And while we are talking about this neither was x86... Hey what was designed for use over a network ? Just about everything has nothing to do with networks. E.g., keyboard, mouse, floppy, CD, screen. The only thing that is would be the network card.
Just a quick note : Why the hot spare ? Hot spares are good but if you are running a RAID 1 why not have it in use ? This means that you wont lose data even if two of the HDDs fail within seconds of each other. But if you are using IDE i guess it is problem because of bandwidth.
The whole idea sounds good though.
( I personally like Linux servers because i can SSH into them over a very slooow connection. Try that with remote desktop. )
Linux, unlike Windows ( cough cough ), is built on Unix standards so a linux 2.0 command is the same as a BSD command is the same as a linux 2.6 command. Regarding GNU software.... most commands are designed to keep compatibility with existing shell scripts. And for programming.. hasen't the GP ever heard of POSIX ??
I am quite biased towards Linux but i am shocked by the number of people who think that Linux has no standards. The only standards it doesnt have is ones made by Microsoft.
A book for a distro would last only until the next version comes out. The kernel does **NOT** change at a fast pace. Learn how to config a 2.4 kernel correctly and a 2.6 kernel is pretty straight forward. Heck i only learnt how to config a 2.6 kernel but i had no problem configging a 2.2 kernel when i had to.
Wasnt one of the ideas of HTML to have a standard that isnt patented ? I dont think that a method of dilevering HTML should be allowed to be covered by patents unless there is some special reason as to why that should be. If they had come up with a special algorithm to manage the servers then that maybe could be patented.
Think of RAID, if somebody had taken a patent out to cover "the use of two or more independant disks as one disk with a single filesystem image for increased reliablity and/or performance" then all web servers would either have to pay royalties or not be able to have files over multiple disks, etc, etc. This would have hurt the web industry and small sites would not be able to have disk redundancy and other things even smallish sites require.
For my site Google find 634 pages while Yahoo finds ~2,400. However most of this is either alt urls ( there are about 3 different way to access the site [ so for example you can access the main page via example.com, example.com/?id=1, example.com/id-1, example.com/index.php, example.com/index.php?id=1, etc ]), old ( 404ing ) content, or outdated stuff in a robots.txt excluded folder.
3. I know that I might be on some kind of illicit substance here, but if you click on the "we're hiring" link at the bottom... they use transparent PNG's!
What is really ironic is that they have to use a Alpha-transparency js/css hack to get it to display correctly on IE.
"poorly coded website"'s come from web designers ( even that is too good a name ) that use IE and dont think of HTML as a standard but rather something they can change until it looks fine on IE. I have seen pages where html was taken then they changed every single thing they could find in the tags while hitting "refresh". And what does this result in ? 3 tags and horrible over lapping of tags, and of course they dont fix it unless it displays incorrectly in IE ( latest version no less ). I think Microsoft IE would be in my better books if it focused on the w3c standards not what standards it incorrectly implements for half-baked web designers.
Email them and comlain. You use the site, hey even your job involves you using the site. You have a perfectly vaild reason to complain. If nobody tells them ( Micro$oft sure wont ) they are too dumb to work it out them self and they will never change it.
You Are An IE User
This site has been coded for standard compliant browsers. IE is not one of these browsers.
We, at Caffeine Junkies, recommend that you upgrade to a better browser such as:
Fx OR Opera
To continue without heeding this notice you recognise not to start flaming the webmaster because some parts of the site may look bad. It is because IE doesn't support the CSS or HTML standards necessary to achieve the techniques.
He isnt against IE because it is IE he is against IE because it doesnt come anywhere near supporting standards that are years old. It also seems that he got a lot of hate-mail from people using IE who had no idea just know bad IE renders.
In other word the standard HTML that is many years old you used on your site isnt support by the browser with 90 - 80 % market share. He didnt make it site for Fx he just wasnt going to jump through any hoops to make it work with a non-stardards complient browser.
Those look really cool considering this came out in 2001 i am very surprised. I am still at a loss as to why MS still havent got this into 6.0 or 7.0 because this is one of the few smart ( though not too smart ) things to have come out of Redmond.
I think they would be silly not to. 8.5 GB ( double layed DVD [i cant imagine users flipping disks]) is not enough for the games of the future. 8.5GB only allows for a couple of hours of high quality video. While this may seem like a lot an open-ended RPG with 9 races, 2 minute cut scenes,5 clips per race and 2 versions results in some thing that cant fit on a (double layed ) DVD.
But i still dont think the next XBox will have HD-DVD games. And PS3 will have the data storage to have a massive cut collection ( or whatever mind-blowing thing games designers will make ).
Of the ~10 render bugs in IE6 only a few are fixed in the IE7 beta.
Dont think much of it but here are a few notes :
0. It will try to auto load favico.ico's. Firefox was critised for doing this. 1. No support for base64 embeded images. 2. PNG Alpha Transparency:D 3. About 2 of the ~20 rendering bugs are fixed. 4. No changes to "view source" ( like highlighting ) 5. The "Properties" menu is the same as in IE6.
However it doesn't support ( As far as i can see anyway ) :
0. Animation with PNGs
This very rare but because we wont see another IE for a while i hoped IE7 would have it.
1. No base64 images embeded in pages.
Ditto.
But fingers crossed for the final release.
I tried the beta today and of the ~20 rendering bugs present in IE6 only 2 or 3 had been fixed.
Dont think much of it but here are a few notes :
0. It will try to auto load favico.ico's. Firefox was critised for doing this. 1. No support for base64 embeded images. 2. PNG Alpha Transparency:D 3. About 2 of the ~20 rendering bugs are fixed. 4. No changes to "view source" ( like highlighting ) 5. The "Properties" menu is the same as in IE6.
That isnt what the parent is saying. What the parent is saying is that if a old(ish) car has breaks that fail when you hit them 3 times with a 1.2 second delay between each push then the company that made it should fix it. What we are upset about Microsoft not fixing 98,ME,etc isnt a firewall, NTFS fs, proper user logins, etc. It is that we still want a computers that doesnt have gaping holes that should never have existed.
I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to something a little more fair,....
Not wishing to continue a blatent troll thread but even after needing a lawer ( i didnt need a lawer to understand the GPL ) he still didnt quite get how the GPL works....
I am sick and tired of hearing people complain about Firefox mis-rendering very broken webpages. It is just as silly to complain about GCC not compiling this:
What the GP said is logical.. alot of people use Macs and a lot of people use Linux. Thus a lot of people dont use WMP. In fact you said your self 30 million people use RealPlayer. From BBclone's site stats 11% of people dont use Windows asuming there are at least 52 million web users there are over 6 million people who cannot run WMP. Try and tell them that they cant play the latest movie/music trailer or buy && download the lastest movie/music from a e-seller.
Yes but when "Aunt Mabel" installs IIS her box is owned in minutes. OK apache isnt totally secure when it is installed by inexperinced users but it is still better than IIS.
Slashdot Mirror
And while we are talking about this neither was x86 ... Hey what was designed for use over a network ? Just about everything has nothing to do with networks. E.g., keyboard, mouse, floppy, CD, screen. The only thing that is would be the network card.
Just a quick note : Why the hot spare ? Hot spares are good but if you are running a RAID 1 why not have it in use ? This means that you wont lose data even if two of the HDDs fail within seconds of each other. But if you are using IDE i guess it is problem because of bandwidth.
The whole idea sounds good though.
( I personally like Linux servers because i can SSH into them over a very slooow connection. Try that with remote desktop. )
Linux, unlike Windows ( cough cough ), is built on Unix standards so a linux 2.0 command is the same as a BSD command is the same as a linux 2.6 command. Regarding GNU software .... most commands are designed to keep compatibility with existing shell scripts. And for programming .. hasen't the GP ever heard of POSIX ??
I am quite biased towards Linux but i am shocked by the number of people who think that Linux has no standards. The only standards it doesnt have is ones made by Microsoft.
A book for a distro would last only until the next version comes out. The kernel does **NOT** change at a fast pace. Learn how to config a 2.4 kernel correctly and a 2.6 kernel is pretty straight forward. Heck i only learnt how to config a 2.6 kernel but i had no problem configging a 2.2 kernel when i had to.
Wasnt one of the ideas of HTML to have a standard that isnt patented ? I dont think that a method of dilevering HTML should be allowed to be covered by patents unless there is some special reason as to why that should be. If they had come up with a special algorithm to manage the servers then that maybe could be patented.
Think of RAID, if somebody had taken a patent out to cover "the use of two or more independant disks as one disk with a single filesystem image for increased reliablity and/or performance" then all web servers would either have to pay royalties or not be able to have files over multiple disks, etc, etc. This would have hurt the web industry and small sites would not be able to have disk redundancy and other things even smallish sites require.
For my site Google find 634 pages while Yahoo finds ~2,400. However most of this is either alt urls ( there are about 3 different way to access the site [ so for example you can access the main page via example.com, example.com/?id=1, example.com/id-1, example.com/index.php, example.com/index.php?id=1, etc ]), old ( 404ing ) content, or outdated stuff in a robots.txt excluded folder.
Just enter this into your broswer URL bar ( one line ) :
o n=0; expires=01 Jan 2999 00:00:00 GMT';
javascript:document.cookie='WinGenCookie=validati
This has worked for ages.
"poorly coded website"'s come from web designers ( even that is too good a name ) that use IE and dont think of HTML as a standard but rather something they can change until it looks fine on IE. I have seen pages where html was taken then they changed every single thing they could find in the tags while hitting "refresh". And what does this result in ? 3 tags and horrible over lapping of tags, and of course they dont fix it unless it displays incorrectly in IE ( latest version no less ). I think Microsoft IE would be in my better books if it focused on the w3c standards not what standards it incorrectly implements for half-baked web designers.
Email them and comlain. You use the site, hey even your job involves you using the site. You have a perfectly vaild reason to complain. If nobody tells them ( Micro$oft sure wont ) they are too dumb to work it out them self and they will never change it.
In other word the standard HTML that is many years old you used on your site isnt support by the browser with 90 - 80 % market share. He didnt make it site for Fx he just wasnt going to jump through any hoops to make it work with a non-stardards complient browser.
Those look really cool considering this came out in 2001 i am very surprised. I am still at a loss as to why MS still havent got this into 6.0 or 7.0 because this is one of the few smart ( though not too smart ) things to have come out of Redmond.
I think they would be silly not to.
8.5 GB ( double layed DVD [i cant imagine users flipping disks]) is not enough for the games of the future. 8.5GB only allows for a couple of hours of high quality video. While this may seem like a lot an open-ended RPG with 9 races, 2 minute cut scenes,5 clips per race and 2 versions results in some thing that cant fit on a (double layed ) DVD.
But i still dont think the next XBox will have HD-DVD games. And PS3 will have the data storage to have a massive cut collection ( or whatever mind-blowing thing games designers will make ).
Of the ~10 render bugs in IE6 only a few are fixed in the IE7 beta.
:D
Dont think much of it but here are a few notes :
0. It will try to auto load favico.ico's.
Firefox was critised for doing this.
1. No support for base64 embeded images.
2. PNG Alpha Transparency
3. About 2 of the ~20 rendering bugs are fixed.
4. No changes to "view source" ( like highlighting )
5. The "Properties" menu is the same as in IE6.
There was a beta release for XP SP2 and yes, IE7 beta does really look that bad.
However it doesn't support ( As far as i can see anyway ) : 0. Animation with PNGs This very rare but because we wont see another IE for a while i hoped IE7 would have it. 1. No base64 images embeded in pages. Ditto. But fingers crossed for the final release.
I tried the beta today and of the ~20 rendering bugs present in IE6 only 2 or 3 had been fixed.
:D
Dont think much of it but here are a few notes :
0. It will try to auto load favico.ico's.
Firefox was critised for doing this.
1. No support for base64 embeded images.
2. PNG Alpha Transparency
3. About 2 of the ~20 rendering bugs are fixed.
4. No changes to "view source" ( like highlighting )
5. The "Properties" menu is the same as in IE6.
That isnt what the parent is saying. What the parent is saying is that if a old(ish) car has breaks that fail when you hit them 3 times with a 1.2 second delay between each push then the company that made it should fix it. What we are upset about Microsoft not fixing 98,ME,etc isnt a firewall, NTFS fs, proper user logins, etc. It is that we still want a computers that doesnt have gaping holes that should never have existed.
Could somebody mod the parent as funny ? It would have saved my a lot of time while i wrote out a 15 page reply to what i thought was a troll.
What the GP said is logical .. alot of people use Macs and a lot of people use Linux. Thus a lot of people dont use WMP. In fact you said your self 30 million people use RealPlayer. From BBclone's site stats 11% of people dont use Windows asuming there are at least 52 million web users there are over 6 million people who cannot run WMP. Try and tell them that they cant play the latest movie/music trailer or buy && download the lastest movie/music from a e-seller.
Yes but when "Aunt Mabel" installs IIS her box is owned in minutes. OK apache isnt totally secure when it is installed by inexperinced users but it is still better than IIS.