Clearly you never tried Microsoft's wireless routers. I've had a few friends/customers with them and not ONE of the 4-5 lasted more than 4 months! After that it would lock up (need to be unplugged and re-plugged) about daily or fail entirely. M$'s support is non-exstent. Not to mention they shortly after discontinued any atempt at making networking hardware.
And yes- a mouse and keyboard are pretty simple technologies. Yippie.
Why is anyone surprised? I've made a couple hundred recommendations with small businesses who are pinching pennies. It comes down to "You can have Linux for free, or Windows 2003 SBS for $80CDN or so a user". Most of them will choose SBS. The reasoning?
1. Their neighbouring company is using it
2. If you ever are on vacation, away, or leaving the industry, they know they can easily find support for it
3. The features of SBS are pretty good out of the box with some great workgrouping features, including copies of outlook 2003 for all machines and so on.
4. Support support suppport.
It's all about support- having the ability to find people to work on the system and understand it. Being able to do some basic features yourself (add users, etc) without needing administrators.
Linux has it's place. We all know this. Move along.
-M
Re:You liking your jump to conclusions mat?
on
PHP 5.1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Read the other reply to my message and you'll see the other point of view.
The point is basically that it has nothing to do with newbies or experts doing the programming. The logic is that PHP is a scripting language. It's powerful, despite you saying that it's not. Anything you want to do, it will do it. From the same token, one of the first rules to programming is to never trust the user! Malicious intent or not, the user is always wrong. E-mail at one point didn't matter- nobody exploited it in the way they do databases and whatnot. These days Spam is the latest big-thing, and programmers are seeing that their sloppy coding is causing their mail servers to relay. *wow*
Note that php doesn't set from by default because many mailers will set it for you to a safe default- often the user account who is sending the mail. So having a from of the user sending mail is a bad default? It's a custom header and shouldn't need to be specified in many cases.
And accepting a from address still means that it needs to validate it. Why should mail() validate it for you? What about formats that include names and e-mail addresses? If you want this kind of functionality, try a phpmailer class or make one.
Persistent objects are super, but think of this from a systems perspective. I'd imagine you're thinking of Java, having a nice super-server running and then a small component in Apache sending the actual requests to the Java environment. Now take PHP:
- each apache process takes some requests. Opening a file-descriptor or database connection in one doesn't mean it'll be available to another process. So the file needs to be opened, database connected to, etc.
- persistent connections (database) are only useful if you have a database and single/cluster of web server(s) using that single database connection/username. Look at shared hosting. 500 apache processes, 10 web sites with different credentials. So you expect the database server to be able to keep 5,000 connections open? The next request by that user for the session may not come back for 8 hours, so why would you keep a connection open?
- Locking issues with keeping files open maybe?
Make a class or function that serializes a file. Now of course that's not possible, but emulate it. Find the file position, save the file name and info about it. Then when you reload the session fseek the file and all is well.
Keeping such things (file descriptor/database) with the session is silly in most cases, as there is little gain in most cases.
-=- So make a php accelerator. Who's stopping you? Introduce it to PECL and people may use it or make a patch. Zend Accelerator (not the optimizer which of course they keep closed due to the encryption abilities- not to mention minimal performance gains), is far from optimal for 99% of Web sites out there. turck-mmcache was the same way as well. If you run a single site, it works fine. As soon as you have multiple sites, and you start caching files, database calls, and output, you have SERIOUS issues unless you know the application. Suddenly your script isn't running as it should some of the time.
You'll also note that "I'm working on an alternative at present." is at the top of that article. So note the bias. Of course not everyone will like every extension, addition, or modification in many languages- you get used to a certain style and way.
He is bashing the specific implementation, but the concept is the same. PDO is _A_ solution. It's a good solution. It is technically very stable. It working out of PECL (and just a base is distributed with PHP-5.1) means for easy updates if compiled with shared support.
The idea is simple- A universal layer (a-la DBI) is needed in PHP and it offers it. It does a pretty good job as well. It offers it low-level in C. It emulates features (prepare/execute) for databases that can't support it- a damn good feature.
PDO is a start. personally I'm all for it and think it will take off. Think of the scalability too- During development on your local machine you use flat files. Then you post it to a site and use sqlite during testing. Then you take it to a host with mysql support and use that. Then you take it to postgresql clusters and use that. All with minimal code changes. Most won't have all those steps, but it'll be nice to be able to switch swiftly between them all, and not have foreign methods of doing things all over the place.
-M
A work in progress... PHP is getting better
on
PHP 5.1.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
PHP is getting considerably better actually at being (a) a mess, and (b) making you learn by mistake, (c) providing simpler frameworks.
This is what PHP 5 and PHP 5.1 are all about. Lets fix the problems in the language and those things that go back to it's origins. PHP at one point did little more than a shell script, and now you have endless numbers of modules, extensions, and database backends.
You'll notice they have E_ALL on by default and highly encourage E_ALL|E_STRICT to be used for good coding practice. You'll notice register_globals is off by default. You'll notice countless quirks are virtually eliminated. magic_quotes are off by default because it's become apparent they don't always work and it's better done by the database engine (which can escape what it needs rather than just slashing random things).
You'll notice in 5.0 and 5.1, they pulled out extensions that are specific or not maintained (payflowpro, fileinfo, and many others) to PECL.
You'll notice they are recommending mysql extensions and others aren't use. You'll notice they're even advising that mysqli isn't used. You'll notice they are focusing on PDO to simplify and eliminate the ~10 driving extensions for each database engine with their own unique ways of doing everything with a universal framework (note: PEAR::DB is written in php classes- this is C and good code).
This is all a method to fix those problems everyone keeps complaining about. It's a pain, and creating even more complaints in the process of broken scripts, classes, and tools with the removal of things like is_a, call-time reference passing, and others- but once these scripts get fixed, and over time once everything goes PDO--- You'll find clean and swift code without much trouble at all.
Give it 6mo for the whole php 5.1 thing to migrate into various popular scripts and you'll find the world will be better for it. It's all in the master plan- simplify. Note that while many things have manual sections, much of it is in PECL and not the distro. At some point that should really be pulled into its own manual making it easier to find the core topics. That's just my opininion.
-M
Never Program- RFC822, workarounds
on
PHP 5.1.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You sir, should never program.
Always validate all input provided by the user that is used in any way. If it's in a database you're smart enough to escape it (or use query replacement methods that do it for you). If you're sending mail, you damn-well be sure it's an e-mail address. You have RFCs to guide you on this:
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc822/
A field-name consists of one or more printable characters (excluding colon, space, and control-characters). A field-name MUST be contained on one line. Upper and lower case are not dis-tinguished when comparing field-names.
It defines what characters are valid, and if you are about to pipe whatever data you accept into an e-mail, that's something YOU decided to do.
IT IS YOUR JOB to make sure that what you put beside FROM: (or anything in that parameter) is an e-mail address. It shouldn't have a newline. It shouldn't have escape characters. It should probably contain only a limited regex. Would you put an SQL query someone enters into a database? Then why an e-mail address to sendmail?
On a side note, the only way around this is to have a programming language that tags data as tainted if it came from or was derrived from user input and not allow it for input, and having functions that sanitize data and remove that flag. This is first off slower and second not optimal in many situations.
WHo cares? PHP-5.1 introduces PDO from pecl into the mainstream distro. The idea of course being that it doesn't matter what is behind your scripts as long as PDO is used. Consider it DBI essentially. So your app can work with sqlite, mysql (transactions or not), postgresql, etc. in a much more consistent manner.. Sure there may be slight variations, but stick to the SQL spec and you should be okay.
Agent: Alright. We have a blue Ford Escort for you Mr. Seinfeld. Would you like insurance? Jerry: Yeah, you better give me the insurance, because I am gonna beat the hell out of this car.
Would they deny selling me a $1000 computer and making their 20% on it? Most stores, I'd say no. They just don't care. And the reps of the big boys (dell, etc) aren't paid to care.
Wouldn't this be _RELOCATING_ or _REDIRECTING_ the light towards the town? If i understand this correctly, wouldn't that make a huge area where the sunlight would normally hit that in now a giant shadow of the mirrors rather than the town being in the shadow of the mountain? Couldn't this have devistating effects on life in other areas?
Don't build your towns in stupid places. This was proven by New Orleans as well.
it can only occur if a user knowingly provides their credentials
What kind of security flaw is this? Wait- someone can read my e-mail if I give them my password? Wow! Wait- someone can read my files if I give them my root password? You're kidding?! Someone can read my paper documents if I give them the alarm code to my house and key to my filing cabinet? No s**t.
It's plain and simple not a 'supporting' situation for Firefox, but rather an excuse to realize that a nice chunk of their market which may be using non-genuine microsoft software (the geeks, techies, and their family/friends) are also using FireFox.
Isn't it obvious? Though I am happy to see support here, considering all it means is not programming everything in ActiveX, or loading up the activeX plugin for FireFox. -M
Lets think about this for a minute- what is this negative mindset with anything closed source these days? I'm a big fan of open source, and use hundreds of open source applications as does anyone with various Linux machines and the few windows open-source products. At the same time, I use tons of closed source programs and am quite happy with both.
These decisions should not be made based on their open-source-dom, but rather on their quality. What is better? easier to use? more powerful? of course with the target market in mind. If a closed source application is licensed with the same distribution rights (which in this case it was), why should it being open or closed matter to its inclusion?
If Microsoft offered WindowsXP for free as well as patches, do you think they'd take it? Why not? Especially if they threw in some added application suites for it.
I am pro-open source, but it has it's place in the marketplace like anything else. If a closed-source solution is better (is it?) then are they really going to need to modify/view the source of the OS?
I'm really sick of this hiding behind licenses. Spyware makers claiming that by downloading, looking at, thinking of, pissing on, or whatnot you can't create a signature or identify it in any way. There are a ton of stories like this, but it's rediculous.
It's up to the consumer to decide what goes on their computer, and if an anti-spyware maker wants to warn users of the threats, they have every right to. Otherwise, they're not doing the service THEY are promissing the customer, by identifying those things that spy on them. It really does perplex me how much people try and push with flawed licenses and poor IP laws. If there's any sign it needs to be revamped, this is it.
So I realize that businesses love Linux as the latest buzz-word and the whole OSS that comes with it (as well as Windows OSS), but it is an entirely different market.
SAP (esss eehhh pee) is expensive. Hundreds of thousands if not millions depending on volume. You won't find small business with SAP, and rarely will you find medium business who's put it in place (though some- especially with education and institutions embedded in farming out new trained people that work in the community a lot). These customers value the support and huge backing of big-corp and the exclusive use of custom software components of SAP.
So what's SAP worried about? I haven't the slightest idea. But I'd say they are ENTIRELY different markets and I don't think big-corp is really about to replace SAP, which they've spent millions on, with some OSS software.
OSS software is competition like any other, and yes you can have a corporate backing and support in the progress. Note that OSS does not equal FOSS (free open source software). Clearly this is just a way to get press considering it says nothing. Move along. That partnership with M$ inspired to flush OSS out of the corporate skin.
Sounds like they're producing a console not quite up to par. Sure it cuts price, but who wants something that won't sparkle and shine in a couple years as HDTVs become more commonplace? I guess if you're in the price market to care about console price, you don't have a good TV, but seriously- if they cut that, what else do they cut? What half-@$$ed hardware is in there, cheap production, and buggy software.
Sounds like another Nokia game console using old hardware. -M
I used gamers as an example, but it was a general benchmark statement.
ANY benchmark on two different processes is entirely different. A car can be entirely outpowered or it can be stronger in some areas and not others. It's the sum of all of those that shows the performance... but what does that mean?
> wish I could force them to include SPEC benchmark > numbers in the processor names.
ALL BENCHMARKS ARE FLAWED! We talk about faster processors, but faster for what? This isn't a consistant thing. A command could take 3 clocks on one processor and 4 on the other. That single CPU command could make a difference in one benchmark and not another when those add up. Multiply this by tons of instructions of differing proportions. There are different methods for doing a lot of things in every CPU. Different routes, onboard memory controllers, interfaces, signalling, etc. It's not as simple as "and now a CPU test that uses a lot of memory".
Numbers mean nothing until you install what you need to install and try it out. Note how many DIFFERENT games and programs benchmarkers run. They usually have 6 games or so (and they're targetting these gamers who play such games), and a ton of programs.
Benchmarks are a guess based on a sample workload. Change the workload and you change the benchmarks... not always proportionally.
Why have we been completely stagnant on this front? There were developments in the ways of NAT and Virtual Hosting, but so much of the picture left unattended to. What happened to developing additional routing technologies? With the focus on firewalls anyway, NAT just makes sense. But where is there a missing piece?
How about HTTPS virtualhosting. Send the server name and then establish a secure connection adn send the GET/POST request. This one thing alone would free up about 500-600 public IP addresses from myself alone with all the HTTPS sites I deal with.
The standards just kind of stopped when they fixed the initial problem, and don't think down the road. They got virtualhosting working and that saved a crunch... But nobody is consolidating and reclaiming these IPs because it's a total pain.
IPv6 is at least 10 years off, because plain and simple, EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF NETWORKED SOFTWARE NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. IPv6 is a joke right now, but the IP stacks should support IPv6 starting now. The programs should support is starting now. It is just as easy to configure an IPv4 address as an IPv6 address in linux/apache/etc. All programs on an ipv4 only stack need to be phased out or updated, including mainframes, routing equipment, servers, workstations.
This isn't rocket science. It's stupid for a hosting provider to implement IPv6 because it has no benefit for at least 5-10 years. But SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS and OS DEVELOPERS need to think IPv6 so that it can be transitioned many years down the road.
Plus, nobody in north america cares, because we have most of the IPs anyway... just wait until some of those ClassA's get reclaimed for people to start kicking/screaming.
For example, a 'sameuser' pg_hba allows connections to a database with the same name. Similarly the grant situation you describe.
Why should I be able to connect to databases I have no right to be in? If I can't do anything in them, what benefit is there for me to be able to see hundreds of database names cluttering up my list of databases?
I understand the reason why it doesn't work, but isn't a part of being a developer making things work rather than just accepting that they dont? For a corporate database it's okay, but as the number of databases, users, and distinct entities use the same postgreSQL server, it makes little sense to scroll through a few hundred databases.
"And the performance benchmarks are System A: ???, System B: ???, System C: ???.
We were impressed with all of the systems listed here. Unfortunately, system B seemed to have a high purchase price tag *wink* which worries us in its value proposition. System A's corporate backing provides some additional stability to the database's presence. Finally, System C's has always been known for its great concurrency control and Oracle-like operation.
*wink* *wink*"
We didn't name anything, but the first one is a dead giveaway, and I'm sure the second two aren't rocket-science.
Slashdot Mirror
Clearly you never tried Microsoft's wireless routers. I've had a few friends/customers with them and not ONE of the 4-5 lasted more than 4 months! After that it would lock up (need to be unplugged and re-plugged) about daily or fail entirely. M$'s support is non-exstent. Not to mention they shortly after discontinued any atempt at making networking hardware.
And yes- a mouse and keyboard are pretty simple technologies. Yippie.
-M
Why is anyone surprised? I've made a couple hundred recommendations with small businesses who are pinching pennies. It comes down to "You can have Linux for free, or Windows 2003 SBS for $80CDN or so a user". Most of them will choose SBS. The reasoning?
1. Their neighbouring company is using it
2. If you ever are on vacation, away, or leaving the industry, they know they can easily find support for it
3. The features of SBS are pretty good out of the box with some great workgrouping features, including copies of outlook 2003 for all machines and so on.
4. Support support suppport.
It's all about support- having the ability to find people to work on the system and understand it. Being able to do some basic features yourself (add users, etc) without needing administrators.
Linux has it's place. We all know this. Move along.
-M
Read the other reply to my message and you'll see the other point of view.
The point is basically that it has nothing to do with newbies or experts doing the programming. The logic is that PHP is a scripting language. It's powerful, despite you saying that it's not. Anything you want to do, it will do it. From the same token, one of the first rules to programming is to never trust the user! Malicious intent or not, the user is always wrong. E-mail at one point didn't matter- nobody exploited it in the way they do databases and whatnot. These days Spam is the latest big-thing, and programmers are seeing that their sloppy coding is causing their mail servers to relay. *wow*
Note that php doesn't set from by default because many mailers will set it for you to a safe default- often the user account who is sending the mail. So having a from of the user sending mail is a bad default? It's a custom header and shouldn't need to be specified in many cases.
And accepting a from address still means that it needs to validate it. Why should mail() validate it for you? What about formats that include names and e-mail addresses? If you want this kind of functionality, try a phpmailer class or make one.
-M
Persistent objects are super, but think of this from a systems perspective. I'd imagine you're thinking of Java, having a nice super-server running and then a small component in Apache sending the actual requests to the Java environment. Now take PHP:
- each apache process takes some requests. Opening a file-descriptor or database connection in one doesn't mean it'll be available to another process. So the file needs to be opened, database connected to, etc.
- persistent connections (database) are only useful if you have a database and single/cluster of web server(s) using that single database connection/username. Look at shared hosting. 500 apache processes, 10 web sites with different credentials. So you expect the database server to be able to keep 5,000 connections open? The next request by that user for the session may not come back for 8 hours, so why would you keep a connection open?
- Locking issues with keeping files open maybe?
Make a class or function that serializes a file. Now of course that's not possible, but emulate it. Find the file position, save the file name and info about it. Then when you reload the session fseek the file and all is well.
Keeping such things (file descriptor/database) with the session is silly in most cases, as there is little gain in most cases.
-=-
So make a php accelerator. Who's stopping you? Introduce it to PECL and people may use it or make a patch. Zend Accelerator (not the optimizer which of course they keep closed due to the encryption abilities- not to mention minimal performance gains), is far from optimal for 99% of Web sites out there. turck-mmcache was the same way as well. If you run a single site, it works fine. As soon as you have multiple sites, and you start caching files, database calls, and output, you have SERIOUS issues unless you know the application. Suddenly your script isn't running as it should some of the time.
-M
You'll also note that "I'm working on an alternative at present." is at the top of that article. So note the bias. Of course not everyone will like every extension, addition, or modification in many languages- you get used to a certain style and way.
He is bashing the specific implementation, but the concept is the same. PDO is _A_ solution. It's a good solution. It is technically very stable. It working out of PECL (and just a base is distributed with PHP-5.1) means for easy updates if compiled with shared support.
The idea is simple- A universal layer (a-la DBI) is needed in PHP and it offers it. It does a pretty good job as well. It offers it low-level in C. It emulates features (prepare/execute) for databases that can't support it- a damn good feature.
PDO is a start. personally I'm all for it and think it will take off. Think of the scalability too- During development on your local machine you use flat files. Then you post it to a site and use sqlite during testing. Then you take it to a host with mysql support and use that. Then you take it to postgresql clusters and use that. All with minimal code changes. Most won't have all those steps, but it'll be nice to be able to switch swiftly between them all, and not have foreign methods of doing things all over the place.
-M
PHP is getting considerably better actually at being (a) a mess, and (b) making you learn by mistake, (c) providing simpler frameworks.
This is what PHP 5 and PHP 5.1 are all about. Lets fix the problems in the language and those things that go back to it's origins. PHP at one point did little more than a shell script, and now you have endless numbers of modules, extensions, and database backends.
You'll notice they have E_ALL on by default and highly encourage E_ALL|E_STRICT to be used for good coding practice. You'll notice register_globals is off by default. You'll notice countless quirks are virtually eliminated. magic_quotes are off by default because it's become apparent they don't always work and it's better done by the database engine (which can escape what it needs rather than just slashing random things).
You'll notice in 5.0 and 5.1, they pulled out extensions that are specific or not maintained (payflowpro, fileinfo, and many others) to PECL.
You'll notice they are recommending mysql extensions and others aren't use. You'll notice they're even advising that mysqli isn't used. You'll notice they are focusing on PDO to simplify and eliminate the ~10 driving extensions for each database engine with their own unique ways of doing everything with a universal framework (note: PEAR::DB is written in php classes- this is C and good code).
This is all a method to fix those problems everyone keeps complaining about. It's a pain, and creating even more complaints in the process of broken scripts, classes, and tools with the removal of things like is_a, call-time reference passing, and others- but once these scripts get fixed, and over time once everything goes PDO--- You'll find clean and swift code without much trouble at all.
Give it 6mo for the whole php 5.1 thing to migrate into various popular scripts and you'll find the world will be better for it. It's all in the master plan- simplify. Note that while many things have manual sections, much of it is in PECL and not the distro. At some point that should really be pulled into its own manual making it easier to find the core topics. That's just my opininion.
-M
You sir, should never program.
Always validate all input provided by the user that is used in any way. If it's in a database you're smart enough to escape it (or use query replacement methods that do it for you). If you're sending mail, you damn-well be sure it's an e-mail address. You have RFCs to guide you on this:
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc822/
A field-name consists of one or more printable characters (excluding colon, space, and control-characters). A field-name MUST be contained on one line. Upper and lower case are not dis-tinguished when comparing field-names.
It defines what characters are valid, and if you are about to pipe whatever data you accept into an e-mail, that's something YOU decided to do.
IT IS YOUR JOB to make sure that what you put beside FROM: (or anything in that parameter) is an e-mail address. It shouldn't have a newline. It shouldn't have escape characters. It should probably contain only a limited regex. Would you put an SQL query someone enters into a database? Then why an e-mail address to sendmail?
On a side note, the only way around this is to have a programming language that tags data as tainted if it came from or was derrived from user input and not allow it for input, and having functions that sanitize data and remove that flag. This is first off slower and second not optimal in many situations.
WHo cares? PHP-5.1 introduces PDO from pecl into the mainstream distro. The idea of course being that it doesn't matter what is behind your scripts as long as PDO is used. Consider it DBI essentially. So your app can work with sqlite, mysql (transactions or not), postgresql, etc. in a much more consistent manner.. Sure there may be slight variations, but stick to the SQL spec and you should be okay.
-M
Why do they call it a hot water heater and who would want to heat hot water?
-M
What if I tell them when I purchase it?
Agent: Alright. We have a blue Ford Escort for you Mr. Seinfeld. Would you
like insurance?
Jerry: Yeah, you better give me the insurance, because I am gonna beat the hell
out of this car.
Would they deny selling me a $1000 computer and making their 20% on it? Most stores, I'd say no. They just don't care. And the reps of the big boys (dell, etc) aren't paid to care.
-M
Wouldn't this be _RELOCATING_ or _REDIRECTING_ the light towards the town? If i understand this correctly, wouldn't that make a huge area where the sunlight would normally hit that in now a giant shadow of the mirrors rather than the town being in the shadow of the mountain? Couldn't this have devistating effects on life in other areas?
Don't build your towns in stupid places. This was proven by New Orleans as well.
-M
What kind of security flaw is this? Wait- someone can read my e-mail if I give them my password? Wow! Wait- someone can read my files if I give them my root password? You're kidding?! Someone can read my paper documents if I give them the alarm code to my house and key to my filing cabinet? No s**t.
Jeeze.
-M
It's plain and simple not a 'supporting' situation for Firefox, but rather an excuse to realize that a nice chunk of their market which may be using non-genuine microsoft software (the geeks, techies, and their family/friends) are also using FireFox.
Isn't it obvious? Though I am happy to see support here, considering all it means is not programming everything in ActiveX, or loading up the activeX plugin for FireFox.
-M
Lets think about this for a minute- what is this negative mindset with anything closed source these days? I'm a big fan of open source, and use hundreds of open source applications as does anyone with various Linux machines and the few windows open-source products. At the same time, I use tons of closed source programs and am quite happy with both.
These decisions should not be made based on their open-source-dom, but rather on their quality. What is better? easier to use? more powerful? of course with the target market in mind. If a closed source application is licensed with the same distribution rights (which in this case it was), why should it being open or closed matter to its inclusion?
If Microsoft offered WindowsXP for free as well as patches, do you think they'd take it? Why not? Especially if they threw in some added application suites for it.
I am pro-open source, but it has it's place in the marketplace like anything else. If a closed-source solution is better (is it?) then are they really going to need to modify/view the source of the OS?
-M
I'm really sick of this hiding behind licenses. Spyware makers claiming that by downloading, looking at, thinking of, pissing on, or whatnot you can't create a signature or identify it in any way. There are a ton of stories like this, but it's rediculous.
It's up to the consumer to decide what goes on their computer, and if an anti-spyware maker wants to warn users of the threats, they have every right to. Otherwise, they're not doing the service THEY are promissing the customer, by identifying those things that spy on them. It really does perplex me how much people try and push with flawed licenses and poor IP laws. If there's any sign it needs to be revamped, this is it.
-M
The needs of many outweigh the needs of the few. Period.
-M
So I realize that businesses love Linux as the latest buzz-word and the whole OSS that comes with it (as well as Windows OSS), but it is an entirely different market.
SAP (esss eehhh pee) is expensive. Hundreds of thousands if not millions depending on volume. You won't find small business with SAP, and rarely will you find medium business who's put it in place (though some- especially with education and institutions embedded in farming out new trained people that work in the community a lot). These customers value the support and huge backing of big-corp and the exclusive use of custom software components of SAP.
So what's SAP worried about? I haven't the slightest idea. But I'd say they are ENTIRELY different markets and I don't think big-corp is really about to replace SAP, which they've spent millions on, with some OSS software.
OSS software is competition like any other, and yes you can have a corporate backing and support in the progress. Note that OSS does not equal FOSS (free open source software). Clearly this is just a way to get press considering it says nothing. Move along. That partnership with M$ inspired to flush OSS out of the corporate skin.
-M
Let's get some fire and some pitchforks...
-M
Sounds like they're producing a console not quite up to par. Sure it cuts price, but who wants something that won't sparkle and shine in a couple years as HDTVs become more commonplace? I guess if you're in the price market to care about console price, you don't have a good TV, but seriously- if they cut that, what else do they cut? What half-@$$ed hardware is in there, cheap production, and buggy software.
Sounds like another Nokia game console using old hardware.
-M
I used gamers as an example, but it was a general benchmark statement.
ANY benchmark on two different processes is entirely different. A car can be entirely outpowered or it can be stronger in some areas and not others. It's the sum of all of those that shows the performance... but what does that mean?
-M
> wish I could force them to include SPEC benchmark
> numbers in the processor names.
ALL BENCHMARKS ARE FLAWED! We talk about faster processors, but faster for what? This isn't a consistant thing. A command could take 3 clocks on one processor and 4 on the other. That single CPU command could make a difference in one benchmark and not another when those add up. Multiply this by tons of instructions of differing proportions. There are different methods for doing a lot of things in every CPU. Different routes, onboard memory controllers, interfaces, signalling, etc. It's not as simple as "and now a CPU test that uses a lot of memory".
Numbers mean nothing until you install what you need to install and try it out. Note how many DIFFERENT games and programs benchmarkers run. They usually have 6 games or so (and they're targetting these gamers who play such games), and a ton of programs.
Benchmarks are a guess based on a sample workload. Change the workload and you change the benchmarks... not always proportionally.
Why have we been completely stagnant on this front? There were developments in the ways of NAT and Virtual Hosting, but so much of the picture left unattended to. What happened to developing additional routing technologies? With the focus on firewalls anyway, NAT just makes sense. But where is there a missing piece?
How about HTTPS virtualhosting. Send the server name and then establish a secure connection adn send the GET/POST request. This one thing alone would free up about 500-600 public IP addresses from myself alone with all the HTTPS sites I deal with.
The standards just kind of stopped when they fixed the initial problem, and don't think down the road. They got virtualhosting working and that saved a crunch... But nobody is consolidating and reclaiming these IPs because it's a total pain.
IPv6 is at least 10 years off, because plain and simple, EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF NETWORKED SOFTWARE NEEDS TO BE REPLACED. IPv6 is a joke right now, but the IP stacks should support IPv6 starting now. The programs should support is starting now. It is just as easy to configure an IPv4 address as an IPv6 address in linux/apache/etc. All programs on an ipv4 only stack need to be phased out or updated, including mainframes, routing equipment, servers, workstations.
This isn't rocket science. It's stupid for a hosting provider to implement IPv6 because it has no benefit for at least 5-10 years. But SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS and OS DEVELOPERS need to think IPv6 so that it can be transitioned many years down the road.
Plus, nobody in north america cares, because we have most of the IPs anyway... just wait until some of those ClassA's get reclaimed for people to start kicking/screaming.
-M
MySQL has an option to hide databases that the user doesn't have rights to.
The solution is simply making the database list a view, and having that view join on a grant table of some kind.
-M
For example, a 'sameuser' pg_hba allows connections to a database with the same name. Similarly the grant situation you describe.
Why should I be able to connect to databases I have no right to be in? If I can't do anything in them, what benefit is there for me to be able to see hundreds of database names cluttering up my list of databases?
I understand the reason why it doesn't work, but isn't a part of being a developer making things work rather than just accepting that they dont? For a corporate database it's okay, but as the number of databases, users, and distinct entities use the same postgreSQL server, it makes little sense to scroll through a few hundred databases.
-M
Perfect Workaround:
"And the performance benchmarks are System A: ???, System B: ???, System C: ???.
We were impressed with all of the systems listed here. Unfortunately, system B seemed to have a high purchase price tag *wink* which worries us in its value proposition. System A's corporate backing provides some additional stability to the database's presence. Finally, System C's has always been known for its great concurrency control and Oracle-like operation.
*wink* *wink*"
We didn't name anything, but the first one is a dead giveaway, and I'm sure the second two aren't rocket-science.