I've wished for years that Microsoft would go under, but this isn't quite what I was hoping for.
I'm guessing that after it was demonstrated to the Navy that using Windows was likely to get their ships sunk, Microsoft argued that that would mesh perfectly with their submarine fleet.
Nope, but I was typing on my iPhone and couldn't be bothered to try to manage a link. Typing HTML on the iPhone's keyboard on a bumpy bus is an exercise in futility.
I'd love to know why you would suggest using encryption on drives that are going to be shared over the network.
Installing OpenFiler does everything you've suggested, with the exception of installing Webmin, which is garbage and for which OpenFiler has a much better replacement geared specifically towards managing network shares, LVM mounts, etc.
Even better, OS X supports NFS, which is much faster in every test I've tried (from random access times to raw throughput), likely due to significantly lower overhead due to a simpler protocol.
Export the same shares out using NFS and SMB and you're golden.
All the legislation in the world won't fix teenage pregnancies, the War On Drugs, etc etc.
Until I see some zero-tolerance anti-teenager legislation, I'm going to assume that our governments don't really care about the issues that are causing the decay of our society.
I'm going to guess that Apple is backing out of Macworld SF because it's so poorly run that no one wants to go. $20k for a table? sure. five 30" Cinema displays 'go missing' from the loading dock? sorry, not our fault, not our problem. Need a new outlet? You have to hire one of our electricians. How many hours do you want him for? oh, we don't know how long it'll take, you have to figure that out yourself.
The company that runs Macworld runs it half-assed, they don't care about attendees because they know they're the only game in town and people will pay regardless, and they don't care about vendors, because again, you need the exposure or your competitor is going to get it first.
If we're lucky, Macworld will die off and be replaced with something better.
It's not a new concept either. As the old saying goes, 'A lock is a device to keep an honest man honest.' It won't stop a crook.
Let's start penalizing ISPs that don't take sufficient measures to ensure spam doesn't leave their network. Once that's done and spam zombies in first-world countries are shut off (or at least, can't do any damage), then ISPs can start banning traffic from countries that don't bother to do anything about problems (such as Taiwan).
If you can stop piracy until the day -after- the game hit the stores, you catch all of the impulse buyers and OCDs, which is a seizable market.
Yeah, but what they don't seem to understand is that this doesn't work. Take Spore for example - DRM'ed up the ass, and what happened? Pirated BEFORE launch day (as usual). In fact, even the Mac version was pirated, and we normally get screwed as far as games go.
What they need to understand is that DRM doesn't stop piracy, but intrusive DRM does make customers avoid the product, or causes problems with people's computers and results in the game being returned. Pirates don't care because they crack the DRM well before launch, so the only people you're causing problems for are paying customers.
Sounds like a great idea for an app - Desert Spoon! Figures out where you are, and what local flora/fauna is likely to be findable, catchable, and edible. Also locates oases which aren't mirages.
Sounds like you were using MyISAM. InnoDB will find and detect corrupt pages - and considering that pages get written into the doublewrite buffer, then written to the log, then written to the tablespace, it's fairly unlikely that things end up corrupt without some kind of disk-related issue.
It doesn't auto-repair table because there can be several issues that could cause that to be a bad idea - for example, a broken RAID controller or faulty disk. If your disk is losing writes sporadically (which I've seen happen), then you'll move from a few corrupt records to a swath of corrupt records.
Re: the date thing, the philosophy was that it's not the database's job to validate data. You could use -00-00 to refer to an all-year event in some kind of astronomical calendaring system, for example, or 0000-mm-dd to refer to something that happened 2008 years ago. If you really want to limit it to a specific range of dates, then you can tell MySQL that, and you can enforce it in your application (or in a trigger, for that matter).
Your rant would have been very apropos ten years ago; nowadays it sounds like you're just holding a grudge because you don't know how it works or what it does.
Admins shouldn't be 'discouraging' Vista SP2. They should be installing it or prohibiting it. None of my users have permissions to install Vista, and if any of them did and it broke something, then their wasted time would be their fault, not mine.
The problem with that is that you end up with tons of disjointed features that only one customer wanted, and you end up like Microsoft Word - a cluttered interface with tons of toolbars, tooltips, palettes, windows, menus, icons, shortcuts, and everything you can cram into the app, 99% of which no one ever uses, and all of which makes the program harder to use, support, maintain, or update.
See above. Of course, it's probably doable on a technical level, but it would still break the licensing (unless there was a clever workaround which I assume that there isn't).
There are doubtless plenty of patches out there that break the GPL (IIRC some of the kernel code contains macros to warn the user about tainting in this manner). No-one's going to sue you for installing them on your home copy of Linux. However, this doesn't change the fact that these break the GPL and couldn't be included with any notable distros for that reason alone.
The key here is that the GPL prohibits distribution, not use - any individual user could download the kernel, download the patches, and combine them themselves. Package managers could also accomplish this (see Debian's workarounds for qmail, which downloaded, modified, and compiled the source on your machine, rather than distributing modified source as required in Debian).
Linux's use of the GPL may have started as ideology- though it's open to question whether it would have taken off in the same way if it *hadn't* used the GPL, and regardless, it's easier with hindsight to criticise a choice Linus made over 15 years ago. Fact is that *now* the GPL licensing is a legal issue, and not simply childish ideology as you imply.
Linus in all of his interviews and appearances has never brought ideology into it. His primary concern seems to be practicality. He licensed under the GPL because it made the most sense - it let people share, but not steal.
The childish idology that I was referring to is the people who insist that licensing problems are on Sun's end - as the parent poster did - because they chose to write their own open-source license. Note that their license is still open-source, and they could have chosen from dozens of other open-source licenses which would have similarly been incompatible with the GPL.
The Linux kernel cannot change its license (except upwards, to the GPLv3). and that's fine. No one says it has to. The issue I take is with people (like Stallman) who seem to insist that the only way to be Free is to be his kind of Free, under the rules that he's laid down for Freedom and how Freedom should work. Some people seem to buy into this, believing that being incompatible with the GPL means to be non-Free - an assertion which just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. This is the childish ideology to which I refer.
I'm inclined to disagree. As an example, an issue I came across the other day while building a server kernel: many drivers or sections (e.g.wifi) that I could not disable because some other enabled-by-default option in some other branch of the kernel config required it.
Eventually I decided to favor simplicity: I went over all the options, top to bottom, enabling what I needed, and disabling what I didn't want. Once I reached the bottom, I went back to the top again and repeated. Continue until everything I want gone is gone.
It's frustrating enough to have to toil through the entire universe of Linux kernel modules, disabling dozens upon dozens of network cards, archaic protocols (how many people really need ARCNet? Can't thos people turn it on instead of me turning it off?), absent or misleading 'help' text ('when in doubt, say no' when the default is 'yes'), and so on.
Kernel configuration is a nightmare, and to my amazement it's only become MORE complex and LESS intuitive as time goes on. 2.4 was great. Early 2.6 was good too. Lately? It's a freaking mess, and it can take hours to set up a kernel on a new system. If I never have to do it again, I'll be glad. Sadly, that's not an option, so I'll stick to slow-booting distro kernels for now.
There are ups and downs to any project. When I had a Postgres database to admin, I was told to look into replication. After a frustrating few days of determining that there was no 'replication' (unsupported patches and log shipping don't count), I was then chastised by the postgres-loving lead revel because 'we don't need replication' because the app isn't going to split reads/writes and that's all replication is good for.
Maybe it was just his short-sightedness or cluelessness, but it sounded like the same sort of 'why do you want that?' logic than led MySQL fanboys to claim that ACID-compliance wasn't necessary (until they had it).
So now MySQL had two forms of replication, and Postgres still has... Log shipping. Call me a noob, but I'll take MySQL any day.
What most Linux users seem not to realize is that Sun has done their part. They've released their code under an OSI-approved license. ZFS (and dtrace) are open-source. Linux could implement them - except the GPL prevents it.
Linux (thanks to the GPL) is the one saying 'I'm not going to play unless we can use my ball', which is fine because the rest of us are having a good time regardless.
I'd love to see someone port ZFS to Linux and distribute it as a set of patches for people to download and apply to their own kernel (doubly so for dtrace) but in the meantime, my laptop is running a more advanced OS than my servers, which is sad.
Maybe it's time to put functionality before ideology?
Slashdot Mirror
I've wished for years that Microsoft would go under, but this isn't quite what I was hoping for.
I'm guessing that after it was demonstrated to the Navy that using Windows was likely to get their ships sunk, Microsoft argued that that would mesh perfectly with their submarine fleet.
Nope, but I was typing on my iPhone and couldn't be bothered to try to manage a link. Typing HTML on the iPhone's keyboard on a bumpy bus is an exercise in futility.
I suspect he was merely lagged, as a result of the inherent inefficiencies of a government-owned series of tubes.
I'd love to know why you would suggest using encryption on drives that are going to be shared over the network.
Installing OpenFiler does everything you've suggested, with the exception of installing Webmin, which is garbage and for which OpenFiler has a much better replacement geared specifically towards managing network shares, LVM mounts, etc.
Even better, OS X supports NFS, which is much faster in every test I've tried (from random access times to raw throughput), likely due to significantly lower overhead due to a simpler protocol.
Export the same shares out using NFS and SMB and you're golden.
All the legislation in the world won't fix teenage pregnancies, the War On Drugs, etc etc.
Until I see some zero-tolerance anti-teenager legislation, I'm going to assume that our governments don't really care about the issues that are causing the decay of our society.
I'm going to guess that Apple is backing out of Macworld SF because it's so poorly run that no one wants to go. $20k for a table? sure. five 30" Cinema displays 'go missing' from the loading dock? sorry, not our fault, not our problem. Need a new outlet? You have to hire one of our electricians. How many hours do you want him for? oh, we don't know how long it'll take, you have to figure that out yourself.
The company that runs Macworld runs it half-assed, they don't care about attendees because they know they're the only game in town and people will pay regardless, and they don't care about vendors, because again, you need the exposure or your competitor is going to get it first.
If we're lucky, Macworld will die off and be replaced with something better.
It's not a new concept either. As the old saying goes, 'A lock is a device to keep an honest man honest.' It won't stop a crook.
Let's start penalizing ISPs that don't take sufficient measures to ensure spam doesn't leave their network. Once that's done and spam zombies in first-world countries are shut off (or at least, can't do any damage), then ISPs can start banning traffic from countries that don't bother to do anything about problems (such as Taiwan).
The bandwidth can be great, it's the latency that kills you.
If you can stop piracy until the day -after- the game hit the stores, you catch all of the impulse buyers and OCDs, which is a seizable market.
Yeah, but what they don't seem to understand is that this doesn't work. Take Spore for example - DRM'ed up the ass, and what happened? Pirated BEFORE launch day (as usual). In fact, even the Mac version was pirated, and we normally get screwed as far as games go.
What they need to understand is that DRM doesn't stop piracy, but intrusive DRM does make customers avoid the product, or causes problems with people's computers and results in the game being returned. Pirates don't care because they crack the DRM well before launch, so the only people you're causing problems for are paying customers.
Anyway, I don't like the iPhone either but let's face it, some people are zebras and others would just as soon kill you as open a pack of gum.
Well in our defence, a lot of us don't really like gum.
Sounds like a great idea for an app - Desert Spoon! Figures out where you are, and what local flora/fauna is likely to be findable, catchable, and edible. Also locates oases which aren't mirages.
If you're smart enough to bring a sat phone, you should be smart enough to have a GPS device that has more than four hours of standby time. :p
Sounds like you were using MyISAM. InnoDB will find and detect corrupt pages - and considering that pages get written into the doublewrite buffer, then written to the log, then written to the tablespace, it's fairly unlikely that things end up corrupt without some kind of disk-related issue.
It doesn't auto-repair table because there can be several issues that could cause that to be a bad idea - for example, a broken RAID controller or faulty disk. If your disk is losing writes sporadically (which I've seen happen), then you'll move from a few corrupt records to a swath of corrupt records.
Re: the date thing, the philosophy was that it's not the database's job to validate data. You could use -00-00 to refer to an all-year event in some kind of astronomical calendaring system, for example, or 0000-mm-dd to refer to something that happened 2008 years ago. If you really want to limit it to a specific range of dates, then you can tell MySQL that, and you can enforce it in your application (or in a trigger, for that matter).
Your rant would have been very apropos ten years ago; nowadays it sounds like you're just holding a grudge because you don't know how it works or what it does.
Apple apparently believes that somebody else is behind Psystar
And they would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!
Admins shouldn't be 'discouraging' Vista SP2. They should be installing it or prohibiting it. None of my users have permissions to install Vista, and if any of them did and it broke something, then their wasted time would be their fault, not mine.
The problem with that is that you end up with tons of disjointed features that only one customer wanted, and you end up like Microsoft Word - a cluttered interface with tons of toolbars, tooltips, palettes, windows, menus, icons, shortcuts, and everything you can cram into the app, 99% of which no one ever uses, and all of which makes the program harder to use, support, maintain, or update.
See above. Of course, it's probably doable on a technical level, but it would still break the licensing (unless there was a clever workaround which I assume that there isn't).
There are doubtless plenty of patches out there that break the GPL (IIRC some of the kernel code contains macros to warn the user about tainting in this manner). No-one's going to sue you for installing them on your home copy of Linux. However, this doesn't change the fact that these break the GPL and couldn't be included with any notable distros for that reason alone.
The key here is that the GPL prohibits distribution, not use - any individual user could download the kernel, download the patches, and combine them themselves. Package managers could also accomplish this (see Debian's workarounds for qmail, which downloaded, modified, and compiled the source on your machine, rather than distributing modified source as required in Debian).
Linux's use of the GPL may have started as ideology- though it's open to question whether it would have taken off in the same way if it *hadn't* used the GPL, and regardless, it's easier with hindsight to criticise a choice Linus made over 15 years ago. Fact is that *now* the GPL licensing is a legal issue, and not simply childish ideology as you imply.
Linus in all of his interviews and appearances has never brought ideology into it. His primary concern seems to be practicality. He licensed under the GPL because it made the most sense - it let people share, but not steal.
The childish idology that I was referring to is the people who insist that licensing problems are on Sun's end - as the parent poster did - because they chose to write their own open-source license. Note that their license is still open-source, and they could have chosen from dozens of other open-source licenses which would have similarly been incompatible with the GPL.
The Linux kernel cannot change its license (except upwards, to the GPLv3). and that's fine. No one says it has to. The issue I take is with people (like Stallman) who seem to insist that the only way to be Free is to be his kind of Free, under the rules that he's laid down for Freedom and how Freedom should work. Some people seem to buy into this, believing that being incompatible with the GPL means to be non-Free - an assertion which just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. This is the childish ideology to which I refer.
I'm inclined to disagree. As an example, an issue I came across the other day while building a server kernel: many drivers or sections (e.g.wifi) that I could not disable because some other enabled-by-default option in some other branch of the kernel config required it.
Eventually I decided to favor simplicity: I went over all the options, top to bottom, enabling what I needed, and disabling what I didn't want. Once I reached the bottom, I went back to the top again and repeated. Continue until everything I want gone is gone.
It's frustrating enough to have to toil through the entire universe of Linux kernel modules, disabling dozens upon dozens of network cards, archaic protocols (how many people really need ARCNet? Can't thos people turn it on instead of me turning it off?), absent or misleading 'help' text ('when in doubt, say no' when the default is 'yes'), and so on.
Kernel configuration is a nightmare, and to my amazement it's only become MORE complex and LESS intuitive as time goes on. 2.4 was great. Early 2.6 was good too. Lately? It's a freaking mess, and it can take hours to set up a kernel on a new system. If I never have to do it again, I'll be glad. Sadly, that's not an option, so I'll stick to slow-booting distro kernels for now.
Sigh. Progress indeed.
There are ups and downs to any project. When I had a Postgres database to admin, I was told to look into replication. After a frustrating few days of determining that there was no 'replication' (unsupported patches and log shipping don't count), I was then chastised by the postgres-loving lead revel because 'we don't need replication' because the app isn't going to split reads/writes and that's all replication is good for.
Maybe it was just his short-sightedness or cluelessness, but it sounded like the same sort of 'why do you want that?' logic than led MySQL fanboys to claim that ACID-compliance wasn't necessary (until they had it).
So now MySQL had two forms of replication, and Postgres still has... Log shipping. Call me a noob, but I'll take MySQL any day.
What most Linux users seem not to realize is that Sun has done their part. They've released their code under an OSI-approved license. ZFS (and dtrace) are open-source. Linux could implement them - except the GPL prevents it.
Linux (thanks to the GPL) is the one saying 'I'm not going to play unless we can use my ball', which is fine because the rest of us are having a good time regardless.
I'd love to see someone port ZFS to Linux and distribute it as a set of patches for people to download and apply to their own kernel (doubly so for dtrace) but in the meantime, my laptop is running a more advanced OS than my servers, which is sad.
Maybe it's time to put functionality before ideology?
This just in - scientists have also discovered high fructose corn syrup, which could lead us to fat, ugly alien life.
I don't even see the code anymore, all I see is bomb, BSOD, kernel panic...
The same way a lunatic might approach a puppy: with a shilleleh and a glint in its eye.
Do we really want to limit ourselves to a single universe? That's the kind of short-sighted thinking that led us to the Y2K bug.