Mainframes are usually tuned for block device I/O and are notorious for being crappy at TCP/IP. I'm not sure if this is a result of OS/390 being bad at it or the hardware, but my impression is that mainframes do best talking SNA to a farm of Unix boxes that act as little more than IP stacks proxying data to the mainframes.
Isn't there one of the mainframe gurus from Schwab on here? Those guys run some big iron in the back room...
Have you tried the beta?
on
Netscape 6
·
· Score: 2
Mozilla has been more stable than 4.71 for me in most cases, although I've crashed both. It's less of a memory hog judging by my handy xosview window, as well.
Assuming that C/C++ is going to remain the One True Systems Programming Language for a long time, I have a question that is purely opinion-based but cries out for your personal opinion as the designer of C++. What scripting language do you feel most closely matches C++ in spirit and implementation? Do you use any of them yourself, to hack together prototypes over larger bodies of code? Do you feel that any of them are advancing the practice of programming in general?
I noticed in Kernighan & Pike's latest book ("The Practice Of Programming" I believe it is... I gave a copy to a coworker whom I enjoyed sharing a project with) that they give several examples in Perl and Awk, in addition to C, C++, and Java. (I'm going to ignore Java for the time being; I have written plenty of Java code but I feel more confident that C/C++ will run where I want and need it to, plus it's easier to integrate with existing libraries IMHO). What are your feelings on this trend, as evidenced in my application arena by such projects as the mod_perl API to Apache and the AOLserver Tcl API? It may be unnecessary for me to note that Perl seems to be closest to C++ in the way it allows great flexibility (and lets you "blow your whole leg off";-)), but you would certainly be a better judge than I!
I looked through your FAQ and didn't find anything resmbling this question; the folks at Reliable Software convinced me that the STL offers most if not all of the functionality of Perl to a C++-only programmer, but in my experience it wasn't really an apples-to-apples comparison (nothing beats Perl for text processing, for example). Nonetheless I'm sure that you have some insight as to how well a pure-C++ vs. scripting-and-systems-programming approach scales in large projects.
Anyways, that's all. OOP seems to make my life easier, but user-centered design and rapid prototyping (or just rapid programming) tools like Perl are equally important to getting things out the door. I wondered what you thought of this phenomenon and which tools you select for your work.
There is a need for RSA because it's the standard implementation cipher for SSL under IE and NS. Not all users for all applications are willing to use a command line, but I can line up all the people that want more assurance that their web-based security is up to snuff. It's what I do for a living when I'm not kicking naughty servers.
The expiration of the RSA patent will be a wonderful relief for many of us who have tried to negotiate a license for some sane SSL package -- Red Hat is currently your only salvation if you want to use a modern solution like mod_ssl with openssl to create your own apps. And yes, I know full well that IPSec and other ciphers could be used, but not for all the applications I need, unless I am severely mistaken and/or really dumb. I have been accused of being otherwise, and more to the point, looked around for a while before giving in to the sad truth.
The RSA (Rivest, Shamir, Adelman, after its inventors) patents actually apply to smart cards, but the flotilla of lawyers they have deployed and the effort they put into writing a useful SDK pretty much ensured that people would take the easy way out and respect their, uh, property.
Since it isn't patented in Canada, among other places, you can judge for yourself how it has or has not impeded innovation. I'd have to agree that it has. And the blowfish, IDEA, Diffie-Hellman, et al. algorithms are variously available without restriction in some or all parts of the world, so I don't think that the only way to encourage innovation is via patents. Especially for algorithms -- patents should be allowable on *implementations*, and the algorithms can be kept a secret of course, but patents on a pattern of thoughts (eg. an abstractly described algorithm or look-and-feel) are pretty ridiculous.
have done right by me. Wit Capital offers the usual financial products (IRAs, joint accounts, etc.) and has been prompt and helpful (and hasn't tried to shove inappropriate investment products "helpfully" down my throat). They are at http://www.witcapital.com/ and are publicly traded and SIPC licensed, etc.
Wells Fargo is a Large Evil Company, but in spite of this, their bill payment options and online services (among the first banks to offer useful web-based banking) have made them my first choice for a regular bank.
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter manages some of my accounts, but that's only because my father retained the services of a real financial planner and I am able to ask said planner's advice provided some of my holdings are with MSDW. If that were not the case, I'd have WitCap manage all my long-term investments.
"Merry Christmas, Microsoft." It appears that he did it to be nice, and feels (rightly) that this service was worth more to MSFT than $35. It's not like he hijacked the domain and held them for ransom.
What have you done lately for someone else who you don't necessarily like, spontaneously and gently?
Languages, while not totally irrelevant, are often a bandaid for poor architectural, system, and policy decisions. Writing servers in Python (which is written in C) or in Java (whose JVM is written in C, and whose Java-to-native frontend for GCC is written in C) or in SML, or in Middle Welsh, or in Urdu, will not overcome all the problems of human stupidity, arrogance, and inexperience. The OpenBSD people did the Right and Boring and Horribly Painstaking thing and just audited everything in sight, which is why I'm setting up OpenBSD for my firewall and NAT box. Still, somebody else's empty promises won't keep me from getting 0WN3D, and my own auditing and hardening might not either.
Neither will StackGuard or MultiStack or DDD or assiduous use of MemProf, Checker, Electric Fence, and GDB. People make mistakes, not only in programs to handle incoming packets, but also in automated test harnesses, in compilers, in networking code, in firmware for NICs, in (f00f) CPUs...
I disagree with the "if you think about what you're doing" line of argument (if you think about it hard enough, your system will be infinitely secure cause you'll never write a line of code), but the "just choose a better language" schtick is even worse.
The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran in any language. I personally stick to what I'm reasonably good at (secure distributed transaction processing) and ask other people to audit the shit out of it, then tell the users how to flog me if it breaks. If you're writing daemons for more than just fun and education (i.e. if you think you suck less than I do) I certainly hope you have similar standards... hell, I'm a systems administrator, not even a developer, but I see some real circus acts billing themselves as "developers" these days...
As an aside, my personal take on the Kill-Microsoft bent is that people resent a company whose foundation is "We Know Best" and whose track record indicates "Actually, We Don't, But Pay Us Anyways".
Fundamentally, it's a "demo version" of BSAFE, which is RSA Data Security Inc.'s real product, the one they sell you for money, put actual effort into, optimize, etc. Since RSADSI (the company) owns the relevant patents on RSA (the cipher) in the USA until September 20, 2000, it's up to them to dictate terms and tell you what you can and can't do with their patents. It turns out they're not too bad at heart, as evidenced by a correspondence I had with their Chief Scientist, Burt Kaliski. (Dr. Kaliski has published many useful papers on cryptography, and is well known in the field) -- The intent of the RSAREF license is to support research and other non-commercial development activities. For commercial development, RSA Data Security's preference is to license its commercial toolkits such as BSAFE (or the recently announced BSAFE SSL toolkit, which is available worldwide). --
RSAREF is provided as a service to people who want to do R&D and have more brains than money, as it were. Datafellows Ltd. and the other windoze SSH vendors had to license BSAFE or negotiate their own license for implementing and selling RSA-capable software in the USA for money, as is the intent of RSADSI (it is their livelihood).
Nonetheless, for non-commercial usage, there are more than a few people who might suggest that it is worthwhile to sidestep this issue by simultaneously not depriving RSADSI of income, and also not leaning on them to support RSAREF, which sucks and is a total waste of time/money for them. I'm not saying that you should do an end run around the patent if you live in the USA. What I am suggesting is that
RSA is a company of reasonable human beings who want you to pay them for making money off of their patented technologies
Only users in the USA are affected by the RSAREF situation, which suits both parties poorly, as users get crappy support and RSA wastes uncompensated effort any time they have to fix it
OpenSSH, for example, is freely available, supported (after a fashion), and does not incur monetary losses to RSA when deployed for R&D purposes, eg. researching secure network protocols
So, make up your own mind about what's morally, legally, and ethically the right thing to do. Our patent system sucks, the "Smart card" RSA patent may not really apply, yada yada, but more importantly, what is the Right Thing to do here?
I can't make that decision for you. All I can do is present the facts and some relevant discussion.
If you want more explicit advice, you can ask RSADSI, but they are famous for being vague about these issues, and aren't making any money by supporting stupid questions about free libraries.
This is the best movie I have seen in years. It is as striking a work of art as Pulp Fiction or Drugstore Cowboy was when they came out; Spike Jonze's camera work and whoever-wrote-the-script's storyline are fantastic. It's a bit like Brazil.
Simply, IF YOU MISS THIS MOVIE YOU HAVE MISSED THE MOST INTERESTING "ART" FILM IN A LONG TIME.
I have heard great things about The Insider but as far as creativity, Being John Malkovitch is the most innovative piece I've seen in a long time.
I think most people here will enjoy it a great deal; it plays with your mind, the characters are all engaging and well developed, and watching it often feels like a waking dream in terms of the improbable physical principles and phenomena of the world Jonze has created, meshed against John Malkovitch's day-to-day activities. Extremely weird, you probably need to see it to understand.
Unless someone has the time and money to distribute microarrays and bench time at a local hospital with a good clinical lab, the clients would be worthless. Venter's efforts are succeeding because of Celera's partnership with Perkin-Elmer.
However, Celera appears to be less than picky about the quality of data they are producing. So the same approach as theirs (multiple shotgun sequencing runs for each block of base pairs) with parity checking and/or some means of verifying data would be fine.
Celera's operation is effectively a distributed effort already, it just happens to be in one building. The government will most likely step in and appropriate the sequences for a reasonable fee if it turns out that Venter et al. have reneged on their promises to distribute the sequences freely.
At the risk of ruining your GPA, you will find out and prove to yourself (on paper and in the lab) what our best guess at how atoms work really is.
Statistical mechanics sucks. Quantum mechanics sucks. Thermodynamics sucks. Learning them all and being able to put together a decent picture of how things actually work... rules.
I know few people that don't use X in Linux/Unix. I build GUI tools in Glade (a GUI-based GUI-building tool) and use a graphical source level debugger. I make extensive use of the memory-hogging perty features of XEmacs. I find that plenty of techs switch to this hybrid of using GUI wrappers for command line tools (eg. DDD has a gdb/pdb/pydb window at the bottom, XEmacs is still Emacs, and X lets me open more xterms) when they realize it is more efficient.
I am of the opinion that your comment was meant only to incite immature tempers
> He wrote the whole thing in pretty much > undocumented C and when he left Novell, he took > his hard drive with him.
OK, taking the hard drive home is pretty poor. But undocumented C, wow, never seen that before. Whaddya mean he might have had a ridiculous deadline to meet? No fucking way man, programmers not only love to write documentation, but our managers ALWAYS allow enough time for it.;-P
Anyways, I'm willing to be that both sides are sinners (I'd expect nothing less from any real programmer) and neither is really in a place to judge the other.
So draw your own conclusions about what's better for Linux. The smarter people at Novell can always get another job if their market dries up.
While their customer service people are delightful, Amazon's shipping people leave a little to be desired. They do not seem to understand that "USPS" is different from "UPS", which is a shame since my instructions to "send it via the US Postal Service, NEVER through UPS" get reduced to "USPS" and the idiots send it via UPS.
I guess I wouldn't care either if I got paid as poorly as the average line worker, but still.
Check out Web Tools Review for a good sampling (albeit with a heavy AOLserver bias) of people doing the same thing you are.
You WILL want to colocate. End of story.
Use RAID 0+1 and learn how to set it up yourself in software if you're running a database.
Don't run a database where it isn't necessary; they're slow. Replicate them where you do run them, and develop a real backup strategy.
Run what works best for you -- Sun, FreeBSD, Linux, NT, whatever. Ignore the bigots, they're not the ones risking their financial futures on a venture. But don't get suckered by marketing.
Favor security over convenience, but don't lose sight of what it is that's valuable enough to secure. In other words, don't go to either extreme. (it's very easy to forget this!)
>Please name me one operating system that has to, >and in many cases succeeds in inter-operating >with so many other systems.
Uhhh, Linux?
I'd mark your post up as "Funny" but I'm out of moderator points. Microsoft has too much of a history of pulling this sort of crap for people to dismiss it as a coincidence. I remember the "coincidental" SP4 NT Loader "patch" that refused to load a boot image that wasn't Win32, and the Loader "coincidentally" was not fixed during the uninstall script. So I blew away NT and started running it in a window, while I grabbed all the disk space it used to eat up and put Oracle on it.
Note that NT Loader 4.00 was perfectly well able to load a Linux boot image. This was a totally deliberate change and it was BAD FOR THE CONSUMER.
When I re-read this comment, I realized that I was ambiguous in said passage. What I meant was, "the Justices can use as justification for their rulings just about anything, short of arbitrarily flouting an existing, Constitutionally upheld piece of legislature passed by the representatives of the people in good faith and by the correct process". Eg. Potter (?) writing "I don't know what pornography is, but I know it when I see it".
I'm curious whether a majority of the judges could concievably say "I don't know what a leveraged monopoly looks like, but this isn't it. Remanded to the lower court for further consideration."
Let's say that George W. Bush gets elected, and as I have been told he is wont to do, embraces a laissez-faire, hands-off style of conservatism which places a more conservative judge on the Supreme Court (assuming one or more of the present justices were to die or step down). Let's assume further that these judges feel that Microsoft has done nothing so wrong as to merit real punitive action.
What is to stop such a bench from favoring Microsoft and their beyond-hardball tactics? Are Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact so unassailable that, by the rules of the game (as it were), their content cannot be ignored or overruled even by a higher court? (from the paucity of cases that I have read in classes, it seems that the Supreme Court justices can do just about anything short of striking down an existing law) Moreover, if justice is actually meted out, is it possible for Microsoft to simply buy enough senators/congressmen that new laws protecting their investments in the role of Digital Media Broker To The World will favor MS or the Baby Bills?
In short, "Can this finding be made to stick, even with all of Microsoft's money aligned against it, and even in light of a potentially conservative government coming to the fore? If so, why?"
(I'm thrilled that a group of high-powered antitrust lawyers can find the time to read questions from the unwashed/. masses, by the way. Thanks in advance for considering my question.)
(You are complaining... why? If you're actually any good I can get you a job yesterday. In this economy, with some of the developers I know we have signed up recently being in their late 30's-early 40's, I have to assume that any C++ unemployment is by choice.)
StarOffice is becoming another Sun fiasco and will hopefully be ignored once AbiWord, Gnumeric, Achtung, and the like (or their KOffice equivalents) are finished.
StarOffice is great, but Sun will do their best to screw it up, and no one needs a PhD in anything to predict that.
Slashdot Mirror
Mainframes are usually tuned for block device I/O and are notorious for being crappy at TCP/IP. I'm not sure if this is a result of OS/390 being bad at it or the hardware, but my impression is that mainframes do best talking SNA to a farm of Unix boxes that act as little more than IP stacks proxying data to the mainframes.
Isn't there one of the mainframe gurus from Schwab on here? Those guys run some big iron in the back room...
Mozilla has been more stable than 4.71 for me in most cases, although I've crashed both. It's less of a memory hog judging by my handy xosview window, as well.
Assuming that C/C++ is going to remain the One True Systems Programming Language for a long time, I have a question that is purely opinion-based but cries out for your personal opinion as the designer of C++. What scripting language do you feel most closely matches C++ in spirit and implementation? Do you use any of them yourself, to hack together prototypes over larger bodies of code? Do you feel that any of them are advancing the practice of programming in general?
;-)), but you would certainly be a better judge than I!
I noticed in Kernighan & Pike's latest book ("The Practice Of Programming" I believe it is... I gave a copy to a coworker whom I enjoyed sharing a project with) that they give several examples in Perl and Awk, in addition to C, C++, and Java. (I'm going to ignore Java for the time being; I have written plenty of Java code but I feel more confident that C/C++ will run where I want and need it to, plus it's easier to integrate with existing libraries IMHO). What are your feelings on this trend, as evidenced in my application arena by such projects as the mod_perl API to Apache and the AOLserver Tcl API? It may be unnecessary for me to note that Perl seems to be closest to C++ in the way it allows great flexibility (and lets you "blow your whole leg off"
I looked through your FAQ and didn't find anything resmbling this question; the folks at Reliable Software convinced me that the STL offers most if not all of the functionality of Perl to a C++-only programmer, but in my experience it wasn't really an apples-to-apples comparison (nothing beats Perl for text processing, for example). Nonetheless I'm sure that you have some insight as to how well a pure-C++ vs. scripting-and-systems-programming approach scales in large projects.
Anyways, that's all. OOP seems to make my life easier, but user-centered design and rapid prototyping (or just rapid programming) tools like Perl are equally important to getting things out the door. I wondered what you thought of this phenomenon and which tools you select for your work.
There is a need for RSA because it's the standard implementation cipher for SSL under IE and NS. Not all users for all applications are willing to use a command line, but I can line up all the people that want more assurance that their web-based security is up to snuff. It's what I do for a living when I'm not kicking naughty servers.
The expiration of the RSA patent will be a wonderful relief for many of us who have tried to negotiate a license for some sane SSL package -- Red Hat is currently your only salvation if you want to use a modern solution like mod_ssl with openssl to create your own apps. And yes, I know full well that IPSec and other ciphers could be used, but not for all the applications I need, unless I am severely mistaken and/or really dumb.
I have been accused of being otherwise, and more to the point, looked around for a while before giving in to the sad truth.
If I was currently a moderator, I would.
It's too damn easy to forget that power is much more valuable than money, above a certain level.
The RSA (Rivest, Shamir, Adelman, after its inventors) patents actually apply to smart cards, but the flotilla of lawyers they have deployed and the effort they put into writing a useful SDK pretty much ensured that people would take the easy way out and respect their, uh, property.
Since it isn't patented in Canada, among other places, you can judge for yourself how it has or has not impeded innovation. I'd have to agree that it has. And the blowfish, IDEA, Diffie-Hellman, et al. algorithms are variously available without restriction in some or all parts of the world, so I don't think that the only way to encourage innovation is via patents. Especially for algorithms -- patents should be allowable on *implementations*, and the algorithms can be kept a secret of course, but patents on a pattern of thoughts (eg. an abstractly described algorithm or look-and-feel) are pretty ridiculous.
have done right by me. Wit Capital offers the usual financial products (IRAs, joint accounts, etc.) and has been prompt and helpful (and hasn't tried to shove inappropriate investment products "helpfully" down my throat). They are at http://www.witcapital.com/ and are publicly traded and SIPC licensed, etc.
Wells Fargo is a Large Evil Company, but in spite of this, their bill payment options and online services (among the first banks to offer useful web-based banking) have made them my first choice for a regular bank.
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter manages some of my accounts, but that's only because my father retained the services of a real financial planner and I am able to ask said planner's advice provided some of my holdings are with MSDW. If that were not the case, I'd have WitCap manage all my long-term investments.
Don't be such a butthead. Read his original post.
"Merry Christmas, Microsoft." It appears that he did it to be nice, and feels (rightly) that this service was worth more to MSFT than $35. It's not like he hijacked the domain and held them for ransom.
What have you done lately for someone else who you don't necessarily like, spontaneously and gently?
Languages, while not totally irrelevant, are often a bandaid for poor architectural, system, and policy decisions. Writing servers in Python (which is written in C) or in Java (whose JVM is written in C, and whose Java-to-native frontend for GCC is written in C) or in SML, or in Middle Welsh, or in Urdu, will not overcome all the problems of human stupidity, arrogance, and inexperience. The OpenBSD people did the Right and Boring and Horribly Painstaking thing and just audited everything in sight, which is why I'm setting up OpenBSD for my firewall and NAT box. Still, somebody else's empty promises won't keep me from getting 0WN3D, and my own auditing and hardening might not either.
Neither will StackGuard or MultiStack or DDD or assiduous use of MemProf, Checker, Electric Fence, and GDB. People make mistakes, not only in programs to handle incoming packets, but also in automated test harnesses, in compilers, in networking code, in firmware for NICs, in (f00f) CPUs...
I disagree with the "if you think about what you're doing" line of argument (if you think about it hard enough, your system will be infinitely secure cause you'll never write a line of code), but the "just choose a better language" schtick is even worse.
The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran in any language. I personally stick to what I'm reasonably good at (secure distributed transaction processing) and ask other people to audit the shit out of it, then tell the users how to flog me if it breaks. If you're writing daemons for more than just fun and education (i.e. if you think you suck less than I do) I certainly hope you have similar standards... hell, I'm a systems administrator, not even a developer, but I see some real circus acts billing themselves as "developers" these days...
As an aside, my personal take on the Kill-Microsoft bent is that people resent a company whose foundation is "We Know Best" and whose track record indicates "Actually, We Don't, But Pay Us Anyways".
oops, should have titled that "what e-commerce sites are really running".
heheh.
Anyways, plenty of startups are running Apache; it's really only the stuffed-shirt suits that persist in trying to deploy on IIS. (ick, poo)
Amazon.com:
Server: Stronghold/2.4.2 Apache/1.3.6 C2NetEU/2412 (Unix)
CDNOW.com:
Server: Apache/1.3b5
Xoom.com:
Server: Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) secured_by_Raven/1.4.0
MP3.com:
Server: Apache/1.3.3 (Unix) mod_oas/4.61
www.jcrew.com:
Server: Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP2
www.etoys.com:
Etoys web server 1.2 (hacked version of apache)
www.ibm.com:
Websphere (hacked version of apache)
Who's next?
That must be why the guys from eToys are always in their cage when I walk by at FGC Sunnyvale.
This was not previously the case.
RSAREF is provided as a service to people who want to do R&D and have more brains than money, as it were. Datafellows Ltd. and the other windoze SSH vendors had to license BSAFE or negotiate their own license for implementing and selling RSA-capable software in the USA for money, as is the intent of RSADSI (it is their livelihood).
Nonetheless, for non-commercial usage, there are more than a few people who might suggest that it is worthwhile to sidestep this issue by simultaneously not depriving RSADSI of income, and also not leaning on them to support RSAREF, which sucks and is a total waste of time/money for them. I'm not saying that you should do an end run around the patent if you live in the USA. What I am suggesting is that
So, make up your own mind about what's morally, legally, and ethically the right thing to do. Our patent system sucks, the "Smart card" RSA patent may not really apply, yada yada, but more importantly, what is the Right Thing to do here?
I can't make that decision for you. All I can do is present the facts and some relevant discussion.
If you want more explicit advice, you can ask RSADSI, but they are famous for being vague about these issues, and aren't making any money by supporting stupid questions about free libraries.
This is the best movie I have seen in years. It is as striking a work of art as Pulp Fiction or Drugstore Cowboy was when they came out; Spike Jonze's camera work and whoever-wrote-the-script's storyline are fantastic. It's a bit like Brazil.
Simply, IF YOU MISS THIS MOVIE YOU HAVE MISSED THE MOST INTERESTING "ART" FILM IN A LONG TIME.
I have heard great things about The Insider but as far as creativity, Being John Malkovitch is the most innovative piece I've seen in a long time.
I think most people here will enjoy it a great deal; it plays with your mind, the characters are all engaging and well developed, and watching it often feels like a waking dream in terms of the improbable physical principles and phenomena of the world Jonze has created, meshed against John Malkovitch's day-to-day activities. Extremely weird, you probably need to see it to understand.
Unless someone has the time and money to distribute microarrays and bench time at a local hospital with a good clinical lab, the clients would be worthless. Venter's efforts are succeeding because of Celera's partnership with Perkin-Elmer.
However, Celera appears to be less than picky about the quality of data they are producing. So the same approach as theirs (multiple shotgun sequencing runs for each block of base pairs) with parity checking and/or some means of verifying data would be fine.
Celera's operation is effectively a distributed effort already, it just happens to be in one building. The government will most likely step in and appropriate the sequences for a reasonable fee if it turns out that Venter et al. have reneged on their promises to distribute the sequences freely.
At the risk of ruining your GPA, you will find out and prove to yourself (on paper and in the lab) what our best guess at how atoms work really is.
Statistical mechanics sucks. Quantum mechanics sucks. Thermodynamics sucks. Learning them all and being able to put together a decent picture of how things actually work... rules.
No pain, no gain.
I know few people that don't use X in Linux/Unix. I build GUI tools in Glade (a GUI-based GUI-building tool) and use a graphical source level debugger. I make extensive use of the memory-hogging perty features of XEmacs. I find that plenty of techs switch to this hybrid of using GUI wrappers for command line tools (eg. DDD has a gdb/pdb/pydb window at the bottom, XEmacs is still Emacs, and X lets me open more xterms) when they realize it is more efficient.
I am of the opinion that your comment was meant only to incite immature tempers
> He wrote the whole thing in pretty much
;-P
> undocumented C and when he left Novell, he took
> his hard drive with him.
OK, taking the hard drive home is pretty poor. But undocumented C, wow, never seen that before. Whaddya mean he might have had a ridiculous deadline to meet? No fucking way man, programmers not only love to write documentation, but our managers ALWAYS allow enough time for it.
Anyways, I'm willing to be that both sides are sinners (I'd expect nothing less from any real programmer) and neither is really in a place to judge the other.
So draw your own conclusions about what's better for Linux. The smarter people at Novell can always get another job if their market dries up.
While their customer service people are delightful, Amazon's shipping people leave a little to be desired. They do not seem to understand that "USPS" is different from "UPS", which is a shame since my instructions to "send it via the US Postal Service, NEVER through UPS" get reduced to "USPS" and the idiots send it via UPS.
I guess I wouldn't care either if I got paid as poorly as the average line worker, but still.
You WILL want to colocate. End of story.
Use RAID 0+1 and learn how to set it up yourself in software if you're running a database.
Don't run a database where it isn't necessary; they're slow. Replicate them where you do run them, and develop a real backup strategy.
Run what works best for you -- Sun, FreeBSD, Linux, NT, whatever. Ignore the bigots, they're not the ones risking their financial futures on a venture. But don't get suckered by marketing.
Favor security over convenience, but don't lose sight of what it is that's valuable enough to secure. In other words, don't go to either extreme. (it's very easy to forget this!)
Good luck.
>Please name me one operating system that has to, >and in many cases succeeds in inter-operating >with so many other systems.
Uhhh, Linux?
I'd mark your post up as "Funny" but I'm out of moderator points. Microsoft has too much of a history of pulling this sort of crap for people to dismiss it as a coincidence. I remember the "coincidental" SP4 NT Loader "patch" that refused to load a boot image that wasn't Win32, and the Loader "coincidentally" was not fixed during the uninstall script. So I blew away NT and started running it in a window, while I grabbed all the disk space it used to eat up and put Oracle on it.
Note that NT Loader 4.00 was perfectly well able to load a Linux boot image. This was a totally deliberate change and it was BAD FOR THE CONSUMER.
My, what a coincidence!
When I re-read this comment, I realized that I was ambiguous in said passage. What I meant was, "the Justices can use as justification for their rulings just about anything, short of arbitrarily flouting an existing, Constitutionally upheld piece of legislature passed by the representatives of the people in good faith and by the correct process". Eg. Potter (?) writing "I don't know what pornography is, but I know it when I see it".
I'm curious whether a majority of the judges could concievably say "I don't know what a leveraged monopoly looks like, but this isn't it. Remanded to the lower court for further consideration."
Let's say that George W. Bush gets elected, and as I have been told he is wont to do, embraces a laissez-faire, hands-off style of conservatism which places a more conservative judge on the Supreme Court (assuming one or more of the present justices were to die or step down). Let's assume further that these judges feel that Microsoft has done nothing so wrong as to merit real punitive action.
/. masses, by the way. Thanks in advance for considering my question.)
What is to stop such a bench from favoring Microsoft and their beyond-hardball tactics? Are Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact so unassailable that, by the rules of the game (as it were), their content cannot be ignored or overruled even by a higher court? (from the paucity of cases that I have read in classes, it seems that the Supreme Court justices can do just about anything short of striking down an existing law) Moreover, if justice is actually meted out, is it possible for Microsoft to simply buy enough senators/congressmen that new laws protecting their investments in the role of Digital Media Broker To The World will favor MS or the Baby Bills?
In short, "Can this finding be made to stick, even with all of Microsoft's money aligned against it, and even in light of a potentially conservative government coming to the fore? If so, why?"
(I'm thrilled that a group of high-powered antitrust lawyers can find the time to read questions from the unwashed
(You are complaining... why? If you're actually any good I can get you a job yesterday. In this economy, with some of the developers I know we have signed up recently being in their late 30's-early 40's, I have to assume that any C++ unemployment is by choice.)
StarOffice is becoming another Sun fiasco and will hopefully be ignored once AbiWord, Gnumeric, Achtung, and the like (or their KOffice equivalents) are finished.
StarOffice is great, but Sun will do their best to screw it up, and no one needs a PhD in anything to predict that.
Wow, just like AFS was doing for people at MIT and CMU... over a decade ago.
With Kerberos authentication (you know, that stuff that MICROS~1 is about to invent for Win2000) integrated.
With network transparency.
With secure remote access.