
I talked to a couple of people with different models of the sexy little Sony Vaio laptops; they all said they were great computers, but you couldn't get X, Y or Z to work under Linux because nothing else on the planet uses their variety of stuff and they seemed to have a problem with falling apart when dropped (more than other equipment).
So, I ended up buying a Mac because it was cheaper than the proprietary intel based laptops.
(Of course, I've got Debian on there but I've mostly been using MacOS/X which turns out to be quite painless to use; download their devel kit, add fink and it's kinda like Linux with a bit of commercial application support)
I help run a Linux Users Group. There certainly are a lot of people who put together a second computer to use Linux on, but in my experience the *serious* Linux users have their biggest and best machine running Linux. That's certainly the way I have it at work: the newest, best machine with all the hard drive space and CPU and RAM runs Linux and the infrequently uses Windows 2000 box is the older slower one that I mostly access with VNC.
However, amongst gamers you'd be right: gamers use Windows. they might dual-boot to Linux now and then or have a second little box thrown together from spare parts with Linux on it, but their primary OS is Windows because their primary task is games and the primary OS for games is Windows.
Or if you prefer a command-line solution:
ps axo %C | grep -v %CPU | paste --delimiters="+" --serial - | bc
Or there's always:
top -n 1 -b | grep ^CPU
(Just straight "top" gives you much more)
No, MAC address based firewall rules won't solve the security problem, either. They'll raise the barrier slightly, but it's fairly easy with most 802.11b cards (and with regular Ethernet cards, for that matter) to use a different MAC address than the one assigned to your device. Under Linux it's "ifconfig eth0 hw ether [new MAC address here]". Not nearly difficult enough.
You seem to forget about the major change in the business environment /. exists in since that point in time. Back when they ran it by themselves, the "unfounded exuberance" about all things Internet made advertising revenues quite high. These days the cost of banner ads has dropped down to something reasonable for advertisers, but not even enough for websites to keep running on. The Andover takeover was right before the end of all that exuberance and ridiculously high ad-banner prices.
Also, of course, there's the aspect that /. has expanded since then, so there's more resources needed to run the site. (More people, more servers, more bandwidth to pay for, etc.)
And I did a quick check (tcpdump in one window, ssh in in another window) and there's no packet sent for each stroke of my password, one packet is sent when I hit <enter> at the end of my password. I suppose length could probably still be figured out from those packets, though. I'm running OpenSSH 2.5.2p2 (the version that came from RedHat with RH 7.1)
SciFi channel shows repeats Wednesday during the day. I already saw all 23 episodes or so when it was first airing on whatever network that was back in 1995. Still worth watching when sitting around at home unemployed and you want to avoid writing the next cover letter for an hour, though.
In fact, there's so much SciFi on TV these days that I can't keep up. There's also a "Witchblade" show on TNT (more Fantasy than SciFi) that's not bad. "Now and Again" is starting on SciFi on Monday; cancelled show from one of the major networks that I never saw, but I'm sure I'll check out a few episodes.
The instant I'm paying for it and I didn't ask for it, it's spam. Yes, even if it's about human rights abuses in China.
Andromeda is based on a concept of Gene Roddenberry's originally intended for the Star Trek universe. It's 300 years after the Federation has fallen.
I guess Paramount wasn't interested, so somebody else did it.
(In case there are a few people that don't realize it, Gene Roddenberry is the creator of Star Trek. Majel is his widow, the voice of most computers and Deanna Troi's mother.)
"Talk to your lawyer" is the good advice that most people don't take. You're *probably* okay if you read the contract and understand all of it.
If it "turns off" the prospective employer, it's a prospective employer that's trying to pull a fast one on you. Prospective employers that seem "turned off" by you wanting to review your contract are the ones you really should hire a lawyer to review the contract before working for.
In other words, if the prospective employer has any kind of problem with you reviewing the contract or having your lawyer go off, that should set off all sorts of warning bells in your head.
If you don't have a contract then you have the default employment. Work you do for the company is a "work for hire" that they own. (including owning the copyright) Whether they can fire you without cause depends on what state you're in.
My employment contract includes the ability for them to let go of me at any time for any reason. Since it also doesn't specify any kind of notification period for me quitting, I don't have a problem with that. And there's no non-compete clause. For that matter, it explicitely mentions that anything I do on my own time with no use of any company resources I own. Since I'm salaried, without a contract stating otherwise, that can be an issue.
I can't say I'm all that thrilled to be working for a dating site, actually. However, we do have a free trial period (2 weeks). We don't ever give you the email address of the chick; we provide pseudonymous email proxying and she can give you her email address if she wants (Or if you just annoy her, she can block you from sending her email). We don't cost $30 unless you want more than a month of service. I think if you pay by credit card with auto-renew, it's $10/month. In fact, I think if you signup and choose to pay before your trial period is up, we have an offer where $30 gets you a year of service. We do have an https server.
Also, I'm not a hooknose rat, though the marketing and "traffic development" parts of the company might be. I'm just a programmer.
What's a flargbronter?
(I might be wrong about those prices; I'm not involved in that end of things)
<plug>Datingfaces</plug>