| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Comments:
<0> don't have enough raw power to run windows in vmware and get any acceptable performance out of it
<1> the main thing for me is system memory
<1> vmware eats a lot
<2> vmware on what hardware?
<1> so the system ends up swapping to ****.
<0> just wish adoption of linux was more global - so I could dispense with windows
<1> my box here at work is an IBM thinkcentre M85, 2GB RAM, 3GHz pentium 4
<1> Jostein: i'm also loather[-work].
<0> but some firms are proud of getting ever further into bed with ms
<2> Jostein im new today, last time i was undernet was when i was a wee whippersnapper
<0> usually up to the point where ms launches a competing product based on their technology, and they end up broke
<3> right
<0> metastorm are my current source of annoyment
<0> although ambercat could do with being placed against a wall and shot too
<1> DaveHowe: yup. and there are some things where microsoft is useful. I hate admitting it, but exchange does a good job at what it does as far as integrating email and calendaring (which IMO should be separate processes)
<4> bhab: IBM branded, or some of this new Lenovo crap?
<1> Tamahome: lenovo garbage
<4> I hear they've been substituting a lot of plastic
<0> bhab: groupwise has had that since before exchange existed (back when it was called perfectoffice)
<4> GROUP WISE IS ****ING ****
<2> hahaha
<0> Tamahome: its not terrible. well,not compared ot lotus anyhow :)
<4> yes, Domino ****s too
<1> Tamahome: yup. i used to work for IBM. Lenovo has been cutting a lot of corners in order to make a profit.
<0> groupwise's biggest problem is it hasn't developed any - its still minor incremental stuff since novell bought it, and exchange has more than caught up now
<1> Ever since they took over IBM's PC division 3 years ago, this is the only year they've broke even. That's solely due to a decrease in quality while keeping the same prices.
<4> surely they must have realized that all of IBM's real coin is in services
<1> Tamahome: They have, which is why most of IBM is switching to a service-oriented architecture. Their hardware sales are in the toilet and they know it.
<1> (same with their software)./
<2> aix/pseries and zseries still going strong
<1> but, a good deal of IBM software ****s anyways ... don't want to go down that digression though ):
<5> bhab: It's more to the acquisition of the division that lead to not turning a profit than cutting corners
<1> the pseries/zseries hardware is awesome. aix, though, ****s raw eggs through tiny straws.
<4> bhab: if you think IBM software ****s, I'd be curious as to what you whink of Computer ***ociates
<2> have to admit pseries is pretty sophisticated
<4> think, even
<2> aix isnt all that bad
<1> reality: yes, but when you take into account that IBM's PC division hadn't turned a profit in 5 years, they knew what they were getting into when they bought it.
<3> Tamahome: isnt CA the representatives of whoever couldnt get/keep a real developer job? :P
<4> !!! this must be a momentous occasion, Julie didn't slam the door
<4> Jostein: **** if I know
<1> I don't even have an opinion on CA. I don't deal with their crap enough to make an informed opinion.
<4> ah.
<5> bhab: Well, they've taken a struggling company and turned a profit for the past 2 years...I'd say they are doing things quite right
<1> (i hear it's pretty terrible, though).
<3> Tamahome: Ive just heard that they have a good -enough- reputation to charge whatever the **** they want, and after that, even if their solution ****s, companies feel they have invested so much they can't abondon the CA solution
<1> reality: they broke even for the first time this year.
<3> Tamahome: Only what I've heard though. No personal experience.
<1> reality: and yes, they did what they had to do to turn a profit.
<5> bhab: Actually, in 2005, they turned a profit
<6> Sean!
<1> which, in the business world, is the right thing. However, they took a product that used to be the best out, and now made it about the same quality as everything else.
<6> JJ, reality
<1> reality: i keep forgetting it's 2006 :\
<0> CA **** so hard they alter weather patterns
<6> whoa, whacked out dream haveth the bear
<3> Nanuq: ey nook. just checking in before I check out. gotta get early to work tomorrow
<1> anyhow, for the users that are used to the quality products they were getting before, the loss of product quality isn't a good thing.
<6> Jostein: technically it's closer to 'nuhk'
<7> I played with CA Unicenter on Linux *once*. I decided that my 8 year old could draw better icons with a crayon than what they had in their ****ty GUI.
<6> Jostein: the 'q' is very glutteral, and almost cut off
<5> I wouldn't call the IBM thinkpads that high quality for what they were
<4> Ka-bar: LOL
<5> Or any of the IBM line
<4> I hated Stinkpads even when IBM made them
<5> IBM made their name off of support
<5> And "solutions"
<4> 20-year support contract for your mainframe? SURE, WE CAN DO THAT
<1> they were always bullet-proof. I had users drop them, wreck their cars with them open on the seats, try to flush them down the toilet... most times they worked fine afterwards.
<6> Ka-bar: based on google images, yeah
<5> bhab: That's what you get when you take basically a desktop and cram it into a briefcase
<5> bhab: Still, no more bullet proof than say a company like DEC's products
<5> Some of which were, in fact, bullet proof
<8> Feck, I should've made this cluster disk larger than the 4GB I gave it
<4> heh, DigiHPaq
<4> what's a "cluster disk"?
<8> Tamahome: Oracle's ocfs2 stuff
<1> DEC stuff was great, too.
<8> Tamahome: Two nodes accessing the same filesystem.
<1> Compaq bought them and took only the interesting parts of DEC
<9> How do reinstall the default audio driver on ubuntu? :o
<1> (like Alpha, and some of the other clever technology)
<6> OSF/1 rocketh
<5> thedruid: There is no "default" per say
<5> thedruid: You install the one that is pertanent to your card
<8> bhab: That was HP, not Compaq
<8> bhab: Compaq sold quite a few AlphaServers
<9> reality: no i didn't? Plug and play?
<5> PolarWolf: I think DEC was originally bought by compaq
<8> reality: Yeah
<4> yes, it was
<8> But HP was the one who killed the Alpha
<5> thedruid: Speak English fool
<4> and then HP and Compaq had a merger
<7> When Compaq bought Digital, I thought they should change the name to DogQrap
<6> well, the name, and the path. later Tru64
<8> Oh, wait, I read it wrong :)
<0> |C|O|M|P|A|Q| :)
<1> PolarWolf: yeah, compaq took the interesting things out of DEC and junked the rest
<5> thedruid: As I said, there is no default driver.
<8> bhab: Yeah, I get it now
<5> thedruid: There is the correct driver for your card...that's it
<8> bhab: OTOH, besides Alpha and OpenVMS, DEC didn't have much of interest
<1> PolarWolf: good point.
<4> erm, DEC had StrongARM, no?
<1> I thought AMD developed ARM.
<4> I dunno, my memory isn't what it was
<5> DEC developed StrongARM with...ARM
<9> reality: well i downloaded realtek driver and in the install file it will delete everything that is under /lib/modules/$KERNEL_VER/kernel/sound.
<3> I may have the memory for it, but I dont care :P
<4> Jostein: go away :P
<3> I have other stuff to memorize
<3> heh
<9> but the thing is that the realtek driver crashed becouse i missed some lib and now it starts to whine that i don't have any drivers to my soundcard
<10> ,eh.. maybe I should actually -connect- code I intend to test..
<4> o/~ yawara ka na / itai mou nakushiitemo~~
<5> thedruid: And why did you do something so stupid?
<3> Tamahome: nevar. I need all the internets I can have! >:)
<4> Jostein: feh :P
<7> No, ARM developed ARM.
<9> reality: As you said erlier i was trying to install some real audio drivers and not useing the "default" drivers
<7> DEC did do the StrongARM and then Intel ****ed up the whole architecture with X-scale
<5> thedruid: The driver that's installed at installation IS the realtek driver
<5> thedruid: It's the alsa compatible realtek driver
<4> is XScale defunct now, or are they still making them?
<9> reality: how can i reinstall those drivers on a simpel way?
<1> hm, must be another architecture I'm thinking about that AMD developed.
<5> thedruid: figure out the name of the driver and modprobe it
<4> HyperTransport
<7> If it is defunct, it's pretty recent because the Zaurus used an X-scale chip, I think.
<5> A bunch of PDAs use X-scale
<4> which is largely based on the Alpha's bus architecture
<1> yeah, hypertransport is a bus architecture though. they had another line of chips entirely unrelated to x86. I can't remember what they are now, though.
<7> Yeah, it's *almost* an ARM core with some Alpha/StrongARM stuff and some Intel braindamage thrown in to the instruction set. X-scale and ARM are *not* binary compatible, but could have been.
<1> and, rumor has it that original athlons used almost verbatim the Alpha bus protocol.
<7> I keep hearing that rumour but have never been able to corroborate it.
<4> Intaniums and PA_RISC are supposed to be binary compatible, so that HP could deploy HP/SUX without too many changes
<1> same here.
<11> could'a,shoud'a,would'a and I'm out of time?
<7> I was at DEC when they sued Intel for infringing on some Alpha patents.
<1> hp/sux is an appropriate name.
<2> ouch
<7> I though Itanium was a 64-bit x86...
<4> actually I shouldn't rag on HP/SUX...
<8> Ka-bar: Naw, different architecture
<4> Ka-bar: **** no.
<8> ia64
Return to
#linux
or
Go to some related
logs:
#linux
twilitt
#java
cuales son los monitores ctr
#mirc
#c++
#c
how to start synapsis console
haygana
12WHAT IS THE SMALLEST MAMMAL?
|
|