Ah, you're right. I guess thinking of clustering, which has a number of random things that don't (or didn't, last I looked) work, particularly foreign keys.
Yeah, but to use MySQL replication you can't use InnoDB. You must use MyISAM, which is not ACID compliant and doesn't support basic things like foreign key constraints. So you're getting the benfits of replication at the cost of losing features that make replication the next step in fault tolerance, data availability, and data integrity. It's like swapping brakes for air bags.
PostgreSQL does have replication, too, they're all just third party modules and not built in. Command Prompt offers a single master with failover based replication model, for example.
Quite honestly, though, if your application demands replication you should be looking at a commercial product with a real service contract.
uTorrent is and always has been a 100% closed source application. There has always been a very limited number of developers (only 1, Ludde, AFAIK) and the copyrights to uTorrent passed to BitTorrent (the company) when it purchased them.
Or perhaps uTorrent is completely written from scratch, but this seems unlikely.
That's completely unfounded speculation. SCO said the same thing about the Linux kernel, too, and we know how that turned out.
I guess I typically consider something a "crash" when the a system or program is wholly unresponsive to the system and requires that the process be manually killed. I equate "crash" to freezing up.
An unhandled exception like this is... an unhandled exception. Maybe I'm too close to it now, though, and just don't refer to specific know types of crashes with the general phrase. You're right, though, I think many people do qualify it as a crash.
It's not a crash, per se. It's a forced closure due to an illegal operation of one component of the browser with code in mshtml.dll.
An exception was thrown that was not properly caught. The error is caused by improper error trapping. Otherwise, the browser would just render things improperly or claim there was an error on the page because it doesn't properly parse and render the style tag.
Thanks to gerrymandering, election districts are designed to maximize the voting power of the incumbent party. That is, they will break up districts which might support an opposing candidate so that they become minor elements of multiple districts. Similarly, candidates will campaign heavily in larger swing states where they can work very hard to get 51% of the vote and garner a large portion of the college.
Why it brings down the third party vote is more subtle. You aren't a recognized party with a guaranteed poll slot unless you carried 10% of the vote (not sure if that % is accurate) in the previous election, typically. That means you have to run as independent, which is more difficult and typically more expensive.
The electoral college is an outmoded system that no longer serves any purpose whatsoever. There is zero reason not to run a pure popular vote.
Of course it's throwing the vote away. The winner-takes-all electoral college system guarantees that third parties are all but non-votes. The US is a two party system precisely because of the electoral college.
I'm a Windows admin. I haven't gotten a virus or malware on any of my systems in over 10 years (when I was still a teenager visiting BBSs) with the exception of malware that installs with other applications silently (WildTangent's games come to mind). There is no reason such piggyback applications can't exist for Linux. The only thing that makes it difficult for *NIX is the popularity of managed software repositories instead of the Windows model of unmoderated distribution.
Windows security works just fine for me, because I have a secure frame of mind. Yes, the Windows model of "Do you want to run this? Are you sure? Are you sure? Are you sure? Are you sure?" is pretty stupid and irritating, but no software setup is foolproof.
Security is a state of mind, not a software package.
Malware will be no less prevalent if Linux takes over the home market from Windows because the average home user still doesn't understand computer security (and has no desire to try). The vast majority of malware today is not installed through IE security holes and drive-by-downloads like they were in Windows 9x days. They're all trojans. No matter how tight the security on Linux, you can never stop a user from downloading and installing a malicious trojan for a "FREE SCR33NS4VER!1!!!".
It's an estimated 11,000,000 servers in everything from 2 server closets to thousand server enterprise centers. These 11 million systems consume more power than all the TV sets in the US combined, and there are more TV sets in the US today than people.
Or lets do it this way. Hoover Dam at peak output produces 2 Gigawatts of power per hour. 11 million servers consume 61 billion KW hours annually. It takes Hoover Dam 30,000 hours (about 3.5 years) to produce that much power. So you need four Hoover Dams just to power all the data centers in the US.
These forecasts indicate that unless energy efficiency is improved beyond current trends, the federal government's electricity cost for servers and data centers could be nearly $740 million annually by 2011, with a peak load of approximately 1.2 GW.
I bought the super id pack, and I've looked in the directories of the old DOS games that use DOSBox. Valve and id have two outstanding issues with their DOSBox distribution.
They include COPYING.txt, AUTHORS.txt, and THANKS.txt, which is correct. They do not distribute the whole of DOSBox, just some of the binary executables. That, too, is fine AFAIK.
What they have not done is this: (1) Present the GPL license to the user so that they know their rights to their GPL software. This should be done at time of purchase, and the Value EULA doesn't state anything at all about your free software rights that the GPL code allows you.
(2) Valve/id is required to include a written offer to distribute the source code for DOSBox, or else include the source code in the distribution. There is no such written offer that I can find.
IANAL, but that is my reading of it. Including COPYING.txt (the GPL license itself) may very well satisfy (1), but they must do something about (2).
Yes, that's precisely the problem. Linux advocates are often interested in assigning blame about the shortcomings and problems involved with a platform switch. This is entirely the incorrect line of though. Blame is irrelevant. The relevant issue is that a problem exists. I doesn't matter whose fault it is for the problem existing. The problem must still be solved. Additionally, the underlying problem is almost always one which is staunching the flow of user to Linux adoption. So why doesn't the Linux community fix them! Who cares if it's Microsoft's fault? It's still a problem for Linux! Fix the problem and forget about blame!
Consider this. Ext2 and ext3 are not accessible from Windows because no native file system driver exists. That is the problem. Now, does assigning fault for this problem allow more widespread adoption of these more advanced file systems and thus increase the exposure and importance of Linux? No. Assigning blame makes Linux users feel justified in disliking Microsoft, and makes Microsoft users feel justified in marginalizing Linux. Who does this problem most affect? Does it affect most Windows users? Hardly. They're in 100% FAT and NTFS land. What about Linux users? Well, an awful lot of Linux users use ext2/3. It might be nice to increase the number of systems that can read your file systems since it increases the portability of your data. Many Linux users find situations where work or certain applications (games) require the use of Windows and it's native formats. Therefore, the most likely group to benefit from Windows ext2/3 drivers is not Microsoft and not your average Windows user. It's Linux and the Linux user base. Guess who should be developing them?
1. Assigning blame doesn't fix the actual problems. 2. These problems tend to affect Linux and Linux users far, far more than Microsoft and Windows users.
Stop justifying yourself and fix the goddamn problems. Zealotry alone never fixed anything. Just look at the Middle East.
Yes, Exchange has not been difficult to backup in some time. The only version I ever used that would corrupt itself was 5.5, and that's well over 9 years old now.
The only issue now is with poorly trained admins who still try to run brick-level backups or use ExMerge as their backup tool. MS has repeated told admins not to do this since Exchange 2000, and there are still backup programs that tell you to do it this way. You *will* break something using that method. It's akin to backing up a 500 table database one individual table at a time over several hours and expecting a restore to be consistent.
I would be using Bacula for all my backups if they didn't still recommend brick-level in the wiki docs. I don't trust a backup vendor that so fails to understand the Exchange Jet database. [Note: The Jet DB used in Exchange is the same one used in Active Directory, to give you an idea of the robustness. It is wholly unrelated to the Jet DB used in Access.]
Not sure why they'd allow that. It seems pretty obvious they can improve their infrastructure network all they want, but they cannot offer new services to customers until they do so equitably.
Exactly. I want to know what makes me such a terrible person for wanting to load a new OS on a 3 year old laptop and having the video card, wireless, and on-board NIC not work. Linux zealots say, "It's the hardware vendors not cooperating!". So? I don't care if it's Linux's fault or the vendor's fault. It's Linux's problem. Fault is irrelevant to the end user. Problems are of foremost concern, and the problem is, all too often, "my hardware doesn't work and no drivers exist".
I'm really glad to see some vendor support for Linux from Dell. I'm currently saving up to pick up one of their Ubuntu systems because I think it's worthwhile to support them.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, you're right. I guess thinking of clustering, which has a number of random things that don't (or didn't, last I looked) work, particularly foreign keys.
Yeah, but to use MySQL replication you can't use InnoDB. You must use MyISAM, which is not ACID compliant and doesn't support basic things like foreign key constraints. So you're getting the benfits of replication at the cost of losing features that make replication the next step in fault tolerance, data availability, and data integrity. It's like swapping brakes for air bags.
PostgreSQL does have replication, too, they're all just third party modules and not built in. Command Prompt offers a single master with failover based replication model, for example.
Quite honestly, though, if your application demands replication you should be looking at a commercial product with a real service contract.
That's completely unfounded speculation. SCO said the same thing about the Linux kernel, too, and we know how that turned out.
Not at all. I know exactly what I mean, and so do my co-workers (having just polled them). My usage conforms completely to the usage in my office.
I guess I typically consider something a "crash" when the a system or program is wholly unresponsive to the system and requires that the process be manually killed. I equate "crash" to freezing up.
An unhandled exception like this is... an unhandled exception. Maybe I'm too close to it now, though, and just don't refer to specific know types of crashes with the general phrase. You're right, though, I think many people do qualify it as a crash.
It's not a crash, per se. It's a forced closure due to an illegal operation of one component of the browser with code in mshtml.dll.
An exception was thrown that was not properly caught. The error is caused by improper error trapping. Otherwise, the browser would just render things improperly or claim there was an error on the page because it doesn't properly parse and render the style tag.
Thanks to gerrymandering, election districts are designed to maximize the voting power of the incumbent party. That is, they will break up districts which might support an opposing candidate so that they become minor elements of multiple districts. Similarly, candidates will campaign heavily in larger swing states where they can work very hard to get 51% of the vote and garner a large portion of the college.
Why it brings down the third party vote is more subtle. You aren't a recognized party with a guaranteed poll slot unless you carried 10% of the vote (not sure if that % is accurate) in the previous election, typically. That means you have to run as independent, which is more difficult and typically more expensive.
The electoral college is an outmoded system that no longer serves any purpose whatsoever. There is zero reason not to run a pure popular vote.
Of course it's throwing the vote away. The winner-takes-all electoral college system guarantees that third parties are all but non-votes. The US is a two party system precisely because of the electoral college.
Ah, Gigawatt-hours of energy vs Gigawatt/hour of power. Gotcha. Sorry about that, been too long since I've really done anything with it.
I'm a Windows admin. I haven't gotten a virus or malware on any of my systems in over 10 years (when I was still a teenager visiting BBSs) with the exception of malware that installs with other applications silently (WildTangent's games come to mind). There is no reason such piggyback applications can't exist for Linux. The only thing that makes it difficult for *NIX is the popularity of managed software repositories instead of the Windows model of unmoderated distribution.
Windows security works just fine for me, because I have a secure frame of mind. Yes, the Windows model of "Do you want to run this? Are you sure? Are you sure? Are you sure? Are you sure?" is pretty stupid and irritating, but no software setup is foolproof.
Oh, I realize that, but I still don't think it will fix things to have a 50/50 split. There will always be a basic homogeneous market: human users.
I'm sorry, is my math wrong? Or are you just irritated by the fact that I didn't show my work?
Security is a state of mind, not a software package.
Malware will be no less prevalent if Linux takes over the home market from Windows because the average home user still doesn't understand computer security (and has no desire to try). The vast majority of malware today is not installed through IE security holes and drive-by-downloads like they were in Windows 9x days. They're all trojans. No matter how tight the security on Linux, you can never stop a user from downloading and installing a malicious trojan for a "FREE SCR33NS4VER!1!!!".
It's an estimated 11,000,000 servers in everything from 2 server closets to thousand server enterprise centers. These 11 million systems consume more power than all the TV sets in the US combined, and there are more TV sets in the US today than people.
Or lets do it this way. Hoover Dam at peak output produces 2 Gigawatts of power per hour. 11 million servers consume 61 billion KW hours annually. It takes Hoover Dam 30,000 hours (about 3.5 years) to produce that much power. So you need four Hoover Dams just to power all the data centers in the US.
I bought the super id pack, and I've looked in the directories of the old DOS games that use DOSBox. Valve and id have two outstanding issues with their DOSBox distribution.
They include COPYING.txt, AUTHORS.txt, and THANKS.txt, which is correct. They do not distribute the whole of DOSBox, just some of the binary executables. That, too, is fine AFAIK.
What they have not done is this:
(1) Present the GPL license to the user so that they know their rights to their GPL software. This should be done at time of purchase, and the Value EULA doesn't state anything at all about your free software rights that the GPL code allows you.
(2) Valve/id is required to include a written offer to distribute the source code for DOSBox, or else include the source code in the distribution. There is no such written offer that I can find.
IANAL, but that is my reading of it. Including COPYING.txt (the GPL license itself) may very well satisfy (1), but they must do something about (2).
Did Apache start from IIS? Write something better.
Yes, that's precisely the problem. Linux advocates are often interested in assigning blame about the shortcomings and problems involved with a platform switch. This is entirely the incorrect line of though. Blame is irrelevant. The relevant issue is that a problem exists. I doesn't matter whose fault it is for the problem existing. The problem must still be solved. Additionally, the underlying problem is almost always one which is staunching the flow of user to Linux adoption. So why doesn't the Linux community fix them! Who cares if it's Microsoft's fault? It's still a problem for Linux! Fix the problem and forget about blame!
Consider this. Ext2 and ext3 are not accessible from Windows because no native file system driver exists. That is the problem. Now, does assigning fault for this problem allow more widespread adoption of these more advanced file systems and thus increase the exposure and importance of Linux? No. Assigning blame makes Linux users feel justified in disliking Microsoft, and makes Microsoft users feel justified in marginalizing Linux. Who does this problem most affect? Does it affect most Windows users? Hardly. They're in 100% FAT and NTFS land. What about Linux users? Well, an awful lot of Linux users use ext2/3. It might be nice to increase the number of systems that can read your file systems since it increases the portability of your data. Many Linux users find situations where work or certain applications (games) require the use of Windows and it's native formats. Therefore, the most likely group to benefit from Windows ext2/3 drivers is not Microsoft and not your average Windows user. It's Linux and the Linux user base. Guess who should be developing them?
1. Assigning blame doesn't fix the actual problems.
2. These problems tend to affect Linux and Linux users far, far more than Microsoft and Windows users.
Stop justifying yourself and fix the goddamn problems. Zealotry alone never fixed anything. Just look at the Middle East.
Yes, now the key is to tuck those away, and bring them up an another unrelated argument you seem to be losing.
Yes, Exchange has not been difficult to backup in some time. The only version I ever used that would corrupt itself was 5.5, and that's well over 9 years old now.
The only issue now is with poorly trained admins who still try to run brick-level backups or use ExMerge as their backup tool. MS has repeated told admins not to do this since Exchange 2000, and there are still backup programs that tell you to do it this way. You *will* break something using that method. It's akin to backing up a 500 table database one individual table at a time over several hours and expecting a restore to be consistent.
I would be using Bacula for all my backups if they didn't still recommend brick-level in the wiki docs. I don't trust a backup vendor that so fails to understand the Exchange Jet database. [Note: The Jet DB used in Exchange is the same one used in Active Directory, to give you an idea of the robustness. It is wholly unrelated to the Jet DB used in Access.]
Not sure why they'd allow that. It seems pretty obvious they can improve their infrastructure network all they want, but they cannot offer new services to customers until they do so equitably.
"But that's not fair!" scream the telcos.
Right. It's the law. It's not meant to be fair.
Regulatory preference of the sort the USPS enjoys over UPS, FedEx, and DHL, I imagine.
Because I always carry my cell phone.
Exactly. I want to know what makes me such a terrible person for wanting to load a new OS on a 3 year old laptop and having the video card, wireless, and on-board NIC not work. Linux zealots say, "It's the hardware vendors not cooperating!". So? I don't care if it's Linux's fault or the vendor's fault. It's Linux's problem. Fault is irrelevant to the end user. Problems are of foremost concern, and the problem is, all too often, "my hardware doesn't work and no drivers exist".
I'm really glad to see some vendor support for Linux from Dell. I'm currently saving up to pick up one of their Ubuntu systems because I think it's worthwhile to support them.
And every site on the Internet is like this? They *all* use the FQDN to distinguish one page from another?