"Is that another way of saying, "I can program however the hell I want. If you don't like it, don't run it?""
Is that another way of saying "I should be able to run everything written under the sun, if you don't like how I want you to write software, don't write it"?
If it released the bugfixed version as a new SxS version, and if your software is saying to only load the buggy version and now allow newer versions, and you haven't updated the software that loads the buggy version, sure.
As soon as one of those conditions changes, then no.
"Either give a cite for the %20 or stfu & let the adults talk in peace. Grownups do not attempt to pull numbers out of the thin air"
I don't think grown ups particulary speak like that to people either. Seriously, the correctness of another is not a prerequisite for the correctness of oneself.
"Well, your methodology to test your intuition is probably flawed"
I think your definition of "probably" is flawed... what you mean is "I don't understand how something that is the case for me but not for you (or isn't for me but is for you) can possibly be true because I don't understand how different people can be, and rather than try to understand I'm just going to say you're wrong".
When using Windows, I found stuff easily and found understanding stuff easy because of how closely aspects matched to how I would've done it, so my guesses tended to be fruitful, and having to look up how to do stuff was minimal. If somebody designs something in a similar way to how you would've thought to do it, you'll find it more intuitive than if somebody did it in a completely different way (a bit like how you're struggling to understand this concept right now, because it's so different to your own preconceptions). That's just a fact. Struggle to believe it all you want.
"For my own case, I would say there is nothing intuitive about any of them"
Exactly, for your case. My case was different, because I am a different person.
"The fact you can get "There is a script on this page that is taking a long time [Stop Script] [Continue]" type dialogs probably says it all"
I find those usually triggered by bugs in the javascript causing infinite loops. I've not seen it occur otherwise, which would put a different spin on that.
I get that sometimes... does the computer seem busy while it's waiting? Or does it seem to just stop, as if it's waiting for something to happen? I get the latter, think it's some kind of network thing (or that it's looking to the network for) that's timing out, as it seems to be a fixed period of time that the delay is. Not figured out the cause though:-/
Erm, that's subjective, it depends on your intuition. I picked up using Windows far quicker and easier than other OSs, it instantly made a lot more sense to me (the more minimal interfaces of 95/98/2000/2003, not so much vista/7 which I find moves the rug beneith your feet too much). I find OSX the least intuitive of GUIs I've used (excluding some of the lesser known Unix/X interfaces).
See what I did there? I used terms like "I find" to express recognition of the fact that different people have different experiences of things, and described my own, rather than making the oh so common "generalising from self" mistake. Please don't state something as fact simply because you haven't thought that there might be people out there with differing experiences to you. Try open your mind a bit.
"anyone else wonder why Add/Remove programs is called that even though you really can't add in any programs from there"
Actually I'm wondering why you haven't noticed that you can.
"comments precisely demonstrate the mindset that inhibits mainstream adoption of Linux and other open-source software"
fine with me, more people that use Linux, the bigger a target for hackers and the like it will be:-) Recent experience has shown that linux systems are not as secure as many make out (even if it is weird code + optimising compiler bugs rather than any one team's fault) so I'm actually quite glad to be in the niche market, and have no deep need to drag the rest of the world kicking and screaming away from Windows if that's not what they want to do:-)
Or that you've flicked the 'ignore_nice_load' flag for the cpu speed governor to 1... that will disallow niced processes to ramp up the cpu speed, very handy for if you are running stuffs like that.
To see if you have it on your system, try running from terminal: ls/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/*/ignore_nice_load
If you're not familiar with sysfs, simply cat the file to view its value, and echo into the file to change it, eg: cat/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/ondemand/ignore_nice_load prints '0', to change to 1, run: echo 1 >/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/ondemand/ignore_nice_load
You don't always know where to get those details, and all it would take is someone suggesting "try running powertop" or something to point the person in the direction of being able to find out what's going wrong... OR you might actually be posting into a community of people who know a little something about something (yes, I know, this is slashdot, therefore it is not that community, but not everybody might know that) and so might get some useful comments out, like "yeah default install of distro x uses the ondemand governor as its default CPU speed governor, try switching to conservative and fiddling with the up_threshold value"......but of course this is slashdot, where people have more in the way of defenses than actual helpful knowledge, and so all you're going to find here is people being defensive... and sometimes, the only defence is an offence, which means "windows is worse".
I have consistantly noticed Linux drawing more power than Windows on my laptop while idling; I tend to not care too much as I run Linux on all my servers, which are never running off batteries, and rarely ever idling. Anyone who's never seen this really can't have that much experience, as it's just not that uncommon.
You talk absolutely utter rubbish. Just because you don't know of the existance of something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, such as differences in the vista vs win7 underlying kernel code, like cpu addressing methods or locking primitives. How ignorant you must be to assume that something can't exist without you knowing about it. Maybe I'll just start calling Uranus "Neptune" because I don't know about the differences between the two planets.
Maybe in future you could try posting about things you know about, rather than posting about things you plain don't, it might be a nice experience for us all.
Yeah just like you can modify a cookie from an online shop to make it look like you've paid for something to get them to post it out to you... oh or is it that the cookie is just a code used to lookup the actual values on the server?
And you'd also just put the cookie value in the form, so even with cookies blocked it would work.
"Offcourse , we need to implement a sort of timeout"
Nah, it's all about lockless algorithms now, don't ya know. This one's simple; you get a cookie with the post form, and posts are displayed in cookie time order, not message post order. That way, person who hits 'reply' first gets first post as soon as they post it, pushing down any posts that've been made before first post is posted but after first post was initiated. Simple:-)
Yeah but that's not really important for those of us that live on that small island you may have heard of called "the rest of the world" (you may have seen our flag... it's like yours, but on fire)... that said, Obama's plans for your health service really don't sound as doom and gloom as your local press makes out, just as our politions plans for us and our health service don't seem as doom and gloom as our local press makes out. So chill out, I'm sure they go through the cost/benefit calculations with a lot more rigour than your gut instinct has.
What can I say? We're moving a bunch of servers to a pretty new datacenter as it's close to home (along with other reasons) and I've been 'n checked out the place a couple of times myself, met with techies, met with ppl that run the place, seen how strict the security is (to the point where it got in our way on a few things), got a good idea on their level of ability, and find myself pretty convinced. It's definitely doable, and where something is doable, you can bet there's a fair chance someone somewhere will have done it. I'm not a terribly lucky person which is why I struggle to believe that my experiences is as rare as you make out.
No, access is tcp/ip to your machines. If you need to do work on your server, you can request a kvm be plugged into your machine that you can access from an outside room, or of course they will bring your server out. You can connect to the power supply to turn off/on the power to your individual servers. They're a multimillion installation with no doubt hundreds of customers, from single-server customers to those who'll rent by the floor space. Anyone can put a server there which means that network security is paramount, as no serious (and knowledgeable) business is going to want to put machines on a network, esp pay to have machines on a network, if that network is an entry point to their machines (by stealing your MAC address or so on). It's not hard to secure your network so that the only entry points are those in your software.
Nooo I've seen the datacenters where I have machines, security is very good, palm scanners, swipe cards, pass codes, cctv... a compromised node will be the other side of their nodes and unable to affect mine, no one can just get onto the network. Datacenters just aren't like hotel rooms in the slightest. Not proper ones. One place, the sales guy tried to sneak us in through a side room to show us inside, they deactivated his card and cancelled his codes locking him out. The only way you're gaining access to my server is through a software vulnerability.
"Take a look at a nasty little technique called 'arp poisoning'"
Where significant is that a risk though? Datacenters I use (and I assume this is common practice, I wouldn't trust anywhere where it wasn't) use virtual lan channels to each customer, so arp packets just can't be passed around... but still, the entry point is still physical access to the network, whether you're sniffing or poisoning, you can't do it behind a router, which is where the majority of the world lives. I'm not saying that risk is low enough to be worth trusting; I don't telnet to my servers, although will often leave a telnet server on a nonstandard port open in case of emergency situation, my point is just that increased complexity of code increases chance of flaws in the code... the telnet server's very easy to make unexploitable, even if your network isn't.
Slashdot Mirror
"Is that another way of saying, "I can program however the hell I want. If you don't like it, don't run it?""
Is that another way of saying "I should be able to run everything written under the sun, if you don't like how I want you to write software, don't write it"?
See I can do that too :-)
Not with a .local file.
Mine's 22Meg *lol*
And Windows is 2.6Gig... ...but that's an nlited 2003, not Vista.
If it released the bugfixed version as a new SxS version, and if your software is saying to only load the buggy version and now allow newer versions, and you haven't updated the software that loads the buggy version, sure.
As soon as one of those conditions changes, then no.
"The only downside is that "advanced" users can't fuck with the application and try to make it use the wrong DLL"
There's always .local dll redirection I assume?
"Why should my memory be eaten up by loads of DLL files..."
It doesn't have to be... just don't install any software that comes with more dll files than you want to have loaded. Simple.
It's an available feature, it's not mandatory. No one's forcing you do to anything here.
"Either give a cite for the %20 or stfu & let the adults talk in peace. Grownups do not attempt to pull numbers out of the thin air"
I don't think grown ups particulary speak like that to people either. Seriously, the correctness of another is not a prerequisite for the correctness of oneself.
"Well, your methodology to test your intuition is probably flawed"
I think your definition of "probably" is flawed... what you mean is "I don't understand how something that is the case for me but not for you (or isn't for me but is for you) can possibly be true because I don't understand how different people can be, and rather than try to understand I'm just going to say you're wrong".
When using Windows, I found stuff easily and found understanding stuff easy because of how closely aspects matched to how I would've done it, so my guesses tended to be fruitful, and having to look up how to do stuff was minimal. If somebody designs something in a similar way to how you would've thought to do it, you'll find it more intuitive than if somebody did it in a completely different way (a bit like how you're struggling to understand this concept right now, because it's so different to your own preconceptions). That's just a fact. Struggle to believe it all you want.
"For my own case, I would say there is nothing intuitive about any of them"
Exactly, for your case. My case was different, because I am a different person.
"The fact you can get "There is a script on this page that is taking a long time [Stop Script] [Continue]" type dialogs probably says it all"
I find those usually triggered by bugs in the javascript causing infinite loops. I've not seen it occur otherwise, which would put a different spin on that.
I get that sometimes... does the computer seem busy while it's waiting? Or does it seem to just stop, as if it's waiting for something to happen? I get the latter, think it's some kind of network thing (or that it's looking to the network for) that's timing out, as it seems to be a fixed period of time that the delay is. Not figured out the cause though :-/
"Windows has not intuitiveness"
Erm, that's subjective, it depends on your intuition. I picked up using Windows far quicker and easier than other OSs, it instantly made a lot more sense to me (the more minimal interfaces of 95/98/2000/2003, not so much vista/7 which I find moves the rug beneith your feet too much). I find OSX the least intuitive of GUIs I've used (excluding some of the lesser known Unix/X interfaces).
See what I did there? I used terms like "I find" to express recognition of the fact that different people have different experiences of things, and described my own, rather than making the oh so common "generalising from self" mistake. Please don't state something as fact simply because you haven't thought that there might be people out there with differing experiences to you. Try open your mind a bit.
"anyone else wonder why Add/Remove programs is called that even though you really can't add in any programs from there"
Actually I'm wondering why you haven't noticed that you can.
"comments precisely demonstrate the mindset that inhibits mainstream adoption of Linux and other open-source software"
fine with me, more people that use Linux, the bigger a target for hackers and the like it will be :-) Recent experience has shown that linux systems are not as secure as many make out (even if it is weird code + optimising compiler bugs rather than any one team's fault) so I'm actually quite glad to be in the niche market, and have no deep need to drag the rest of the world kicking and screaming away from Windows if that's not what they want to do :-)
"people here whine day and night about how..."
"and now you are arguing..."
Oh my god! Different people have different arguments?! It's the end of the world!!!
Or that you've flicked the 'ignore_nice_load' flag for the cpu speed governor to 1... that will disallow niced processes to ramp up the cpu speed, very handy for if you are running stuffs like that.
To see if you have it on your system, try running from terminal: /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/*/ignore_nice_load
ls
If you're not familiar with sysfs, simply cat the file to view its value, and echo into the file to change it, eg: /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/ondemand/ignore_nice_load /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/ondemand/ignore_nice_load
cat
prints '0', to change to 1, run:
echo 1 >
This doesn't last across reboots.
You don't always know where to get those details, and all it would take is someone suggesting "try running powertop" or something to point the person in the direction of being able to find out what's going wrong... OR you might actually be posting into a community of people who know a little something about something (yes, I know, this is slashdot, therefore it is not that community, but not everybody might know that) and so might get some useful comments out, like "yeah default install of distro x uses the ondemand governor as its default CPU speed governor, try switching to conservative and fiddling with the up_threshold value"... ...but of course this is slashdot, where people have more in the way of defenses than actual helpful knowledge, and so all you're going to find here is people being defensive... and sometimes, the only defence is an offence, which means "windows is worse".
I have consistantly noticed Linux drawing more power than Windows on my laptop while idling; I tend to not care too much as I run Linux on all my servers, which are never running off batteries, and rarely ever idling. Anyone who's never seen this really can't have that much experience, as it's just not that uncommon.
"Maybe you should invest in a ne button cell"
Maybe you should invest in a new 'w' button?
You talk absolutely utter rubbish. Just because you don't know of the existance of something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, such as differences in the vista vs win7 underlying kernel code, like cpu addressing methods or locking primitives. How ignorant you must be to assume that something can't exist without you knowing about it. Maybe I'll just start calling Uranus "Neptune" because I don't know about the differences between the two planets.
Maybe in future you could try posting about things you know about, rather than posting about things you plain don't, it might be a nice experience for us all.
Yeah just like you can modify a cookie from an online shop to make it look like you've paid for something to get them to post it out to you... oh or is it that the cookie is just a code used to lookup the actual values on the server?
And you'd also just put the cookie value in the form, so even with cookies blocked it would work.
You didn't think this one thru huh? :-p
"Offcourse , we need to implement a sort of timeout"
Nah, it's all about lockless algorithms now, don't ya know. This one's simple; you get a cookie with the post form, and posts are displayed in cookie time order, not message post order. That way, person who hits 'reply' first gets first post as soon as they post it, pushing down any posts that've been made before first post is posted but after first post was initiated. Simple :-)
"so it will have access to all your computer account passwords"
Big deal.
"your bank account and PayPal passwords"
So what?
"your chats with young children online"
*falls off chair* f#&k me I'm burning this thing!
Yeah but that's not really important for those of us that live on that small island you may have heard of called "the rest of the world" (you may have seen our flag... it's like yours, but on fire) ... that said, Obama's plans for your health service really don't sound as doom and gloom as your local press makes out, just as our politions plans for us and our health service don't seem as doom and gloom as our local press makes out. So chill out, I'm sure they go through the cost/benefit calculations with a lot more rigour than your gut instinct has.
What can I say? We're moving a bunch of servers to a pretty new datacenter as it's close to home (along with other reasons) and I've been 'n checked out the place a couple of times myself, met with techies, met with ppl that run the place, seen how strict the security is (to the point where it got in our way on a few things), got a good idea on their level of ability, and find myself pretty convinced. It's definitely doable, and where something is doable, you can bet there's a fair chance someone somewhere will have done it. I'm not a terribly lucky person which is why I struggle to believe that my experiences is as rare as you make out.
No, access is tcp/ip to your machines. If you need to do work on your server, you can request a kvm be plugged into your machine that you can access from an outside room, or of course they will bring your server out. You can connect to the power supply to turn off/on the power to your individual servers. They're a multimillion installation with no doubt hundreds of customers, from single-server customers to those who'll rent by the floor space. Anyone can put a server there which means that network security is paramount, as no serious (and knowledgeable) business is going to want to put machines on a network, esp pay to have machines on a network, if that network is an entry point to their machines (by stealing your MAC address or so on). It's not hard to secure your network so that the only entry points are those in your software.
Nooo I've seen the datacenters where I have machines, security is very good, palm scanners, swipe cards, pass codes, cctv... a compromised node will be the other side of their nodes and unable to affect mine, no one can just get onto the network. Datacenters just aren't like hotel rooms in the slightest. Not proper ones. One place, the sales guy tried to sneak us in through a side room to show us inside, they deactivated his card and cancelled his codes locking him out. The only way you're gaining access to my server is through a software vulnerability.
"Take a look at a nasty little technique called 'arp poisoning'"
Where significant is that a risk though? Datacenters I use (and I assume this is common practice, I wouldn't trust anywhere where it wasn't) use virtual lan channels to each customer, so arp packets just can't be passed around... but still, the entry point is still physical access to the network, whether you're sniffing or poisoning, you can't do it behind a router, which is where the majority of the world lives. I'm not saying that risk is low enough to be worth trusting; I don't telnet to my servers, although will often leave a telnet server on a nonstandard port open in case of emergency situation, my point is just that increased complexity of code increases chance of flaws in the code... the telnet server's very easy to make unexploitable, even if your network isn't.