Re:Does XEN have a future?
on
Running Xen
·
· Score: 1
Xen pretty much just sucks. KVM is a bit (but not much) better.
Because?
I've only got a (very) little experience with Xen, but in my brief introduction, it seemed to work pretty well. If there's something about Xen that doesn't work/doesn't work well I'd be really curious to learn what it is before I try to implement it somewhere.
As it is, it just sounds like you are slamming Xen and KVM because you happen to like VMWare (which in my opinion is a PITA, because I couldn't consistently get VMWare to run with the client binary unless I reran the setup script and restarted the daemon(?) process in/etc/init.d on my Gentoo desktop until I wrote a script to handle all of that for me...and it still occasionally pukes).
Exactly. Which is why I think the Internet will make us more rather than less intelligent.
There is indeed a lot of information available on the Internet, but learning to differentiate between the wheat and the chaff will sharpen our critical thinking skills.
IMHO, having a wealth of information -- even if some of it is flat out wrong -- is a (tm) Good Thing, as it allows us to research, analyze and draw our own conclusions about data.
And it is not at all apparent that the standards(what fucking standards???) of the FISA court were too high for Bush.
Of course it is -- if the standards of the FISA court were not too high for Bush and Co., then why would they attempt to sidestep it? If FISA were really just a rubber stamp, with the ability to retroactively approve a wiretap, then what possible reason could the Bush administration have for wanting to bypass it? The simple fact that they wanted to avoid this check and balance -- minuscule that it was -- strongly suggests that even this oversight was too much for Bush's liking.
And that is a scary thought, indeed. Just how outrageous was the wiretapping program, that a 0.02% chance of rejection was too much?
Mod parent up. Shagg is right on the money, although I would throw in the extra possibility of "or if you want to hide what you're doing from the populace."
While it is very, very unlikely that the FISA court would leak a request for a wiretap, if the request were groundless/abusive enough, I suppose it is a possibility.
Because many people are afraid of flying. By combining the fear of flying, the fear of an invisible bogey-man (terrorists) and the vivid images from 9/11, they have an "in" to begin the process of getting people used to constant surveillance and control.
I mean, c'mon -- you don't want them flying another airplane into another skyscraper do you? Think of the children!
From the Javascript I have written, I see three ways to create your web pages: 1) embed all of your Javascript into your code; 2) create external modules that all of your web pages reference as required; 3) a hybrid approach using some kind of development environment that allows you to write your Javascript code in a modular form, create your HTML separately with references to your Javascript modules, then, when you are done testing, writes the modular Javascript in-line, essentially "compiling" and "linking" your final HTML document before publishing it on a live web site.
The first choice is great for simple sites, and in fact, is what I use most of the time, since I prefer to use Javascript for non-essential functions (because you can't always count on the end user having Javascript or other scripting languages enabled). Unfortunately, it makes for web projects -- especially large, complex web projects -- that are very difficult to maintain, since you are replicating code in every HTML document. Upgrades, therefore, must be replicated in every document. Given sufficient time, you *will* miss a document eventually, which can break things. That's bad juju, and if that's how you build your enormous projects, all I can say is I'm glad I don't have to maintain them.
Option two is what you are griping about in your first post above. It makes your code much more maintainable -- you edit one file, and all of your pages are updated -- at the expense of an extra server hit and extra time to download.
Option three is the best of both worlds at the cost of a little additional complexity...but nothing too bad. From what you said above..."I've spent eon developing systems and platforms and techniques to ensure that my code seperation isn't done at the physical nor even the logical file level..." it sounds like this might be the route you've taken. If so, then I retract my earlier comments. This is a good, scalable way to have the speed of in-line code along with the maintainability of external files. In essence, you are using external, modular code, but your end user never sees it; all they see is the in-line version of the document.
If it were up to me, I'd have embedded the page imagery into the same stream -- the way you can for e-mails -- in order to not only save the extra hit to the server, and all of teh stupid tracking to go with it, but also to actually cache everything on the page appropriately.
Just out of curiosity, if your web page is a CGI script, why couldn't you embed the images in your code then? I've used Perl CGI scripts to read an image file and print the raw GIF/JPG/PNG/whatever to the web browser; the associated HTML file used <img src="...blah.pl"> to call the CGI. I've never tried to create a CGI that combined the two portions into a single script, but I can't see why it wouldn't work.
Ok fine, You're right. Give them a rifle and tell them to start a civil war over corrupt government...You, sir, are blind to the bigger picture and a fool to rely on your anecdotal evidence and prejudices as a basis for your reasoning.
Give me a break. Being a little melodramatic there aren't you?
I see three options: 1) Do as I and the grandparent post suggested and encourage other people to create change in their home countries, 2) invade sovereign, foreign countries "on behalf of "our poor, oppressed brethren" or 3) become the political asylum for the world. You don't like option 1 so that's out, option 2 is working soooo well in Iraq right now, isn't it </sarcasm> (nor did it work very well in Viet Nam 40 years ago). So I guess that leaves option three, which I suspect is your preference.
Unfortunately, if you bother to pay any attention to the news, or even to comments posted above, you'll see that that isn't working so well, either. The flood of immigrants with little to no money is straining social services to the breaking point. Hospitals are closing, not because of segregation and prejudice, but because of the cold, hard fact that hospitals cannot operate (no pun intended) without income. Who pays the bills when illegal immigrants without any income need medical care? Unfortunately, the hospitals end up eating the cost, and as a result they are starting to close their doors along the borders because they cannot pay their bills when costs exceed income.
So go ahead...call me a fool and call me prejudiced. You're wrong, but if calling me names so you can avoid unpleasant facts is your preference, well, you are entitled to that opinion, I suppose. In my opinion, if you've got three options, two of them are unworkable, and the third is unpalatable, then unless you've got some deus ex machina to call upon to save the day, option one is the only choice I see that has a snowball's chance of actually solving the problem.
The external file requires yet another hit to the server, and everything involved therein. It almost never makes any sense.
To the end user, you are right. However, from a web developer/programming standpoint, it actually does make sense. It is all about modular use of code -- when you write C/C++ programs, do you incorporate all of the code in-line, or do you reference standard libraries to handle some of the common functions? You use standard libraries of course, because it makes your code easier to maintain. If you need to update a function, you change it in one place (the external library) and voila! All of your code is "magically" updated (okay, technically, none of your code except that one external library was changed, but the point is that all of your code now uses that updated code, even though you only had to change one file).
Web developers are using the same technology for the same reasons in their code. If you can create libraries of Javascript code, then you don't have to change umpteen-hundred files to update a function everywhere it's used on your site. You change one external library, and all of your web pages use the new, updated code rather than the old code. It causes a performance hit for the client, but in theory at least, it leads to portable, reliable code, the benefits of which outweigh the extra half-a-second it takes to reference the external file.
If he didn't agree with him, why did he go to that church?
Perhaps when the pastor at that church limits his topics to religion rather than race, Obama really enjoys what he is saying? I don't agree with everything the various pastors at my church say either, but I still attend the church. For example, the senior pastor at my church all but thinks Bill Gates was one of the apostles. I, on the other hand, am a card-carrying Linux zealot <grin> However, despite my pastor's obvious inability to choose a reliable software vendor, I enjoy probably 90% of the rest of what he preaches about;)
...the only false statement is the part where you say "Unlike previous waves of American immigrants" rather than "Exactly like all the previous waves of American immigrants".
No, the parent post was correct. Two of the guys in my office are 3rd generation Americans; their great-grandparents were German immigrants. Both of them, growing up in different states, tell the same story: their grandparents learned to speak English because their great-grandparents beat the crap out of them if they heard them speaking German at home. The U.S.A. was their homeland now, and they would learn to be American. This wasn't something that resident Americans forced upon my coworkers' great-grandparents -- it was a choice they made willingly. I don't see that with illegal immigrants in the U.S.
I don't know if it's a difference in attitude or a difference in opportunity. I suspect that, being illegal immigrants and therefore fearing being discovered and deported, they might be considerably less inclined to send their kids to English-speaking schools or mingle with natural-born citizens, but I don't know that for a fact.
As for your border policy, I think that kinda sucks.
Why? What is wrong with telling someone, "look, it's your country...fight for it!" Every freedom in the world exists because someone somewhere decided it was a freedom worth fighting for.
What bizarre value system gives government to right to dictate the movements of supposedly free people?
Ummm...what planet are you from? Every country in the world restricts the liberty of free people who want to cross it. That is one of the essential functions of government -- to protect its borders. If I am a citizen of the U.S.A. (and I am), then it is only by the graces of Canada or Mexico or any other country of the world that I have permission to enter their country. Why should the U.S. border be any different? It shouldn't be unduly difficult to cross the border if, as you say, the person isn't a known criminal, but a government should by all means take reasonable steps to protect its borders.
You had as little basis for assuming that I had not read the article, as you have for presuming Rizwaan's innocence.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, presuming Rizwaan's innocence is the only just thing to do. Otherwise, you allow the authorities to lock anyone up, any time they wish for any reason (or lack thereof) they want. Such unrestrained power is the antithesis of a free society.
Besides, if the company is monitoring your e-mail, and sees you frequently e-mailing joe.schmoe@corporatecompetitor.com in a foreign language, don't you think it might make someone suspicious?
You are choosing to be a victim. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not blaming you. I was in a similar position once. However, I learned from that experience, and I will never be bullied by an employer again. Ever.
In that job, the owner was easily the most arrogant, foul-mouthed jerk I have ever met in my life, with the possible exception of his father, who showed up around the office from time to time. During my tenure there, I watched at least two other employees get fired because the owner found out they were looking for other jobs -- "if you don't want to work here, I don't want you working here," was his reasoning -- and three employees get fired for other reasons. That may not seem like much, until you realize that there were never more than 12 people working at this company at any one time.
When I finally moved on to greener pastures, I realized how much I had narrowed my own options while working there, and how much happier I was once I was employed somewhere else.
Trust me -- if you have any marketable skills at all, you can and will find another job. It might get a little tight for a while, but no job is worth the stress of such a crappy working environment.
Slashdot Mirror
Because?
I've only got a (very) little experience with Xen, but in my brief introduction, it seemed to work pretty well. If there's something about Xen that doesn't work/doesn't work well I'd be really curious to learn what it is before I try to implement it somewhere.
As it is, it just sounds like you are slamming Xen and KVM because you happen to like VMWare (which in my opinion is a PITA, because I couldn't consistently get VMWare to run with the client binary unless I reran the setup script and restarted the daemon(?) process in
Exactly. Which is why I think the Internet will make us more rather than less intelligent.
There is indeed a lot of information available on the Internet, but learning to differentiate between the wheat and the chaff will sharpen our critical thinking skills.
IMHO, having a wealth of information -- even if some of it is flat out wrong -- is a (tm) Good Thing, as it allows us to research, analyze and draw our own conclusions about data.
Very interesting. Thanks for posting those links!
...which is why even the minimal oversight of FISA is absolutely vital.
I never thought I could despise a president more than I despised Clinton, but Bush has done it, sigh...
It will cost him my vote. McCain was not my ideal candidate, but looked like he might have been the best of the bunch. But this is a deal-breaker.
Of course it is -- if the standards of the FISA court were not too high for Bush and Co., then why would they attempt to sidestep it? If FISA were really just a rubber stamp, with the ability to retroactively approve a wiretap, then what possible reason could the Bush administration have for wanting to bypass it? The simple fact that they wanted to avoid this check and balance -- minuscule that it was -- strongly suggests that even this oversight was too much for Bush's liking.
And that is a scary thought, indeed. Just how outrageous was the wiretapping program, that a 0.02% chance of rejection was too much?
Mod parent up. Shagg is right on the money, although I would throw in the extra possibility of "or if you want to hide what you're doing from the populace."
While it is very, very unlikely that the FISA court would leak a request for a wiretap, if the request were groundless/abusive enough, I suppose it is a possibility.
...I think I'm going to throw up my hand...You swallowed your hand?!?!?!? (Sorry, couldn't resist!)
Because many people are afraid of flying. By combining the fear of flying, the fear of an invisible bogey-man (terrorists) and the vivid images from 9/11, they have an "in" to begin the process of getting people used to constant surveillance and control.
I mean, c'mon -- you don't want them flying another airplane into another skyscraper do you? Think of the children!
American Airlines is already trying to reduce how much baggage people bring with them: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fi-american22-2008may22,0,301394.story
No, Guy Fawkes masks http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0434409/.
The first choice is great for simple sites, and in fact, is what I use most of the time, since I prefer to use Javascript for non-essential functions (because you can't always count on the end user having Javascript or other scripting languages enabled). Unfortunately, it makes for web projects -- especially large, complex web projects -- that are very difficult to maintain, since you are replicating code in every HTML document. Upgrades, therefore, must be replicated in every document. Given sufficient time, you *will* miss a document eventually, which can break things. That's bad juju, and if that's how you build your enormous projects, all I can say is I'm glad I don't have to maintain them.
Option two is what you are griping about in your first post above. It makes your code much more maintainable -- you edit one file, and all of your pages are updated -- at the expense of an extra server hit and extra time to download.
Option three is the best of both worlds at the cost of a little additional complexity...but nothing too bad. From what you said above..."I've spent eon developing systems and platforms and techniques to ensure that my code seperation isn't done at the physical nor even the logical file level..." it sounds like this might be the route you've taken. If so, then I retract my earlier comments. This is a good, scalable way to have the speed of in-line code along with the maintainability of external files. In essence, you are using external, modular code, but your end user never sees it; all they see is the in-line version of the document.
If it were up to me, I'd have embedded the page imagery into the same stream -- the way you can for e-mails -- in order to not only save the extra hit to the server, and all of teh stupid tracking to go with it, but also to actually cache everything on the page appropriately.
Just out of curiosity, if your web page is a CGI script, why couldn't you embed the images in your code then? I've used Perl CGI scripts to read an image file and print the raw GIF/JPG/PNG/whatever to the web browser; the associated HTML file used <img src="...blah.pl"> to call the CGI. I've never tried to create a CGI that combined the two portions into a single script, but I can't see why it wouldn't work.
Ah....got it. And I hadn't thought of your example -- ouch is right!
Give me a break. Being a little melodramatic there aren't you?
I see three options: 1) Do as I and the grandparent post suggested and encourage other people to create change in their home countries, 2) invade sovereign, foreign countries "on behalf of "our poor, oppressed brethren" or 3) become the political asylum for the world. You don't like option 1 so that's out, option 2 is working soooo well in Iraq right now, isn't it </sarcasm> (nor did it work very well in Viet Nam 40 years ago). So I guess that leaves option three, which I suspect is your preference.
Unfortunately, if you bother to pay any attention to the news, or even to comments posted above, you'll see that that isn't working so well, either. The flood of immigrants with little to no money is straining social services to the breaking point. Hospitals are closing, not because of segregation and prejudice, but because of the cold, hard fact that hospitals cannot operate (no pun intended) without income. Who pays the bills when illegal immigrants without any income need medical care? Unfortunately, the hospitals end up eating the cost, and as a result they are starting to close their doors along the borders because they cannot pay their bills when costs exceed income.
So go ahead...call me a fool and call me prejudiced. You're wrong, but if calling me names so you can avoid unpleasant facts is your preference, well, you are entitled to that opinion, I suppose. In my opinion, if you've got three options, two of them are unworkable, and the third is unpalatable, then unless you've got some deus ex machina to call upon to save the day, option one is the only choice I see that has a snowball's chance of actually solving the problem.
Ummm...the bends http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decompression_sickness, perhaps?
To the end user, you are right. However, from a web developer/programming standpoint, it actually does make sense. It is all about modular use of code -- when you write C/C++ programs, do you incorporate all of the code in-line, or do you reference standard libraries to handle some of the common functions? You use standard libraries of course, because it makes your code easier to maintain. If you need to update a function, you change it in one place (the external library) and voila! All of your code is "magically" updated (okay, technically, none of your code except that one external library was changed, but the point is that all of your code now uses that updated code, even though you only had to change one file).
Web developers are using the same technology for the same reasons in their code. If you can create libraries of Javascript code, then you don't have to change umpteen-hundred files to update a function everywhere it's used on your site. You change one external library, and all of your web pages use the new, updated code rather than the old code. It causes a performance hit for the client, but in theory at least, it leads to portable, reliable code, the benefits of which outweigh the extra half-a-second it takes to reference the external file.
Perhaps when the pastor at that church limits his topics to religion rather than race, Obama really enjoys what he is saying? I don't agree with everything the various pastors at my church say either, but I still attend the church. For example, the senior pastor at my church all but thinks Bill Gates was one of the apostles. I, on the other hand, am a card-carrying Linux zealot <grin> However, despite my pastor's obvious inability to choose a reliable software vendor, I enjoy probably 90% of the rest of what he preaches about
...the only false statement is the part where you say "Unlike previous waves of American immigrants" rather than "Exactly like all the previous waves of American immigrants".No, the parent post was correct. Two of the guys in my office are 3rd generation Americans; their great-grandparents were German immigrants. Both of them, growing up in different states, tell the same story: their grandparents learned to speak English because their great-grandparents beat the crap out of them if they heard them speaking German at home. The U.S.A. was their homeland now, and they would learn to be American. This wasn't something that resident Americans forced upon my coworkers' great-grandparents -- it was a choice they made willingly. I don't see that with illegal immigrants in the U.S.
I don't know if it's a difference in attitude or a difference in opportunity. I suspect that, being illegal immigrants and therefore fearing being discovered and deported, they might be considerably less inclined to send their kids to English-speaking schools or mingle with natural-born citizens, but I don't know that for a fact.
As for your border policy, I think that kinda sucks.
Why? What is wrong with telling someone, "look, it's your country...fight for it!" Every freedom in the world exists because someone somewhere decided it was a freedom worth fighting for.
What bizarre value system gives government to right to dictate the movements of supposedly free people?
Ummm...what planet are you from? Every country in the world restricts the liberty of free people who want to cross it. That is one of the essential functions of government -- to protect its borders. If I am a citizen of the U.S.A. (and I am), then it is only by the graces of Canada or Mexico or any other country of the world that I have permission to enter their country. Why should the U.S. border be any different? It shouldn't be unduly difficult to cross the border if, as you say, the person isn't a known criminal, but a government should by all means take reasonable steps to protect its borders.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, presuming Rizwaan's innocence is the only just thing to do. Otherwise, you allow the authorities to lock anyone up, any time they wish for any reason (or lack thereof) they want. Such unrestrained power is the antithesis of a free society.
You're probably correct; I haven't looked at Windows privilege levels in a long, long time.
Nuts...I hate it when I spout off on-line and someone points out that I was wrong ;)
You're right. Although I knew putty could forward X11, I didn't realize you could forward arbitrary ports...but there's the option. I stand corrected.
yikes! f0r3!gn l@ngu@g3 l33t 5pe@k!
Not a good enough defense: http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_txt
Besides, if the company is monitoring your e-mail, and sees you frequently e-mailing joe.schmoe@corporatecompetitor.com in a foreign language, don't you think it might make someone suspicious?
Hmmm...so when I want my boss to actually read my e-mails, all I really need to do is send them to my wife?!?!?
:)
j/k, by the way -- my current boss is actually a very cool guy
You are choosing to be a victim. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not blaming you. I was in a similar position once. However, I learned from that experience, and I will never be bullied by an employer again. Ever.
In that job, the owner was easily the most arrogant, foul-mouthed jerk I have ever met in my life, with the possible exception of his father, who showed up around the office from time to time. During my tenure there, I watched at least two other employees get fired because the owner found out they were looking for other jobs -- "if you don't want to work here, I don't want you working here," was his reasoning -- and three employees get fired for other reasons. That may not seem like much, until you realize that there were never more than 12 people working at this company at any one time.
When I finally moved on to greener pastures, I realized how much I had narrowed my own options while working there, and how much happier I was once I was employed somewhere else.
Trust me -- if you have any marketable skills at all, you can and will find another job. It might get a little tight for a while, but no job is worth the stress of such a crappy working environment.