Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... Last
↑↑↑ Old messages ↑↑↑            ↓↓↓ New messages ↓↓↓
[#] Sat Jul 06 2013 15:52:45 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Someone suggested recently that the difference between a server farm and a cloud is like the difference between pets and livestock: pets are named, and when they get sick you nurse them back to health; livestock are numbered, and when they get sick you shoot them.

Seems like a worldview peddled by the big retail cloud vendors. Personally I don't mind having a broken virtualization server repaired. If implemented correctly, even the smallest cluster of virtualization servers is useful for divorcing the compute workload from the hardware it runs on. Hardware upgrades need not force reinstallation of operating systems and guest applications.

Furthermore, virtualization is the ultimate "sandbox" model. Who would dare run an unstable application like Exchange on the same server as any other workload? With virtualization it's safely sandboxed away in its own guest operating system.

[#] Sun Jul 07 2013 12:46:21 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


That's the "private cloud" model.

In a sufficiently large datacenter, some piece of hardware, somewhere, is going to fail more often than you like, as a matter of statistics. The cloud model helps with this by automating the provisioning and deployment of the replacement hardware.

See the Simian Army: http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2499552

Netflix invented the Chaos Monkey (and, soon, the Chaos Gorilla) to improve resilience to failure by deliberately *causing* failure. In production.

[#] Sun Jul 07 2013 15:22:24 EDT from zooer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Didn't they used to try to get vacuum tubes to fail in the early days of computing?

[#] Sun Jul 07 2013 15:36:39 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Heh, *that* shouldn't have been hard. I love vacuum tubes, but they did fail on their own after a while.

[#] Mon Jul 08 2013 12:41:44 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


If vacuum tubes are great, why did they suck so hard? ;-P

[#] Tue Jul 09 2013 00:46:35 EDT from vince-q @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Which, of course, forces me to remember the question I used to love asking my "kids" back at the high school....

What do the products of Microsoft and Hoover have in common?
THEY BOTH SUCK....

[#] Tue Jul 09 2013 12:01:23 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Well yes, it's well known that the day Microsoft makes a product that doesn't suck would be the day they begin manufacturing vacuum cleaners.

Vacuum *tubes* on the other hand ... there's still nothing quite like the warm sound of a guitar amplifier with tubes in it.

[#] Tue Jul 16 2013 12:36:28 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Grumble mumble grumble ...

Today I would like to assault the following people with a box of uncooked macaroni:

* Anyone who calls a DNS A record a "subdomain"

* Anyone who refers to a /24 IPv4 block as a "Class C" (especially those who request /24 blocks of public IPv4 addresses for administrative convenience, even though they only need six addresses)

* Anyone who calls a fibre channel attached storage array "a SAN"


The above misnomers are as bad as calling a mini tower chassis "a hard drive" or referring to a 3.5" floppy as a "hard disk"

[#] Tue Jul 16 2013 14:25:41 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Heh... 3.5" floppies might be referred to as a 'difficult disk' rather than a 'hard disk'. But the 8" floppies earn that title moreso.

[#] Tue Jul 16 2013 16:11:35 EDT from zooer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

IGnat: I heard you're ideas and their definately good.

[#] Fri Jul 19 2013 12:39:37 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I prefer to think of Zimbra as an albatross around the neck of whatever parent company happens to own it at any given time.

And quite frankly, people who push "open core" software deserve to fail.
Zimbra helped themselves to the work of hundreds of other developers who built the open source underpinnings of their product: Cyrus IMAP, MySQL, Postfix, OpenLDAP, etc. etc. etc. Then they release their software as a *barely* functional open source tier, but if you want it to do anything useful you have to pay for the expensive version.

Let's face it: anyone stupid enough to overpay for email and groupware is going to buy Exchange. Open source fans are going to want *true* open source.
I happen to prefer Citadel. And everyone else is simply dumping their email into Teh Cloud (tm).

"Open core" neatly combines the worst of both open source and proprietary software. It is my sincere hope that Zimbra continues to languish, eventually becoming unfunded and abandoned like Hula/Bongo.

[#] Fri Jul 19 2013 16:34:10 EDT from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

oh, bongo is completely gone by now? nice.

nice also how its associated with ximian.

I realy like how attachmate gave them the boot.



[#] Fri Jul 19 2013 18:10:11 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

For years now, Bongo has had little fits and spurts of development, but nothing significant. It seems that Alex Hudson has finally decided the project is dead because the web site stopped functioning earlier this year, and it doesn't look like there's anyone hanging out in #bongo anymore. A few people drop by to say hi to each other but they don't talk about Bongo.

Hopefully they've realized that there's really no point :)

[#] Sat Jul 20 2013 14:39:20 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

oh, bongo is completely gone by now? nice.

Yep. Bedtime for bongo.

[#] Sun Aug 04 2013 12:48:35 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


So, lately, I've been getting into video editing a little, using something called Lightworks.

I was having a difficult time figuring out why my dissolves looked so shitty, until I learned that you can't use all of your source video if you want the dissolves to work. You have to set an out-point to about a second or so earlier, and the in-point similarly (for the other video to which you are dissolving) so the effect has something with which to work.

Learning that, I see that it does a fantastic job of creating dissolves.

This means I can make a proper intro and outro for these videos I'm trying to make (Let's Play stuff).

[#] Mon Aug 05 2013 00:33:58 EDT from ax25 @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Sounds like fun Fleeb. Keep me posted as I don't even have time for readme's these days.

[#] Mon Aug 05 2013 14:59:59 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Stereotype schmereotype, forget the laptop, I can't distract my wife from the television a lot of the time.

[#] Mon Aug 05 2013 16:03:48 EDT from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

harhar, yes definitely.



Go to page: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... Last