I'll take stainless steel and cast iron over teflon any day for my cooking needs. I mow my lawn without gas or electricity. I think that puppets in '80s movies feel more real than the most advanced computer animated crap of today. I'll be damned if I purchase music that isn't on a CD. DVDs are just fine for movies (I migrated from tape for good reason but blue ray simply isn't worth the hoopla). I still don't give a flying fuck about 3D... in fact I prefer movies that are not be in 3D. I look for yard sales in senior communities because I know that that those 50-year-old cooking utensils are still going to out last that stuff at Walmart.
Yada yada get off my lawn, but I'll be damned if I'll run anything less than the most recent kernel and gcc.
So by that logic we shouldn't have sex education in JHS either since the students are just going to poke fun at it. At some point students realize that you take the subject matter seriously and either stop being disruptive or are disciplined.
Same with GIMP, just warn the student that they are using the word out of context, that their behavior is inappropriate, and discipline them as needed.
Also, it's very common for students in that age bracket to make light of teacher's names. Does that mean teachers should change their names?
I don't recall there ever being a large contingent of people claiming "theres nothing they can do".
What's the point in bringing up that all software has flaws if not to imply that there's nothing that can be done? What's the point in saying that MS has the biggest market share (and therefore the most targeted) if not to imply that there's nothing that can be done?
Every system ever built has the potential for issues
Every system potentially has flaws but some vendors historically have had more exploits over time than others. Just because every system has flaws doesn't mean that the severity of the flaws can't be mitigated. Some vendors are in fact better at it than others.
Stop throwing your hands in the air as if to say that there's nothing anyone can do.
Example and history lesson: Windows 7 is more secure than XP even though all the while XP was popular everyone said there was nothing MS could do. Well, apparently, they did "nothing" and 7 is just coincidently more secure? Or was it just designed better and tested more? Or is 7 just as insecure as XP? See, you can't say that Microsoft improved security without reneging on the "their's nothing they can do" apologetics.
And it's not just Microsoft (They're just handy at the moment). This same bullshit line of apologetics pops up every time there's a wide spread exploit of a popular product. It's akin to saying that since you can't prevent 100% of fatal car accidents, seat belts are pointless.
What do you mean? Flash runs the same everywhere. Flash for Windows: Runs like crap. Flash for Mac: Runs like crap. Flash Linux: Runs like crap.
Even though Flash is total crap, it works just fine to demonstrate that binaries can be made compatible across distribution lines. The fact that it's crap doesn't change the fact that it's compatible crap. If Adobe can make a binary which is compatible across distributions, it can't be that hard can it?
If I compile my program in Ubuntu, will you be able to run it in Gentoo?
It's possible to build software that might not work on another distribution, yes. It's also possible to build software that will work on many distributions. I have lots of closed source applications that work on every distribution I've tried them on. Get over it.
Mostly, the reason that binaries built for one distribution might not work on another distribution is that because they don't have to. If I'm packaging GIMP for Ubuntu it doesn't need to be binary compatible with some other distribution. I can enable build features that might only make sense for the distribution I'm targeting. If on the other hand I wanted to build a GIMP binary that worked on many different distributions I could do that (even if, as in GIMP's case, it's pointless).
Linux distributions are a lot more alike than what most fans of any particular distribution would lead you to believe. I have lots of binaries that work across distributions, despite that they should have randomly stopped working many years a go when I originally ignored this same FUD.
How can you say it's "fine as a beginner Linux" then say that it's "crap"? It's fine to give your beginners crap? I'm with you in that Ubuntu is crap* but that only seems like a reason for it not being good for beginners.
My theory is the drive had a few bad sectors, which were remapped over time to new locations. But I have no hard data to back this up.
Do you still have the SMART data you collected? If the drive remapped the sectors, most likely it will show up in your SMART data as a variable named "Reallocated_Sector_Ct" or similar. This number should have increased as a result of such remapping.
Drives often have a set number of sectors that are reserved for the remapping of bad sectors to good ones. You have to use some percentage (up to the manufacture) of those reserved sectors before SMART says their's a problem. Hence the "magic number." If you have a drive dropping sectors, check your backups and just keep writing data to the drive. Keep writing to the drive until SMART fails. It can take an aggravating amount of time to do but it's worth it if you have any warranty time left.
If you know the drive is going, don't give up on making SMART cry for you. Get SMART to fail and the manufacture will most likely take it back. It's important that you get them to take the drive back because they get away with shipping crap way to often.
A drive can remap a difficult sector without you ever knowing unless you look there.
Except when it happens a lot... then your drive is F***.............I.....N...............G slow for now apparent reason.
We "test" our drives by filling them with whatever data we have laying around. We do this 5 to 10 times (depending on how soon we need the drives). What eventually happens with a bad drive is that the SMART counter ticks over to some magical number and starts reporting health issues (A requirement for some RMA processes). We also time each fill cycle. We expect the first two or three runs to take longer (EVERY drive these days will have relocations going on for the first few runs). For later runs we expect to see a more consistent fill time and the relocated sector count stop climbing so alarmingly fast.
There are bad sectors on your brand new drive. You can count on it. You have to make the drive find them and map around them because it won't happen in the factory. Write to every byte several times. Don't wait for it to happen naturally... you'll just hit performance problems and put yourself closer to warranty cutoff time. They're counting on you not finding a problem soon enough. You must burn them in or suffer later.
I don't understand any of this. Can someone give me a computer science analogy for this car problem? It always seems to work so well the other way around right?
Re:Sadly the Debian bins are still at rc3
on
Wine 1.4 Released
·
· Score: 1
I consider Arch to be fairly bleeding edge, at least more so than most other distributions. I don't have to build much unless I want something off of AUR. Even then it's really easy to build that stuff (often very quick too). Someone else has worked out all the details and you just untar, type makepkg, wait a minute or two and be done.
It's close enough to the edge but not so close you risk falling. You can get even closer for the things that really interest you but stay reasonably stable but fresh for everything else. It's just a fun spot to be.
While GP might not find building things "fun", in my experience it's only a hassle if you're distribution has a bad habit of being distant from its upstream (distant because it's several versions old, distant because they patched it 30 times, etc). If you stay reasonably current and vanilla things work together better with greater flexibility. I can understand the bad taste in his mouth. Some distributions make it a real chore to build things. (I'm not going to name names--it just leads to fanboy butthurt--but if you find it hard to build stuff on your distribution they're doing it wrong.)
So who gets the last laugh, the good guys or the bad guys? And please let me know which side you consider bad or good. I never know which side people are rooting for in these instances.
Re:Cut your bullshit please
on
GitHub Hacked
·
· Score: 0
Steve? Is that you? You know when you wave your arms and dance like a monkey people laugh at you!
Politicians work full time at deceiving you. You work part time at not to be deceived by them. Ergo it's hard to be "smart" enough especially when you need to work full time to tell the difference between the truth and all the disinformation out there. Is it any wonder why everyone would just rather play dumb and go about their business?
Meanwhile you could just use the open source drivers for many older ATI cards and have OpenGL 2.1, greater stability, and decent performance. Desktop effects work and full-screen Flash videos play better than on XP.
And for the most part, those that say the open source drivers suck are basing their opinions on their experiences from 6+ years ago or some bullshit Phronix article that benchmarks functionality that you might not even care about if you take a rational look at what you actually use the machine for. If you're not trying to do much 3D gaming the open source drivers are fantastic. If you are trying to game on Linux... forget about it if you own an ATI card. Been that way for a very long time; Catalyst has always been a suck fest.
TLDR: Nvida blob if you want to do everything, including gaming, on Linux. Open source ATI or Intel will more than fit the bill for anything else (except 3D gaming) you might want to do... even KWin.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll take stainless steel and cast iron over teflon any day for my cooking needs. I mow my lawn without gas or electricity. I think that puppets in '80s movies feel more real than the most advanced computer animated crap of today. I'll be damned if I purchase music that isn't on a CD. DVDs are just fine for movies (I migrated from tape for good reason but blue ray simply isn't worth the hoopla). I still don't give a flying fuck about 3D... in fact I prefer movies that are not be in 3D. I look for yard sales in senior communities because I know that that those 50-year-old cooking utensils are still going to out last that stuff at Walmart.
Yada yada get off my lawn, but I'll be damned if I'll run anything less than the most recent kernel and gcc.
One could argue the same for Git... but it's used in professional environments all the time despite it being "unparliamentary language."
Stop fussing about one definition of the word. You're just like the asshats that want to preserve the purity of the word "hacker."
Ironically the gimp OS that doesn't come with a compiler is full of users which can't get the latest GIMP.
So by that logic we shouldn't have sex education in JHS either since the students are just going to poke fun at it. At some point students realize that you take the subject matter seriously and either stop being disruptive or are disciplined.
Same with GIMP, just warn the student that they are using the word out of context, that their behavior is inappropriate, and discipline them as needed.
Also, it's very common for students in that age bracket to make light of teacher's names. Does that mean teachers should change their names?
What's the point in bringing up that all software has flaws if not to imply that there's nothing that can be done? What's the point in saying that MS has the biggest market share (and therefore the most targeted) if not to imply that there's nothing that can be done?
In GP's defense, you actually want it some what tight. If it's loose and sagging it can potentially block your view of the real world.
Every system potentially has flaws but some vendors historically have had more exploits over time than others. Just because every system has flaws doesn't mean that the severity of the flaws can't be mitigated. Some vendors are in fact better at it than others.
Stop throwing your hands in the air as if to say that there's nothing anyone can do.
Example and history lesson: Windows 7 is more secure than XP even though all the while XP was popular everyone said there was nothing MS could do. Well, apparently, they did "nothing" and 7 is just coincidently more secure? Or was it just designed better and tested more? Or is 7 just as insecure as XP? See, you can't say that Microsoft improved security without reneging on the "their's nothing they can do" apologetics.
And it's not just Microsoft (They're just handy at the moment). This same bullshit line of apologetics pops up every time there's a wide spread exploit of a popular product. It's akin to saying that since you can't prevent 100% of fatal car accidents, seat belts are pointless.
What do you mean? Flash runs the same everywhere. Flash for Windows: Runs like crap. Flash for Mac: Runs like crap. Flash Linux: Runs like crap.
Even though Flash is total crap, it works just fine to demonstrate that binaries can be made compatible across distribution lines. The fact that it's crap doesn't change the fact that it's compatible crap. If Adobe can make a binary which is compatible across distributions, it can't be that hard can it?
It's possible to build software that might not work on another distribution, yes. It's also possible to build software that will work on many distributions. I have lots of closed source applications that work on every distribution I've tried them on. Get over it.
Mostly, the reason that binaries built for one distribution might not work on another distribution is that because they don't have to. If I'm packaging GIMP for Ubuntu it doesn't need to be binary compatible with some other distribution. I can enable build features that might only make sense for the distribution I'm targeting. If on the other hand I wanted to build a GIMP binary that worked on many different distributions I could do that (even if, as in GIMP's case, it's pointless).
Linux distributions are a lot more alike than what most fans of any particular distribution would lead you to believe. I have lots of binaries that work across distributions, despite that they should have randomly stopped working many years a go when I originally ignored this same FUD.
How can you say it's "fine as a beginner Linux" then say that it's "crap"? It's fine to give your beginners crap? I'm with you in that Ubuntu is crap* but that only seems like a reason for it not being good for beginners.
* In a lighthearted poking fun kind of way.
Do you still have the SMART data you collected? If the drive remapped the sectors, most likely it will show up in your SMART data as a variable named "Reallocated_Sector_Ct" or similar. This number should have increased as a result of such remapping.
Drives often have a set number of sectors that are reserved for the remapping of bad sectors to good ones. You have to use some percentage (up to the manufacture) of those reserved sectors before SMART says their's a problem. Hence the "magic number." If you have a drive dropping sectors, check your backups and just keep writing data to the drive. Keep writing to the drive until SMART fails. It can take an aggravating amount of time to do but it's worth it if you have any warranty time left.
If you know the drive is going, don't give up on making SMART cry for you. Get SMART to fail and the manufacture will most likely take it back. It's important that you get them to take the drive back because they get away with shipping crap way to often.
Except when it happens a lot... then your drive is F***.............I.....N...............G slow for now apparent reason.
We "test" our drives by filling them with whatever data we have laying around. We do this 5 to 10 times (depending on how soon we need the drives). What eventually happens with a bad drive is that the SMART counter ticks over to some magical number and starts reporting health issues (A requirement for some RMA processes). We also time each fill cycle. We expect the first two or three runs to take longer (EVERY drive these days will have relocations going on for the first few runs). For later runs we expect to see a more consistent fill time and the relocated sector count stop climbing so alarmingly fast.
There are bad sectors on your brand new drive. You can count on it. You have to make the drive find them and map around them because it won't happen in the factory. Write to every byte several times. Don't wait for it to happen naturally... you'll just hit performance problems and put yourself closer to warranty cutoff time. They're counting on you not finding a problem soon enough. You must burn them in or suffer later.
I don't understand any of this. Can someone give me a computer science analogy for this car problem? It always seems to work so well the other way around right?
Hi Steve!!!! Could you do the monkey dance for us while you're here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Rendering_Manager not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management
^^^ Look up ^^^
I consider Arch to be fairly bleeding edge, at least more so than most other distributions. I don't have to build much unless I want something off of AUR. Even then it's really easy to build that stuff (often very quick too). Someone else has worked out all the details and you just untar, type makepkg, wait a minute or two and be done.
It's close enough to the edge but not so close you risk falling. You can get even closer for the things that really interest you but stay reasonably stable but fresh for everything else. It's just a fun spot to be.
While GP might not find building things "fun", in my experience it's only a hassle if you're distribution has a bad habit of being distant from its upstream (distant because it's several versions old, distant because they patched it 30 times, etc). If you stay reasonably current and vanilla things work together better with greater flexibility. I can understand the bad taste in his mouth. Some distributions make it a real chore to build things. (I'm not going to name names--it just leads to fanboy butthurt--but if you find it hard to build stuff on your distribution they're doing it wrong.)
You're right no one would ever want to involve Windows with their Wordpress install. The year of Windows on the server will never come.
So who gets the last laugh, the good guys or the bad guys? And please let me know which side you consider bad or good. I never know which side people are rooting for in these instances.
Steve? Is that you? You know when you wave your arms and dance like a monkey people laugh at you!
Politicians work full time at deceiving you. You work part time at not to be deceived by them. Ergo it's hard to be "smart" enough especially when you need to work full time to tell the difference between the truth and all the disinformation out there. Is it any wonder why everyone would just rather play dumb and go about their business?
Not as often as your grammar checker does.
Meanwhile you could just use the open source drivers for many older ATI cards and have OpenGL 2.1, greater stability, and decent performance. Desktop effects work and full-screen Flash videos play better than on XP.
And for the most part, those that say the open source drivers suck are basing their opinions on their experiences from 6+ years ago or some bullshit Phronix article that benchmarks functionality that you might not even care about if you take a rational look at what you actually use the machine for. If you're not trying to do much 3D gaming the open source drivers are fantastic. If you are trying to game on Linux... forget about it if you own an ATI card. Been that way for a very long time; Catalyst has always been a suck fest.
TLDR: Nvida blob if you want to do everything, including gaming, on Linux. Open source ATI or Intel will more than fit the bill for anything else (except 3D gaming) you might want to do... even KWin.
Don't buy a car from Exxon Mobil and expect it to be fuel efficient.