And a place I worked with tried to migrate a tenth as many users and it was nothing but frustration, as everyone else in the industry *doesn't* use OpenOffice, and OpenOffice compatibility and ease of use was far below Office.
And on top of that, you still had to pay for Outlook because there simply isn't a free client that's anywhere near competitive. Thunderbird is, eh... It's ok. It's not nearly as good as Outlook though.
Err... C++ is not functional, C++0x will perhaps be able to claim that, but functions are not yet there, and certainly there are a large number of differences between C++ and the classic functional languages in the ML family and others.
Your transactions per second won't scale as well as your IOPS because with spinning disks, there's still a significant latency before your data actually gets written to disk.
RAID just increases the number of in-flight IOs, widening the throughput but not decreasing its latency per disk.
People don't fly to a foreign country to stay inside the plane and look outside in awe, then fly back home. That's the problem with space travel, there's literally nothing out there for them to go to yet.
You can't send a patent troll corporation to jail, you can only sue the troll for their inevitably empty bank accounts. It doesn't cost much to file for a patent, so the limited liability means the creator(s) of the corporation don't have much to lose.
Well it's not even MAD. If you're a patent troll you have nothing to lose, so it's like terrorists can just run up to regular companies and hold the secretary at gunpoint and threaten to shoot, and that's sometimes enough for a "go away" settlement. And then of course the venue is the East Texas Court, and more often than anyone would like to admit, the troll extorts millions or hundreds of millions of dollars for an invention no one would consider remarkable.
So I guess if we're going to make a cold war analogy, the Afghanis are running wild and kicking ass, the superpowers are tiptoeing around each other and the regular people are scared or powerless to do much about it.
And don't forget the patents that are basically like the "with a mobile phone" or "on the internet" patents. That is, expect to see patents that are just like all the existing literature on transistors reiterated as "with graphene" at the end.
It's also a ransom. I wouldn't pay under those conditions because just because they could roll up and say "We'll save your house, but you have to sign this paper that you owe us $50,000." This is a pretty clear slippery slope sort of deal, and if I recall, the Roman firefighting groups often went right on down that slope until it was plainly a protection racket.
Nope, that sort of thing should be nipped in the bud. The city should ask the state to enforce it, and if any of those people in the county are paying state taxes that go toward the city's firefighting budget, well, they'd likely have a lawsuit on their hands.
If the state isn't ensuring its citizens have adequate protection, then it isn't doing its job.
The ribbon can be minimized, double click one of the tabs (Home, etc) and it will shrink the tab bar.
You can then access everything via hotkey or click on the tab and then the item you want. For many tasks your average "clicks per action" will be around 2 anyway (clicking a tab group, then an action). This just makes it a flat 2.0, instead of maybe, 1.6 or whatever. If you're doing some action repeatedly, it's always smart to learn the hotkey.
Ironically, yes. The trend has been that Windows has been poor on CLI tools, so it is a valid bullet point on their propo... sales material. And of course, the trend has been that Linux GUI tools have been as awful as Windows CLI tools, so it goes without saying that if Ubuntu 12.10 LTS can earnestly say it can be configured without a CLI, everyone will be applauding their success.
Err... as George says, "Worlds colliding! WORLDS COLLIDING!"
Just about every Microsoft tool newer than 2007 does this. Virtual machine manager, SQL Server has done it for ages, I think almost all the system center tools do, etc.
There's no reason the tracker couldn't limit the peer visibility such that only a few trusted seeder's IPs would be given to leechers. That is, each leecher would see an artificially low number of seeders, only seeders that were trusted. The client would then intentionally not use DHT or other mechanisms to find other peers.
For non-security or low priority updates, full tracker support could be allowed.
Daily assignment rates from the regional registries are approaching 600,000 to 700,000. That's 600,000 a day. 600,000 * 30 is around 18,000,000. A Class A is under 16,777,216 viable addresses. So yes, we're exhausting a class A a month. So even if we could get every business that owns a Class A to transition, and we could get them to transition over a period of six months, and we got them all to agree to it today, we'd be extending the lifetime of IPv4 by maybe a couple years. A lot of those Class As are owned by the DOD, and they aren't giving those up. Several more are owned by ISPs, and you can bet they're actually using those. MIT is actually using their Class A, although I don't know how much. I believe they actually take the proactive, anti-NATing approach with their IPs. That is, they assign public IPs to machines on their network, but rely on routers with stateful firewalls for network security.
So even if the most optimistic estimate of reclaiming class As gives us a few years, what do you propose we do by the year 2020? Start squeezing the people that own Class Bs for even smaller amounts of addresses?
And multiple threads per core can be thought of as say, movable dividers in rooms. Yeah, it's really one room, but you can divide it into 2 "sort of", and it doesn't really mean you have twice as many rooms, but there are certain benefits you can get from doing so.
Quad Nehelem and Westmere EX servers can be purchased from just about any large vendor, and they have 4 processors, 8 cores, and 2 threads per core, so they appear as 64 logical processors.
Next generation Sandy Bridge servers will feature up to 10 cores, I don't know if the threads per core is planned to be increased any time soon though.
IBM also sells a really, really custom Nehalem box that expands to multiple servers, permitting I believe between 8 and 16 8-core processors to be spanned together and run a single operating system.
At the rate that we're exhausting addresses, even if it were possibly to schedule and reclaim more than one Class A a month, we'd only be postponing the inevitable... by about a month.
And that assumes you can move all of their infrastructure off their class A in that time, maybe when your team gets around to dealing with , you realize it could take a year long migration.
Transitioning to IPv6 means users will have more control over access to their network, not less. No one is suggesting getting rid of stateful firewalls or the combination router/firewall at the edge of your network. Everyone being peers doesn't preclude that, stateful firewalls with public IPs on both sides are able to more intelligently manage traffic than a NAT with a private subnet that appears to the rest of the world as a single IP.
NAT != Stateful firewall. No one is suggesting getting rid of the latter any time soon.
In fact, the Windows firewall can be configured to apply different policies base on the source of the packet, just like any "real" firewall you'd want.
And yes, like y2k it is a drummed up doomsday sort of thing, but unlike y2k, it will happen. It just won't happen all at once, it'll be a slow, painful thing that will cost a lot of money, a lot of time. Do you run IPv6 in your local network? Why not?
I run IPv6 on all my networks, and as soon as our ISP has public IPs available, we will take advantage of that as well. The hardware stack is *all there*, the software stack is *all there*, it's been tested, vetted, and is supported on every operating system. IPv6 is trivial to deploy internally, why not use it?
NAT is terrible, and VPN is an abomination. Honestly, if I'm plugged into network A and I want to talk to network B, why do I have be conscious of the fact that it might not work if they use the same subnets? Terrible.
It totally destroys the idea of being able to talk to something directly. IPv4 didn't cause the status quo, with businesses and their servers being the gatekeepers of knowledge and messaging, but if we don't switch to IPv6, we'll never have a shot at a good peer to peer model again.
Or what happens when IPv4 congestion gets to the point that even my broadband doesn't get a public IP, that my ISP starts NATing customers together? Do I call them and ask for port forwards and pray another customer hasn't done that already?
Slashdot Mirror
And a place I worked with tried to migrate a tenth as many users and it was nothing but frustration, as everyone else in the industry *doesn't* use OpenOffice, and OpenOffice compatibility and ease of use was far below Office.
And on top of that, you still had to pay for Outlook because there simply isn't a free client that's anywhere near competitive. Thunderbird is, eh... It's ok. It's not nearly as good as Outlook though.
Err... C++ is not functional, C++0x will perhaps be able to claim that, but functions are not yet there, and certainly there are a large number of differences between C++ and the classic functional languages in the ML family and others.
Your transactions per second won't scale as well as your IOPS because with spinning disks, there's still a significant latency before your data actually gets written to disk.
RAID just increases the number of in-flight IOs, widening the throughput but not decreasing its latency per disk.
People don't fly to a foreign country to stay inside the plane and look outside in awe, then fly back home. That's the problem with space travel, there's literally nothing out there for them to go to yet.
You mean the corporation?
Humans aren't absolutely perfect, and we let them drive.
You can't send a patent troll corporation to jail, you can only sue the troll for their inevitably empty bank accounts. It doesn't cost much to file for a patent, so the limited liability means the creator(s) of the corporation don't have much to lose.
Well it's not even MAD. If you're a patent troll you have nothing to lose, so it's like terrorists can just run up to regular companies and hold the secretary at gunpoint and threaten to shoot, and that's sometimes enough for a "go away" settlement. And then of course the venue is the East Texas Court, and more often than anyone would like to admit, the troll extorts millions or hundreds of millions of dollars for an invention no one would consider remarkable.
So I guess if we're going to make a cold war analogy, the Afghanis are running wild and kicking ass, the superpowers are tiptoeing around each other and the regular people are scared or powerless to do much about it.
And don't forget the patents that are basically like the "with a mobile phone" or "on the internet" patents. That is, expect to see patents that are just like all the existing literature on transistors reiterated as "with graphene" at the end.
It's also a ransom. I wouldn't pay under those conditions because just because they could roll up and say "We'll save your house, but you have to sign this paper that you owe us $50,000." This is a pretty clear slippery slope sort of deal, and if I recall, the Roman firefighting groups often went right on down that slope until it was plainly a protection racket.
Nope, that sort of thing should be nipped in the bud. The city should ask the state to enforce it, and if any of those people in the county are paying state taxes that go toward the city's firefighting budget, well, they'd likely have a lawsuit on their hands.
If the state isn't ensuring its citizens have adequate protection, then it isn't doing its job.
The ribbon can be minimized, double click one of the tabs (Home, etc) and it will shrink the tab bar.
You can then access everything via hotkey or click on the tab and then the item you want. For many tasks your average "clicks per action" will be around 2 anyway (clicking a tab group, then an action). This just makes it a flat 2.0, instead of maybe, 1.6 or whatever. If you're doing some action repeatedly, it's always smart to learn the hotkey.
Ironically, yes. The trend has been that Windows has been poor on CLI tools, so it is a valid bullet point on their propo... sales material. And of course, the trend has been that Linux GUI tools have been as awful as Windows CLI tools, so it goes without saying that if Ubuntu 12.10 LTS can earnestly say it can be configured without a CLI, everyone will be applauding their success.
Err... as George says, "Worlds colliding! WORLDS COLLIDING!"
We should have huge NATs connecting large private spaces together, with most people talking through multiple layers of NAT?
FTP and SIP don't work because they "carry lower level addresses", like what, IP addresses? It's not like they use the MAC to connect.
Are you insane?
You know there's probably a reason we haven't heard anything from them. :)
Just about every Microsoft tool newer than 2007 does this. Virtual machine manager, SQL Server has done it for ages, I think almost all the system center tools do, etc.
It's a huge improvement.
There's no reason the tracker couldn't limit the peer visibility such that only a few trusted seeder's IPs would be given to leechers. That is, each leecher would see an artificially low number of seeders, only seeders that were trusted. The client would then intentionally not use DHT or other mechanisms to find other peers.
For non-security or low priority updates, full tracker support could be allowed.
MS Exchange Online is HIPAA/Sarbanes Oxley compliant, and saying that makes them subject to more than a few legal issues if there were ever a leak.
They don't discuss the details of their security, but they're basically putting their neck in the guillotine for you by making those claims.
Daily assignment rates from the regional registries are approaching 600,000 to 700,000. That's 600,000 a day. 600,000 * 30 is around 18,000,000. A Class A is under 16,777,216 viable addresses. So yes, we're exhausting a class A a month. So even if we could get every business that owns a Class A to transition, and we could get them to transition over a period of six months, and we got them all to agree to it today, we'd be extending the lifetime of IPv4 by maybe a couple years. A lot of those Class As are owned by the DOD, and they aren't giving those up. Several more are owned by ISPs, and you can bet they're actually using those. MIT is actually using their Class A, although I don't know how much. I believe they actually take the proactive, anti-NATing approach with their IPs. That is, they assign public IPs to machines on their network, but rely on routers with stateful firewalls for network security.
So even if the most optimistic estimate of reclaiming class As gives us a few years, what do you propose we do by the year 2020? Start squeezing the people that own Class Bs for even smaller amounts of addresses?
And multiple threads per core can be thought of as say, movable dividers in rooms. Yeah, it's really one room, but you can divide it into 2 "sort of", and it doesn't really mean you have twice as many rooms, but there are certain benefits you can get from doing so.
Quad Nehelem and Westmere EX servers can be purchased from just about any large vendor, and they have 4 processors, 8 cores, and 2 threads per core, so they appear as 64 logical processors.
Next generation Sandy Bridge servers will feature up to 10 cores, I don't know if the threads per core is planned to be increased any time soon though.
IBM also sells a really, really custom Nehalem box that expands to multiple servers, permitting I believe between 8 and 16 8-core processors to be spanned together and run a single operating system.
At the rate that we're exhausting addresses, even if it were possibly to schedule and reclaim more than one Class A a month, we'd only be postponing the inevitable... by about a month.
And that assumes you can move all of their infrastructure off their class A in that time, maybe when your team gets around to dealing with , you realize it could take a year long migration.
Yeah, that'll work.
Transitioning to IPv6 means users will have more control over access to their network, not less. No one is suggesting getting rid of stateful firewalls or the combination router/firewall at the edge of your network. Everyone being peers doesn't preclude that, stateful firewalls with public IPs on both sides are able to more intelligently manage traffic than a NAT with a private subnet that appears to the rest of the world as a single IP.
NAT != Stateful firewall. No one is suggesting getting rid of the latter any time soon.
In fact, the Windows firewall can be configured to apply different policies base on the source of the packet, just like any "real" firewall you'd want.
And yes, like y2k it is a drummed up doomsday sort of thing, but unlike y2k, it will happen. It just won't happen all at once, it'll be a slow, painful thing that will cost a lot of money, a lot of time. Do you run IPv6 in your local network? Why not?
I run IPv6 on all my networks, and as soon as our ISP has public IPs available, we will take advantage of that as well. The hardware stack is *all there*, the software stack is *all there*, it's been tested, vetted, and is supported on every operating system. IPv6 is trivial to deploy internally, why not use it?
NAT is terrible, and VPN is an abomination. Honestly, if I'm plugged into network A and I want to talk to network B, why do I have be conscious of the fact that it might not work if they use the same subnets? Terrible.
It totally destroys the idea of being able to talk to something directly. IPv4 didn't cause the status quo, with businesses and their servers being the gatekeepers of knowledge and messaging, but if we don't switch to IPv6, we'll never have a shot at a good peer to peer model again.
Or what happens when IPv4 congestion gets to the point that even my broadband doesn't get a public IP, that my ISP starts NATing customers together? Do I call them and ask for port forwards and pray another customer hasn't done that already?
As I said to the guy who suggested encoding regular expressions in XML (all the understandability of regex and all the terseness of XML, brilliant!):
Now you have two problems.