Oracle aligned with the Linux project because they could have a say in the direction the OS went, and put back code to the project that they wanted/needed for the wares they were selling to be successful.
Now that they own an entire OS stack, they have no need. If nothing else, I expect unbreakable Linux to fade away rather quickly once the acquisition is complete, as well as Oracle shifting the focus of all future DB enhancements to have a Solaris focus with Linux as a secondary, as was the case historically.
Not only are you unmotivated, you're ignorant as well. Weight training isn't "just for bulking up". In fact, I do barely any cardio nowadays, maybe a couple runs a week in the summer. Nearly all of my time is spent in the weight room, and if you utilize the proper workout techniques, you *WILL* lose weight.
Weight loss IS as easy as he makes it out to be. People, just like you, are just too busy making up excuses as to why it's "too hard" or they "just don't like it". You said it yourself, you have a bum ankle so you won't do the walking. And you "hate" the gym so you refuse to workout. Those are excuses, and they aren't very good ones. Apathy on your part just further proves it's a lack of willpower on the part of obese people.
I personally lost 40lbs when I started getting back into the gym after being a lazy SOB for nearly 6 months. I'll be the first to admit it was ENTIRELY my fault. Now, I could've continued being a lazy SOB, and continued to pack on the pounds. Fortunately, I don't make excuses, and I don't walk around feeling sorry for myself. I got off my ass and did something about it.
Hell, I watched my cousin-in-law drop over a hundred pounds in the same fashion I dropped 40lbs. He was *ALWAYS* the "fat kid" growing up. Shockingly enough, he got tired of it, started working out religiously, stopped eating like a pig, and now has what most would consider an athletic build.
Now that I'm done with the berating, here's a good place to start. And you can skip the leg workouts and replace them with pool time, and use an elliptical for your cardio days. http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/13weekfatburningworkout.pdf
And it appears most of the responders didn't. Understandable given it's length. One choice quote I'd like to point out though is:
We designed the equipment to operate at the edge of networks, the point where an Internet service provider aggregates traffic from its broadband subscribers or where a corporate network connects to the outside world. Virtually all network overload occurs at the edge.
This isn't to replace routers, this is supposed to sit between end-users and the rest of the infrastructure so things get throttled before they get into the main router/backbone/wherever it's going.
At $250/year, I could buy and OWN all the music I want in *maybe* two years time. That's being gracious. I can't think of 25 cd's produced by the MAFIAA in the last 5 years I would shell out the cash for on the *cheap* rack. It wouldn't take very many cd's to fill out what I don't already own.
Funny, we've been a customer of Microsoft's for 20 years and have yet to experience this "raping" you speak of. I know it's all sorts of fun and games to bash MS on slashdot, but seriously? Comparing them to rape? Grow up.
Zuckerberg wants to create a walled internet where everything goes through facebook. We've seen it once before, back when it actually had a small chance of succeeding because a lot of the general public didn't know any better.
Not happening, get over yourself. It didn't work the first time, it won't work this time.
We can send sattelite internet to them quite easily. The real issue is that they have no gear to receive it. I'm sure we could dump stuff off by the truckload... but then I have to ask why? If the opposition loses, we have an even BIGGER diplomatic issue on our hand with a country we need to try to repair relations with over the long-term. I'd say we're best suited sitting back and letting it play out.
I find it both sad and disheartening that the US is more up-in-arms about these election results in a foreign land, than they were about our own EXTREMELY questionable election results here in the US in the year 2000. As time goes on we find more and more discrepancies in those results, and nobody seems to gives a damn. A 1 in 200 chance of the election results in Iran seems far, far more likely than what happened here.
Right... good point right up until you look at what they charge for their linux and virtualization offerings right now. Significantly cheaper than most of the competition...
...VirtualPC is still around. But it was NEVER aimed as an enterprise virtualization solution, so I'm not sure why you would even bother to bring that up. I can only question your knowledge of the subject. Citrix Xenserver and Microsoft's Hyper-V are here to stay, and are VERY viable long-term solutions. In fact, more viable than VMware because they aren't a one-trick pony. Both company's can and will continue to make money if virtualization technology becomes a commodity, and with the ground MS is gaining with Hyper-V, that is a VERY real possibility.
I don't understand how this is an issue for existing VI customers. In the immediate future, I can see the concern, but I'd be shocked if Oracle didn't have a transition plan for existing customers in the long term to their combined virtualization platform. Granted, that plan may be "install this new version", but there's a plan I'm sure.
You can create a ZFS filesystem over the top of a LUN backed by ZFS, but it's no different than creating an NTFS or ext3 filesystem. The solaris host doesn't know that ZFS is running underneath the LUN coming off the server.
What I know is that you can create a zfs pool and then an empty fs in it on a solaris box. Then you can do FCP or iSCSI to it. But if you have a WIndows initiator say using iSCSI you would format it as NTFS in order to use it. Likewise for Linux you would make an ext2 fs. If you have a solaris initiator you can just create a zfs fs in your pool with default options and then it is just like a zfs fs in a pool over iSCSI instead of SCSI for the client. That is what I meant by that comment.
That's not at all true. You can't remote mount a ZFS pool. If you present out a block device from a Solaris box, the remote box treats it like a standard SCSI device, regardless of what the remote OS is.
So you either create a three vols, one NTFS, one ext2, and one zfs and use a block device from your clients, wasting capacity and losing the easy reconfiguration on NTFS and ext2 (you could be really crafty about LUNs and get a volume manager running for Linux but you need to learn all that complicated stuff that zfs made so easy), or you make some zfs volumes in your pool and not lose all that. But for your Windows and Linux initiators you would need to share those fs via cifs and optionally also nfs from the solaris SAN.
Is there some new development I am not aware of?
No, it's just that what you're currently aware of is factually incorrect. Either you present a block device, which is a standard SCSI device on the remote host; windows, solaris, linux, or any other host OS that supports iSCSI/FC. OR, you present a file share via nfs/cifs, which is also the same regardless of host OS. There is no "zfs over IP", or "zfs over FC".
What are you talking about? The COMSTAR project will present LUNs out to host devices via FCP or iSCSI. It doesn't matter what OS the host computer is running.
I'm not at all saying that the wikipedia article is accurate... but I'd hardly say consulting the people who are behind the standards are the best ones to get an honest view of its stability, completeness, and real-world support. That's like turning to Larry Ellison and asking if Oracle is the best database in the world. Of COURSE he's going to pimp his own goods. I'd prefer to see people pointed to an independent third-party. Whether that be a forum full of users, or large corporations who have standardized on it in the business sector.
That isn't at all true. Copy-on-write works at the block level. ZFS doesn't "copy the entire file", rather than overwrite an existing block, it allocates a new one, and marks the old one for deletion by a clean-up process later on.
I would imagine they're trying to leverage it against AT&T. "You get a smaller cut of the profits, and we might be able to get that MMS working faster".
Slashdot Mirror
Oracle aligned with the Linux project because they could have a say in the direction the OS went, and put back code to the project that they wanted/needed for the wares they were selling to be successful.
Now that they own an entire OS stack, they have no need. If nothing else, I expect unbreakable Linux to fade away rather quickly once the acquisition is complete, as well as Oracle shifting the focus of all future DB enhancements to have a Solaris focus with Linux as a secondary, as was the case historically.
Not only are you unmotivated, you're ignorant as well. Weight training isn't "just for bulking up". In fact, I do barely any cardio nowadays, maybe a couple runs a week in the summer. Nearly all of my time is spent in the weight room, and if you utilize the proper workout techniques, you *WILL* lose weight.
Weight loss IS as easy as he makes it out to be. People, just like you, are just too busy making up excuses as to why it's "too hard" or they "just don't like it". You said it yourself, you have a bum ankle so you won't do the walking. And you "hate" the gym so you refuse to workout. Those are excuses, and they aren't very good ones. Apathy on your part just further proves it's a lack of willpower on the part of obese people.
I personally lost 40lbs when I started getting back into the gym after being a lazy SOB for nearly 6 months. I'll be the first to admit it was ENTIRELY my fault. Now, I could've continued being a lazy SOB, and continued to pack on the pounds. Fortunately, I don't make excuses, and I don't walk around feeling sorry for myself. I got off my ass and did something about it.
Hell, I watched my cousin-in-law drop over a hundred pounds in the same fashion I dropped 40lbs. He was *ALWAYS* the "fat kid" growing up. Shockingly enough, he got tired of it, started working out religiously, stopped eating like a pig, and now has what most would consider an athletic build.
Now that I'm done with the berating, here's a good place to start. And you can skip the leg workouts and replace them with pool time, and use an elliptical for your cardio days. http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/13weekfatburningworkout.pdf
And it appears most of the responders didn't. Understandable given it's length. One choice quote I'd like to point out though is:
We designed the equipment to operate at the edge of networks, the point where an Internet service provider aggregates traffic from its broadband subscribers or where a corporate network connects to the outside world. Virtually all network overload occurs at the edge.
This isn't to replace routers, this is supposed to sit between end-users and the rest of the infrastructure so things get throttled before they get into the main router/backbone/wherever it's going.
At $250/year, I could buy and OWN all the music I want in *maybe* two years time. That's being gracious. I can't think of 25 cd's produced by the MAFIAA in the last 5 years I would shell out the cash for on the *cheap* rack. It wouldn't take very many cd's to fill out what I don't already own.
Or we should just ban lobbying entirely, and set a very small limit on individual campaign donations.
Great story, except it is a KNOWN zonealarm issue. 20 seconds on google would've told you that. But this is slashdot, so let's blame Microsoft!
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=759555&sid=3ece4d689adbaac6cb9dd8a75d47843f&start=30
Of course, we'll completely ignore caching services like Akamai which cause netcrat to report a website's true server incorrectly ;)
Funny, we've been a customer of Microsoft's for 20 years and have yet to experience this "raping" you speak of. I know it's all sorts of fun and games to bash MS on slashdot, but seriously? Comparing them to rape? Grow up.
Zuckerberg wants to create a walled internet where everything goes through facebook. We've seen it once before, back when it actually had a small chance of succeeding because a lot of the general public didn't know any better.
Not happening, get over yourself. It didn't work the first time, it won't work this time.
We can send sattelite internet to them quite easily. The real issue is that they have no gear to receive it. I'm sure we could dump stuff off by the truckload... but then I have to ask why? If the opposition loses, we have an even BIGGER diplomatic issue on our hand with a country we need to try to repair relations with over the long-term. I'd say we're best suited sitting back and letting it play out.
Minnesota already has several successful municipal internet stories. The city of Chaska comes to mind off the top of my head.
I find it both sad and disheartening that the US is more up-in-arms about these election results in a foreign land, than they were about our own EXTREMELY questionable election results here in the US in the year 2000. As time goes on we find more and more discrepancies in those results, and nobody seems to gives a damn. A 1 in 200 chance of the election results in Iran seems far, far more likely than what happened here.
Right... good point right up until you look at what they charge for their linux and virtualization offerings right now. Significantly cheaper than most of the competition...
...VirtualPC is still around. But it was NEVER aimed as an enterprise virtualization solution, so I'm not sure why you would even bother to bring that up. I can only question your knowledge of the subject. Citrix Xenserver and Microsoft's Hyper-V are here to stay, and are VERY viable long-term solutions. In fact, more viable than VMware because they aren't a one-trick pony. Both company's can and will continue to make money if virtualization technology becomes a commodity, and with the ground MS is gaining with Hyper-V, that is a VERY real possibility.
I don't understand how this is an issue for existing VI customers. In the immediate future, I can see the concern, but I'd be shocked if Oracle didn't have a transition plan for existing customers in the long term to their combined virtualization platform. Granted, that plan may be "install this new version", but there's a plan I'm sure.
You can create a ZFS filesystem over the top of a LUN backed by ZFS, but it's no different than creating an NTFS or ext3 filesystem. The solaris host doesn't know that ZFS is running underneath the LUN coming off the server.
What I know is that you can create a zfs pool and then an empty fs in it on a solaris box. Then you can do FCP or iSCSI to it. But if you have a WIndows initiator say using iSCSI you would format it as NTFS in order to use it. Likewise for Linux you would make an ext2 fs. If you have a solaris initiator you can just create a zfs fs in your pool with default options and then it is just like a zfs fs in a pool over iSCSI instead of SCSI for the client. That is what I meant by that comment.
That's not at all true. You can't remote mount a ZFS pool. If you present out a block device from a Solaris box, the remote box treats it like a standard SCSI device, regardless of what the remote OS is.
So you either create a three vols, one NTFS, one ext2, and one zfs and use a block device from your clients, wasting capacity and losing the easy reconfiguration on NTFS and ext2 (you could be really crafty about LUNs and get a volume manager running for Linux but you need to learn all that complicated stuff that zfs made so easy), or you make some zfs volumes in your pool and not lose all that. But for your Windows and Linux initiators you would need to share those fs via cifs and optionally also nfs from the solaris SAN.
Is there some new development I am not aware of?
No, it's just that what you're currently aware of is factually incorrect. Either you present a block device, which is a standard SCSI device on the remote host; windows, solaris, linux, or any other host OS that supports iSCSI/FC. OR, you present a file share via nfs/cifs, which is also the same regardless of host OS. There is no "zfs over IP", or "zfs over FC".
You said:
"ZFS SAN really only has been rolled out for Solaris clients. Everything else would have to treat it as NAS via cifs or nfs."
So again, what are you talking about? Solaris has a fully functioning "SAN" target. It doesn't have to serve via cifs or nfs.
What are you talking about? The COMSTAR project will present LUNs out to host devices via FCP or iSCSI. It doesn't matter what OS the host computer is running.
I'm not at all saying that the wikipedia article is accurate... but I'd hardly say consulting the people who are behind the standards are the best ones to get an honest view of its stability, completeness, and real-world support. That's like turning to Larry Ellison and asking if Oracle is the best database in the world. Of COURSE he's going to pimp his own goods. I'd prefer to see people pointed to an independent third-party. Whether that be a forum full of users, or large corporations who have standardized on it in the business sector.
That list is 17 months old... I sure hope they've made some progress since then...
I'm surprised those two ego's can both fit in the same room. Was it an outdoor wedding??
That isn't at all true. Copy-on-write works at the block level. ZFS doesn't "copy the entire file", rather than overwrite an existing block, it allocates a new one, and marks the old one for deletion by a clean-up process later on.
Actually, he's making much, much more than A-Rod.
http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2006-03/13/content_533988.htm
I would imagine they're trying to leverage it against AT&T. "You get a smaller cut of the profits, and we might be able to get that MMS working faster".