PostgreSQL has grown dramatically since 8.x was released. Easy Windows support really helps because, like it or not, a lot of developers write on Windows and publish on Linux.
People tend to move to PostgreSQL when they find they need features MySQL lacks, get hung up on some of the odd issues MySQL can have, or find they have licensing issues with MySQL. The biggest drawback for PostgreSQL is that you actually have to configure it when you install it, or it will think it's running on a system with very minimal specs. It's also more complex than MySQL, but still nowhere near MS SQL Server 2005.
Yes, that's brilliant. I guess we don't need to worry about IE security flaws either, then? They have workarounds, too! Ah well, and/. has such fun railing MS for it, too.
NoScript is a horrible fix for this, because NoScript and the password manager use the same method to determine what is safe: the domain name of the server.
If I go to, say, Blogspot.com with FF and I'm a member, I probably log in and save my password with FF. If I have NoScript and I visit the page frequently and post lots of comments, I also probably have blogspot.com on the trusted site list. If I go to a malicious blog (well, alright, a blog that exploits this vulnerability -- they're all malicious) then a) I'll be on a site that the password manager trusts and I'll be on a site that NoScript trusts.
Good luck. Every higher education institution I've ever been to (a total of five) has treated the student as a terrificly inconvenient debtor and nothing more.
If you're talking about the Faramir thing, then I agree.
If you're talking about the Aragorn/Arwen thing, then you should read the Appendix to LotR. Their relationship is canon. Jackson took very few liberties with the script compared with most book to movie translations.
He has green eyes like his mother. He talks about it at least once in the beginning of the book, and *every* member of the Order of the Phoenix -- everyone who knew james and Lily -- says "he looks like James, except for the eyes". That's like the first thing they say *every* time.
Every time Snape looked at Harry he saw Lily's eyes.
Well, strictly, all they would have to do is open the chamber and then Summon the teeth. Look how far Harry was able to Summon his Firebolt in Goblet of Fire. Harry and Ginny were able to climb out over the bit that Ron cleared (and that's how Fawkes got in) so the teeth would have to fit.
The thermal design point is the maximum load the processor was spec'ed to handle. It is exactly like a roadway bridge specification. If it's built for 20 ton loads, you don't cross with more than 20 tons. If you do, you risk damage to the bridge which may result in catastrophic failure.
For a CPU, a system which is exceeding the TDP is generating more heat than it was designed to dissipate and drawing more power than the chip was designed to function with. This can result in overheating, instability, and damage to the CPU or motherboard.
Like bridges, CPUs are often overdesigned. A 20 ton spec bridge might, in reality, be able to support 40 tons with no problem. Overloading a bridge like this is exactly the same as electrically overclocking a processor. That is, over[i]volting[/i] a processor is likely to cause it to exceed it's TDP.
C:\WINDOWS\SoftwareDistribution. Specifically, updates get downloaded and unpacked to C:\WINDOWS\SoftwareDistribution\Download. You can actually delete C:\WINDOWS\SoftwareDistribution without hurting anything (as long as you stop Automatic Updates and BITS), and since Automatic Updates typically doesn't delete update files it's a good idea to do so every so often. It also forces the client to re-download the metadata stored in DataStore, which is known to become corrupt and prevent Automatic Updates from running properly.
The GUID-like directories in C:\ are typically just the log files for Service Packs (often MSXML). I don't know why those get left behind, but AFAIK they're safe to delete.
It's a remote code execution fix. It is irresponsible to dismiss it out of hand. If you're not applying the patch, you have up to three workarounds per system to apply. The workaround, by the way, is basically to disable Active Scripting. That is, no Java Script and no ActiveX controls. That's typically not satisfactory. The IIS ASP.NET fix is to strip NULLs from input. That's not going to happen very easily for proprietary web app software.
Are you also "sitting on" MS07-039? Denial of service on AD is bad. Every admin I know applied this patch on Tuesday.
You also, you know, could be testing the patch in your environment before deployment to see if any issues arise.
The issue is also fairly uncommon from what I've seen. The majority of admins I've heard from have experienced no issues. If it's actually an issue with the patch and not just a AV scanner file locking issue due to the patch being 15 MB (which it has been for at least two people I've heard from) then MS will issue a revision.
A far, far worse bug is the fact that can break recent versions of Sharepoint.
No, it's just an uncommon issue. On the NT admin mailing lists I'm on, only a handful of people have reported problems. Most responses to the thread have been "1000 systems patched here, no problems reported" and the like.
The patch is also nearly 15 MB, which is huge for a patch. Some people have just been having problems with their AV scanners locking the file to scan while Automatic Updates wants to begin installing it (see MS KB 883825). That's not a MS issue. It's arguably not even an AV vendor issue. Mostly it's an issue with admins not excluding the updates download directory.
Maybe I'm missing something, but how would you use a canal for a waterwheel? Canal water needs to be slow enough for a mule to pull the barge both directions. Waterwheels need the water moving fast enough to torque the wheel. That seems to be a contradiction.
If there's one thing the FSF has done successfully, it's teach FLOSS developers to be highly skeptical of any large, monolithic entity with power over your programs and your code. The FSF is, due to it's GNU associations, very much a large, monolithic entity in the *nix world. If I was going to say "I trust you with my code in perpetuity" I'd probably go with any other FLOSS license besides the GPL.
Note that there's no reason the original copyright holder can't re-release code that's GPLv2-only under GPLv3 or later revisions. The original owner didn't gain access to it by the GPL. He gained access to it by copyright.
99% of problems with Windows Update are caused by incomplete download or corrupt catalog data.
Stop the BITS and Automatic Updates services and then delete (or rename) C:\Windows\SoftwareDistribution. Then restart the BITS and Automatic Updates services.
Script:
net stop bits net stop wuauserv rmdir/s/q %windir%\SoftwareDistribution net start wuauserv net start bits
Installing the WUA 3.0 with the/wuforce switch also very commonly corrects random problems. So does installing the latest MSXML redistributable, currently MSXML 6.0 SP1.
Yes, but that also says MS still supports Win2k through 2010. They really don't. Extended phase support is very limited in reality. When mainstream ends for XP in 2009, MS will no longer produce any new products that are compatible with XP. They will produce 100% Vista. Extended support is bug fixes, critical fixes, and security fixes. That's it. Heck, they even skipped Win2k SP5. No new Server products will install on 2000. Not even free ones like WSUS 3.0.
Look at Windows Media Player 10 & 11, IE 7 and.NET 3.0. There's no *real* reason any of those couldn't run on Win2k. Most all of them are installer flags for "version >= 5.1".
I don't understand. If this really has "turned out to be an invaluable source of information for studying ocean currents" then why hasn't anybody done this before?
How do you know we haven't missed anything? There are two types of unknowns: Unknowns we know we do not know, and unknowns we do not know we do not know.
The assumption that human intelligence is capable of knowing and understanding every aspect of the universe in it's entirety using science is little more than hubris. Laplace's demon is a myth.
Yes, but it's not immune to fragmentation or the effects fragmentation can have. I've seen Linux mail servers on ext2/3 that have absolutely terrible performance caused by disk fragmentation, and the admins absolutely refuse to believe there is a file system problem because they're drank the "ext2/3 doesn't need fragmenting" kool-aid. Once they switched to, say, XFS which has online defrag tools, the performance bottlenecks disappeared.
It's a myth. I don't like people spreading it. Fragmentation can and does affect Linux systems. Just because the system is resistant to the effects of it should not mean that you don't have to think about it. Linux is resistant to viruses and has a superior security model, too. Does that mean we shouldn't be concerned about security vulnerabilities?
There are many instances when ext2/3 are fragmented, and numerous instances when such fragmented file systems would benefit from defragmentation. Ext2/3 are fragmentation resistant (more so than NTFS, and hugely more so than FAT) but it is not possible to create a file system which is immune to fragmentation.
Example: Fill a 1 GB disk to, say, 90% capacity with files large enough to require a single disk block. Now delete half of those files at random. Now write a handful of 50MB file to this disk. I can guarantee you that these files will be fragmented on disk. Any system which has ever used more than 70%-80% of available disk space probably has several fragmented files.
The fact that no good tools exist to identify and correct fragmentation on ext2/3 does not mean it does not occur, and claiming "fragmentation is a good thing" is like MySQL 3 claiming "foreign keys and transactions are unnecessary". The myth is based on the assumption that most important files are generally small enough to fit into one disk block. That hasn't been true on Linux for several years, and as multimedia support increases the situation will only get worse.
Seriously, pick a system you've had running for a few years that had decent file I/O and run a fsck (the only diagnostic tool I know of for these file systems). Historically you're never supposed to go ever 5%. If you're at 20%, you're probably experiencing I/O bottlenecking regularly. Even worse than that, the only way to defrag ext2/3 is to rebuild the file system manually by copying files off, running mkfs, and then reloading your files. Offline defrag is the only option.
Slashdot Mirror
PostgreSQL has grown dramatically since 8.x was released. Easy Windows support really helps because, like it or not, a lot of developers write on Windows and publish on Linux.
People tend to move to PostgreSQL when they find they need features MySQL lacks, get hung up on some of the odd issues MySQL can have, or find they have licensing issues with MySQL. The biggest drawback for PostgreSQL is that you actually have to configure it when you install it, or it will think it's running on a system with very minimal specs. It's also more complex than MySQL, but still nowhere near MS SQL Server 2005.
Yes, that's brilliant. I guess we don't need to worry about IE security flaws either, then? They have workarounds, too! Ah well, and /. has such fun railing MS for it, too.
NoScript is a horrible fix for this, because NoScript and the password manager use the same method to determine what is safe: the domain name of the server.
If I go to, say, Blogspot.com with FF and I'm a member, I probably log in and save my password with FF. If I have NoScript and I visit the page frequently and post lots of comments, I also probably have blogspot.com on the trusted site list. If I go to a malicious blog (well, alright, a blog that exploits this vulnerability -- they're all malicious) then a) I'll be on a site that the password manager trusts and I'll be on a site that NoScript trusts.
Good luck. Every higher education institution I've ever been to (a total of five) has treated the student as a terrificly inconvenient debtor and nothing more.
If you're talking about the Faramir thing, then I agree.
If you're talking about the Aragorn/Arwen thing, then you should read the Appendix to LotR. Their relationship is canon. Jackson took very few liberties with the script compared with most book to movie translations.
He has green eyes like his mother. He talks about it at least once in the beginning of the book, and *every* member of the Order of the Phoenix -- everyone who knew james and Lily -- says "he looks like James, except for the eyes". That's like the first thing they say *every* time.
Every time Snape looked at Harry he saw Lily's eyes.
Well, strictly, all they would have to do is open the chamber and then Summon the teeth. Look how far Harry was able to Summon his Firebolt in Goblet of Fire. Harry and Ginny were able to climb out over the bit that Ron cleared (and that's how Fawkes got in) so the teeth would have to fit.
The thermal design point is the maximum load the processor was spec'ed to handle. It is exactly like a roadway bridge specification. If it's built for 20 ton loads, you don't cross with more than 20 tons. If you do, you risk damage to the bridge which may result in catastrophic failure.
For a CPU, a system which is exceeding the TDP is generating more heat than it was designed to dissipate and drawing more power than the chip was designed to function with. This can result in overheating, instability, and damage to the CPU or motherboard.
Like bridges, CPUs are often overdesigned. A 20 ton spec bridge might, in reality, be able to support 40 tons with no problem. Overloading a bridge like this is exactly the same as electrically overclocking a processor. That is, over[i]volting[/i] a processor is likely to cause it to exceed it's TDP.
Well, the rest of the world does seem to find American politics a bit amateurish.
I don't think so. You have to deliberately be so stupid. Random chance simply can't account for it.
C:\WINDOWS\SoftwareDistribution. Specifically, updates get downloaded and unpacked to C:\WINDOWS\SoftwareDistribution\Download. You can actually delete C:\WINDOWS\SoftwareDistribution without hurting anything (as long as you stop Automatic Updates and BITS), and since Automatic Updates typically doesn't delete update files it's a good idea to do so every so often. It also forces the client to re-download the metadata stored in DataStore, which is known to become corrupt and prevent Automatic Updates from running properly.
The GUID-like directories in C:\ are typically just the log files for Service Packs (often MSXML). I don't know why those get left behind, but AFAIK they're safe to delete.
It's a remote code execution fix. It is irresponsible to dismiss it out of hand. If you're not applying the patch, you have up to three workarounds per system to apply. The workaround, by the way, is basically to disable Active Scripting. That is, no Java Script and no ActiveX controls. That's typically not satisfactory. The IIS ASP.NET fix is to strip NULLs from input. That's not going to happen very easily for proprietary web app software.
Are you also "sitting on" MS07-039? Denial of service on AD is bad. Every admin I know applied this patch on Tuesday.
You also, you know, could be testing the patch in your environment before deployment to see if any issues arise.
The issue is also fairly uncommon from what I've seen. The majority of admins I've heard from have experienced no issues. If it's actually an issue with the patch and not just a AV scanner file locking issue due to the patch being 15 MB (which it has been for at least two people I've heard from) then MS will issue a revision.
A far, far worse bug is the fact that can break recent versions of Sharepoint.
No, it's just an uncommon issue. On the NT admin mailing lists I'm on, only a handful of people have reported problems. Most responses to the thread have been "1000 systems patched here, no problems reported" and the like.
The patch is also nearly 15 MB, which is huge for a patch. Some people have just been having problems with their AV scanners locking the file to scan while Automatic Updates wants to begin installing it (see MS KB 883825). That's not a MS issue. It's arguably not even an AV vendor issue. Mostly it's an issue with admins not excluding the updates download directory.
Maybe I'm missing something, but how would you use a canal for a waterwheel? Canal water needs to be slow enough for a mule to pull the barge both directions. Waterwheels need the water moving fast enough to torque the wheel. That seems to be a contradiction.
If there's one thing the FSF has done successfully, it's teach FLOSS developers to be highly skeptical of any large, monolithic entity with power over your programs and your code. The FSF is, due to it's GNU associations, very much a large, monolithic entity in the *nix world. If I was going to say "I trust you with my code in perpetuity" I'd probably go with any other FLOSS license besides the GPL.
Note that there's no reason the original copyright holder can't re-release code that's GPLv2-only under GPLv3 or later revisions. The original owner didn't gain access to it by the GPL. He gained access to it by copyright.
Well, you can always look at C:\Windows\WindowsUpdate.log (not Windows Update.log) and searching against the error message.
Stop the BITS and Automatic Updates services and then delete (or rename) C:\Windows\SoftwareDistribution. Then restart the BITS and Automatic Updates services.
Script: You should also apply these updates if you haven't before:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/927891
Installing the WUA 3.0 with the
Yes, but that also says MS still supports Win2k through 2010. They really don't. Extended phase support is very limited in reality. When mainstream ends for XP in 2009, MS will no longer produce any new products that are compatible with XP. They will produce 100% Vista. Extended support is bug fixes, critical fixes, and security fixes. That's it. Heck, they even skipped Win2k SP5. No new Server products will install on 2000. Not even free ones like WSUS 3.0.
.NET 3.0. There's no *real* reason any of those couldn't run on Win2k. Most all of them are installer flags for "version >= 5.1".
Look at Windows Media Player 10 & 11, IE 7 and
I don't understand. If this really has "turned out to be an invaluable source of information for studying ocean currents" then why hasn't anybody done this before?
How do you know we haven't missed anything? There are two types of unknowns: Unknowns we know we do not know, and unknowns we do not know we do not know.
The assumption that human intelligence is capable of knowing and understanding every aspect of the universe in it's entirety using science is little more than hubris. Laplace's demon is a myth.
I really wonder what we've missed simply because the evidence is long gone.
Yes, but it's not immune to fragmentation or the effects fragmentation can have. I've seen Linux mail servers on ext2/3 that have absolutely terrible performance caused by disk fragmentation, and the admins absolutely refuse to believe there is a file system problem because they're drank the "ext2/3 doesn't need fragmenting" kool-aid. Once they switched to, say, XFS which has online defrag tools, the performance bottlenecks disappeared.
It's a myth. I don't like people spreading it. Fragmentation can and does affect Linux systems. Just because the system is resistant to the effects of it should not mean that you don't have to think about it. Linux is resistant to viruses and has a superior security model, too. Does that mean we shouldn't be concerned about security vulnerabilities?
There are many instances when ext2/3 are fragmented, and numerous instances when such fragmented file systems would benefit from defragmentation. Ext2/3 are fragmentation resistant (more so than NTFS, and hugely more so than FAT) but it is not possible to create a file system which is immune to fragmentation.
Example: Fill a 1 GB disk to, say, 90% capacity with files large enough to require a single disk block. Now delete half of those files at random. Now write a handful of 50MB file to this disk. I can guarantee you that these files will be fragmented on disk. Any system which has ever used more than 70%-80% of available disk space probably has several fragmented files.
The fact that no good tools exist to identify and correct fragmentation on ext2/3 does not mean it does not occur, and claiming "fragmentation is a good thing" is like MySQL 3 claiming "foreign keys and transactions are unnecessary". The myth is based on the assumption that most important files are generally small enough to fit into one disk block. That hasn't been true on Linux for several years, and as multimedia support increases the situation will only get worse.
Seriously, pick a system you've had running for a few years that had decent file I/O and run a fsck (the only diagnostic tool I know of for these file systems). Historically you're never supposed to go ever 5%. If you're at 20%, you're probably experiencing I/O bottlenecking regularly. Even worse than that, the only way to defrag ext2/3 is to rebuild the file system manually by copying files off, running mkfs, and then reloading your files. Offline defrag is the only option.
Of course it won't be. Do people honestly think this Core 2 Duo thing is new and unique to Intel?
What the heck do people think BIOS updates are?
Does John Romero count?