The operating system will page out pages that have never been used, or used very infrequently, if at all.
If you have a 6MB program, and there is 500K of code that's used on startup, but never referenced again, let the operating system page it out, and use that RAM for other programs, or cache. The same goes for code that implements functionality that is rarely (if ever) used. Why load it, if it never gets referenced?
In a regular program, there are lots of pages that are referenced once, or not at all.
I like to set my upload limit to about a quarter of my upstream bandwidth, or else I find that any other internet activity is adversely affected.
You have to remember that if you are downloading quickly from a bunch of different connections, you are also acking each packet downloaded. I found that just the acking alone was causing my surfing to be very adversely affected by not having enought bandwidth to send out page requests (and ssh would have VERY noticeable lags for each keystroke).
Experiment with different upload speeds while downloading a fast torrent...(Ibex was good for this...my fastest speed yet 1.15 MB/s). My experimentation led me to 1/4 my upload bandwidth.
I'm just going to address your Network Manager comments...
Evidently you are not using a wireless network, or else you would realize that the "architecture that could be comfortably tweaked in command line and config files" is totally useless when you change networks daily, and have to enter wireless passwords.
I used to have 2 shell scripts on my desktop (and my girlfriends laptop), one that would be used to configure the system to use my home network, and one that would be used to configure to use a non-password enabled wireless network. Yeah...that worked well. Hey honey, when you go to the coffee shop, just click on this script here, and when you get home, click on this one.
Network Manager was written for a reason. There was not any other tool that handled networking as well as it does. Trust me, I tried them all, until it was released. Why don't you try uninstalling Network Manager and see how well your laptop works with wireless networks? It can be done, and I did it for years, but I'm glad I don't have to use iwlist anymore, and hand configure/etc/network/interfaces. You want flexibility to do it by hand? Go ahead. It still works.
I'll take the ability to see wireless networks and connect to them in 30 seconds, instead of tweaking 2-3 different configuration files everytime I go to a different wireless access point.
I just don't see how having a proper working network management tool is a bad thing.
Stopped reading TFA on the second page when the reviewer couldn't spell 'lose'. I don't really care if you think this is petty, or I'm a spelling nazi...if you can't spell a 4 letter word, you have no business passing yourself off as any type of writer. And I don't consider myself one...just a geek who can tell the difference between loose and lose.
Okay...went back and read the rest of the "review".
A "review" that spends 3 out of 5 pages on what the installer looks like is...lame. How many times do I have to read about the "Fedora Bubbles"? Is that relevant to how FC5 operates as a system?
I see very little to back up this claim: "But apart from these little details I can confidently say that Fedora Core 5 is the best desktop GNU/Linux distribution available at the moment.".
Ummm...I'm literally writing this on my cutting board...
Normally, I just put it on my coffee table, but since I'm sick at home, I have to type more, and this lets me sit upright on the couch, instead of hunching over the coffee table. My lap is slightly warm without the cutting board, but this lets me set it flat, which lets it breathe more...in either case, the fan never comes on, unless I am watching video.
Why doesn't the fan come on? Because I have it at it's lowest power setting...I'm just working, not doing anything that needs any power.
Here's a hint, if your lap is too warm, turn down it's power settings. Trust me, you don't need 2.8Ghz to surf the web.
Review indeed...at least they had the guts to put 'sponsered by' on their page...
I'd think the best way to solve this would be to blacklist any traffic from Bellsouth.
If Google refuses access to Bellsouth customers, with a page that says "We're sorry, but your ISP is trying to charge us to serve you, when you have already paid them", how many outraged calls to Bellsouth do you think that would generate?
How about if every website did it? What they're trying to do is get a few big sites to cave, like VOIP customers, streaming video providers, and watch everyone fall in line.
I think the providers should just smack them right upside the head by refusing them service. When their customers can't access the Internet, I'm thinking they'll get the message pretty quick. Customers phoning in and cancelling service seem to do that.
Yes, because technical accuracy is what makes comedy funny. I find the technical accuracy of Dilbert hilarious. Oh wait, there is nothing technical in Dilbert at all, and yet it's still funny. I wonder how he manages that?
Don't the phrases 'Article a bit thin' and 'xyz computing' go hand in hand? That's called a tautology....Thanks for the warning about the xyz computing article.
Definately writing this without reading the forgotten article....
Did you check out all the reader comments for that story? They sound like they were all written by Rambus PR flacks....hilarious. It's all about "getting to the bottom of the conspiracy", and "there's more truth to be told! Keep digging!"
Yeah! Keep digging into how Rambus tried to get the industry to settle on a technology it had filed patents for. As if competitors would ever agree to a technology that one of them had already patented.
"Oh, you want us to use your technology and then reveal your patents after 2 years and sue us for much more than we would ever have agreed to if you had revealed you had them in the first place? Sure, let us bend over for you!"
The FTC is charging them with not revealing their patents. Yes, it seems their competitors fixed prices to keep them out of the market. As the FTC "chided" them, what do the two things have to do with each other? Does the price fixing which came later justify their prior action of not revealing their patents? Ummm..no. It doesn't work like that. Sorry.
IBM's lawyers should put this to rest pretty quickly...
I assume that "an entire file management system" refers to JFS, which IBM wrote. I recall SCO claiming that anything written for UNIX somehow belonged to them, so that little argument should be entertaining to watch them lose.
And, of course, as others have pointed out, "methods and concepts" are not code. I wonder where people (and I'm looking at you Larry McVoy) got the idea that copying functionality was the same as copying code. Seeing a spell-check in another product and adding it as a feature in your own product is not infringing on anything. (I've seen posts by Larry where he's threatened Subversion if he saw features from Bitkeeper in Subversion).
The whole problem is that advertising execs do not seem to understand their business, or else can't explain it to their customers.
In the early days of the web, advertising was based on number of eyeballs that saw the advertisement...like any other medium: magazines, newspapers, television, radio (okay, ears:-)
Then some genius decided that they should be recording click-throughs, which skewed everthing, because that is not how advertising works.
It's all about mindshare....so I may not be interested in the product when I first see the ad, (like, I am not looking for a car).
But, if I know about the car from seeing an advertisement for it, say 6 times in a month, if I do need a car in 6 months, that car would come to mind. If I go to the showroom, or even go to the manufacturer's website, or look at a review on another website, does that mean the original non-clicked through ad was useless? Not at all.
Now we seem to be stuck with the 'If I make my ad more flashy, and trick people into clicking on it, somehow that serves my customer better' mentality that promotes pop-ups, flash, and other annoyances.
Of course, this just assumes that ad-execs are dumb, not evil. The real answer is probably they are evil, and they know this, but click-throughs are a good way to pay much less than 'impressions' (or whatever the industry calls 'number of eyeballs seeing the ad')
The recorder's sample rate and bit rate an be adjusted individually, in mono and stereo for the line input and the FM tuner, and in mono for the internal mic.
What are the rates available? I really want a flash player able to record from line-in for recording some music sessions...I'd like 320kbps mp3 or pure wav/pcm if possible (I think the iriver H120 offerred the wav mode). Anybody know of a good player/recorder?
Strange how this has definately made me want to get a x86 Mac, while making this Mac person question the platform...
I run Linux on my computers...the way I see it, I'm paying for an OS (Windows) that I delete when I get my machine. If I buy a x86 Mac, at least I will be buying an OS that I respect, with the best UI out there (best Unix GUI, hands down...heck, without the qualifier...best UI hands down)...
I've been thinking about getting a Mac of some sort (ibook, or mini), and this will push me over the edge. What stopped me before were all the x86 only Linux 3rd party apps that would not work on PPC Linux (flash, acrobat, anything else that supported "Linux", but they never compiled for PPC Linux, etc).
With a x86 Mac, I can switch between Linux & OSX, and my guess is that I will use OSX, or at least dual boot.
And of course, as others have pointed out, Mac is more than PPC...spotlight, expose, good UI, etc, etc. There is nothing dependent on PPC...
Canonical Anonymous Coward
ps: and to all those who've whined about the apple "premium" in the past...(comparing hardware costs with Dell and noticing that Macs cost more)
There is a cost associated with a decent OS/GUI...I will pay that cost, because it benefits me in the long run....grumble grumble..as I sit here cleaning up my friends windows box from virii & spyware....
Microsoft does not care about software vendors. The only thing it cares about is it's monopoly. It doesn't care about bespoke app vendors (custom made, one shot applications), but if you want to do anything that will compete with them, or even create a new market that they see has opportunity, they will drive you under.
They needed software vendors when Windows was introduced and had competition. Now they don't, and they don't care about them anymore..Net is just the latest example of them not playing by their own 'rules'. Ever notice how any change in Windows is first introduced in their own products (notably: Office). Movable toolbars, menus, custom title-bars, etc, etc. They put out 'UI guidelines', on the theory that we all follow them, and make the user interface easily learnable, and then they change all the rules for themselves. Hmm...how does this relate to.NET now?
Developers - it is not in your best interests to follow where Microsoft is trying to push you. Trying to follow anythig like their inter-application communication methodology is a waste of your time. (what was the path now?)
DDE->DCE->OLE->COM->COM+(?)->DCOM->NET ?
Why jump on their cart? Because they say it's the new thing? Oh...MS has a new api, I'd better kill my company trying to follow their twisting and turnings.
They have far more people designing new API's and architectures than any small company has people to keep up with them. It's a losing proposition.
ODBC, RDO, DAO, ADO, OLEDB, whatever.net uses...
Just another example of 6 ways they've pushed over the years as the 'latest/best' way to access databases. Which is just one more example of them creating new api's to distract us.
It costs them developer time to continually shift the target, but it may cost you your company to follow it.
Slashdot Mirror
The operating system will page out pages that have never been used, or used very infrequently, if at all.
If you have a 6MB program, and there is 500K of code that's used on startup, but never referenced again, let the operating system page it out, and use that RAM for other programs, or cache. The same goes for code that implements functionality that is rarely (if ever) used. Why load it, if it never gets referenced?
In a regular program, there are lots of pages that are referenced once, or not at all.
I like to set my upload limit to about a quarter of my upstream bandwidth, or else I find that any other internet activity is adversely affected.
You have to remember that if you are downloading quickly from a bunch of different connections, you are also acking each packet downloaded. I found that just the acking alone was causing my surfing to be very adversely affected by not having enought bandwidth to send out page requests (and ssh would have VERY noticeable lags for each keystroke).
Experiment with different upload speeds while downloading a fast torrent...(Ibex was good for this...my fastest speed yet 1.15 MB/s). My experimentation led me to 1/4 my upload bandwidth.
I'm just going to address your Network Manager comments...
Evidently you are not using a wireless network, or else you would realize that the "architecture that could be comfortably tweaked in command line and config files" is totally useless when you change networks daily, and have to enter wireless passwords.
I used to have 2 shell scripts on my desktop (and my girlfriends laptop), one that would be used to configure the system to use my home network, and one that would be used to configure to use a non-password enabled wireless network. Yeah...that worked well. Hey honey, when you go to the coffee shop, just click on this script here, and when you get home, click on this one.
Network Manager was written for a reason. There was not any other tool that handled networking as well as it does. Trust me, I tried them all, until it was released. Why don't you try uninstalling Network Manager and see how well your laptop works with wireless networks? It can be done, and I did it for years, but I'm glad I don't have to use iwlist anymore, and hand configure /etc/network/interfaces. You want flexibility to do it by hand? Go ahead. It still works.
I'll take the ability to see wireless networks and connect to them in 30 seconds, instead of tweaking 2-3 different configuration files everytime I go to a different wireless access point.
I just don't see how having a proper working network management tool is a bad thing.
Stopped reading TFA on the second page when the reviewer couldn't spell 'lose'. I don't really care if you think this is petty, or I'm a spelling nazi...if you can't spell a 4 letter word, you have no business passing yourself off as any type of writer. And I don't consider myself one...just a geek who can tell the difference between loose and lose.
Okay...went back and read the rest of the "review".
A "review" that spends 3 out of 5 pages on what the installer looks like is...lame. How many times do I have to read about the "Fedora Bubbles"? Is that relevant to how FC5 operates as a system?
I see very little to back up this claim: "But apart from these little details I can confidently say that Fedora Core 5 is the best desktop GNU/Linux distribution available at the moment.".
Really? Why? Because the installer was so pretty?
Ummm...I'm literally writing this on my cutting board...
Normally, I just put it on my coffee table, but since I'm sick at home, I have to type more, and this lets me sit upright on the couch, instead of hunching over the coffee table. My lap is slightly warm without the cutting board, but this lets me set it flat, which lets it breathe more...in either case, the fan never comes on, unless I am watching video.
Why doesn't the fan come on? Because I have it at it's lowest power setting...I'm just working, not doing anything that needs any power.
Here's a hint, if your lap is too warm, turn down it's power settings. Trust me, you don't need 2.8Ghz to surf the web.
Review indeed...at least they had the guts to put 'sponsered by' on their page...
I'd think the best way to solve this would be to blacklist any traffic from Bellsouth.
If Google refuses access to Bellsouth customers, with a page that says "We're sorry, but your ISP is trying to charge us to serve you, when you have already paid them", how many outraged calls to Bellsouth do you think that would generate?
How about if every website did it? What they're trying to do is get a few big sites to cave, like VOIP customers, streaming video providers, and watch everyone fall in line.
I think the providers should just smack them right upside the head by refusing them service. When their customers can't access the Internet, I'm thinking they'll get the message pretty quick. Customers phoning in and cancelling service seem to do that.
Yes, because technical accuracy is what makes comedy funny. I find the technical accuracy of Dilbert hilarious. Oh wait, there is nothing technical in Dilbert at all, and yet it's still funny. I wonder how he manages that?
Don't the phrases 'Article a bit thin' and 'xyz computing' go hand in hand? That's called a tautology....Thanks for the warning about the xyz computing article.
Definately writing this without reading the forgotten article....
Ah yes, because you've had your OS independently audited and verified? Who was it audited by? How do you know you can trust them?
I'm a big a Linux fan as anyone, but I don't suffer under the delusion that it has been audited or verifed by anyone.
Did you check out all the reader comments for that story? They sound like they were all written by Rambus PR flacks....hilarious. It's all about "getting to the bottom of the conspiracy", and "there's more truth to be told! Keep digging!"
Yeah! Keep digging into how Rambus tried to get the industry to settle on a technology it had filed patents for. As if competitors would ever agree to a technology that one of them had already patented.
"Oh, you want us to use your technology and then reveal your patents after 2 years and sue us for much more than we would ever have agreed to if you had revealed you had them in the first place? Sure, let us bend over for you!"
The FTC is charging them with not revealing their patents. Yes, it seems their competitors fixed prices to keep them out of the market. As the FTC "chided" them, what do the two things have to do with each other? Does the price fixing which came later justify their prior action of not revealing their patents? Ummm..no. It doesn't work like that. Sorry.
IBM's lawyers should put this to rest pretty quickly...
I assume that "an entire file management system" refers to JFS, which IBM wrote. I recall SCO claiming that anything written for UNIX somehow belonged to them, so that little argument should be entertaining to watch them lose.
And, of course, as others have pointed out, "methods and concepts" are not code. I wonder where people (and I'm looking at you Larry McVoy) got the idea that copying functionality was the same as copying code. Seeing a spell-check in another product and adding it as a feature in your own product is not infringing on anything. (I've seen posts by Larry where he's threatened Subversion if he saw features from Bitkeeper in Subversion).
The whole problem is that advertising execs do not seem to understand their business, or else can't explain it to their customers.
:-)
In the early days of the web, advertising was based on number of eyeballs that saw the advertisement...like any other medium: magazines, newspapers, television, radio (okay, ears
Then some genius decided that they should be recording click-throughs, which skewed everthing, because that is not how advertising works.
It's all about mindshare....so I may not be interested in the product when I first see the ad, (like, I am not looking for a car).
But, if I know about the car from seeing an advertisement for it, say 6 times in a month, if I do need a car in 6 months, that car would come to mind. If I go to the showroom, or even go to the manufacturer's website, or look at a review on another website, does that mean the original non-clicked through ad was useless? Not at all.
Now we seem to be stuck with the 'If I make my ad more flashy, and trick people into clicking on it, somehow that serves my customer better' mentality that promotes pop-ups, flash, and other annoyances.
Of course, this just assumes that ad-execs are dumb, not evil. The real answer is probably they are evil, and they know this, but click-throughs are a good way to pay much less than 'impressions' (or whatever the industry calls 'number of eyeballs seeing the ad')
There is one site I let advertise to me - http://www.salon.com/
Why? I find the content worthwhile....
Worthwhile content? Now there's an idea....perhaps if more sites had some, people would not mind advertising so much.
(I'm looking at you, every two-bit "review site" on the internet!)
What are the rates available? I really want a flash player able to record from line-in for recording some music sessions...I'd like 320kbps mp3 or pure wav/pcm if possible (I think the iriver H120 offerred the wav mode). Anybody know of a good player/recorder?
Canonical Anonymous Coward
Strange how this has definately made me want to get a x86 Mac, while making this Mac person question the platform...
I run Linux on my computers...the way I see it, I'm paying for an OS (Windows) that I delete when I get my machine. If I buy a x86 Mac, at least I will be buying an OS that I respect, with the best UI out there (best Unix GUI, hands down...heck, without the qualifier...best UI hands down)...
I've been thinking about getting a Mac of some sort (ibook, or mini), and this will push me over the edge. What stopped me before were all the x86 only Linux 3rd party apps that would not work on PPC Linux (flash, acrobat, anything else that supported "Linux", but they never compiled for PPC Linux, etc).
With a x86 Mac, I can switch between Linux & OSX, and my guess is that I will use OSX, or at least dual boot.
And of course, as others have pointed out, Mac is more than PPC...spotlight, expose, good UI, etc, etc. There is nothing dependent on PPC...
Canonical Anonymous Coward
ps: and to all those who've whined about the apple "premium" in the past...(comparing hardware costs with Dell and noticing that Macs cost more)
There is a cost associated with a decent OS/GUI...I will pay that cost, because it benefits me in the long run....grumble grumble..as I sit here cleaning up my friends windows box from virii & spyware....
Microsoft does not care about software vendors. The only thing it cares about is it's monopoly. It doesn't care about bespoke app vendors (custom made, one shot applications), but if you want to do anything that will compete with them, or even create a new market that they see has opportunity, they will drive you under.
.Net is just the latest example of them not playing by their own 'rules'. Ever notice how any change in Windows is first introduced in their own products (notably: Office). Movable toolbars, menus, custom title-bars, etc, etc. They put out 'UI guidelines', on the theory that we all follow them, and make the user interface easily learnable, and then they change all the rules for themselves. Hmm...how does this relate to .NET now?
.net uses...
Just another example of 6 ways they've pushed over the years as the 'latest/best' way to access databases. Which is just one more example of them creating new api's to distract us.
3 39.html
They needed software vendors when Windows was introduced and had competition. Now they don't, and they don't care about them anymore.
Developers - it is not in your best interests to follow where Microsoft is trying to push you. Trying to follow anythig like their inter-application communication methodology is a waste of your time. (what was the path now?)
DDE->DCE->OLE->COM->COM+(?)->DCOM->NET ?
Why jump on their cart? Because they say it's the new thing? Oh...MS has a new api, I'd better kill my company trying to follow their twisting and turnings.
They have far more people designing new API's and architectures than any small company has people to keep up with them. It's a losing proposition.
ODBC, RDO, DAO, ADO, OLEDB, whatever
It costs them developer time to continually shift the target, but it may cost you your company to follow it.
Ahh....this is all better explained here: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000
Canonical Anonymous Coward