I couldn't tell you why, but I haven't (yet) observed the described behavior on my XP system. The auto-updater ususally settles down in a matter of minutes.

No. In my case, it's trying to apply the .NET updates that completely murders my system. Apparently MS wants a gigabyte or so of free disk space on C:\ (and nowhere else) or the update will fail miserably. As it happens, my system partition has about 200MB free space, so the update disappears down a rabbit hole and never completes.

I used to think it was because it needed a bunch of temporary disk space, so last night I changed the TMP and TEMP environment variables to point to a volume with tons of free space, rebooted (because, you know, it's Windows), set just one of the several .NET updates running, then went off to see The Hobbit. When I returned some three hours later, the update had hung, the disk was idle, C:\ had zero bytes free, and the system log was corrupted.

Honestly, I don't know why anyone continues to be surprised by Redmond's rank incompetence...

Schwab

FreeNAS and ZFS are indeed awesome. But before y'all go installing FreeNAS on some spare hardware and think your problem is solved, you need to be aware that ZFS is not a panacea. You can't just drop it on Any Old Box with default settings and expect it to magically keep your data safe unto perpetuity. You need to pay attention to what you're doing.

Some highlights:

• ZFS's design requires RAM to be perfectly reliable, or at least report imperfections. Undetected bitrot in RAM can and will destroy your entire ZFS pool. Thus, a machine with ECC RAM installed is a requirement.
• As if that weren't enough, ZFS eats huge amounts of RAM. The current guideline is 1 GiB of RAM per TB of disk spindles, with 8 GiB as a practical minimum.
• ZFS assumes it has perfect knowledge of disk writes in-flight, and as such doesn't play well with RAID controllers, which can silently re-order writes. If your machine has a RAID controller, the RAID features should be turned off. Don't worry, ZFS has its own RAID features. However:
• Because drive densities are now approaching drive error rates (10**13 bits of storage, with manufacturers quoting uncorrectable errors every 10**14 bits read), ZFS RAID-Z1 is no longer considered sufficient to ensure storage integrity, and you should plan for RAID-Z2 (two parity drives).
• For the same reason as turning off RAID, a "production" FreeNAS/ZFS installation should not be run in a virtual machine. It's okay if you're just test-driving it to get a sense of what it can do, but a live system should run on actual hardware.
• Using ZFS's de-duplication feature is officially discouraged. It may seem like a great idea, but it will gobble all your RAM and return very little benefit. On average, you're better off using compression.

When ZFS dies, it dies in a big and fairly comprehensive way, and ZFS will die if you under-provide it. In any event, you should RTFM before contemplating a build, and know the trade-offs you're getting in to.

Schwab

I don't have time to correct all the errors in the parent post. So very briefly:

• The 6502 had three 8-bit registers: A, X, and Y. A was the accumulator, and received the result of all arithmetic operations. X and Y could hold temporary data, arithmetic operands, and be used as index registers for memory load/store. There was also an 8-bit stack pointer register, SP, hard-mapped to the range 0x0100 - 0x01FF.
• The 8080 had the 8-bit registers A, B, C, D, E, H, L, and a 16-bit stack pointer. In addition, the registers B & C, D & E, and H & L could be used to hold 16-bit quantities for some instructions.
• The Z80 had all the registers of the 8080, plus a shadow copy of the registers for quick use by interrupt service routines.
• The 6502's zero page (0x0000 - 0x00FF) got special treatment by the CPU, using only a single byte to address a location. As such, zero page usually got treated by software as a pile of "slow registers."
• No instruction on the 6502 executed in fewer than two clock cycles. The fastest 6502 I ever saw was 2 MHz.
• By contrast, 4 Mhz Z80 chips were widespread.
• The Z80 helped popularize dynamic RAMs by containing a very basic DRAM refresh counter. The 6502 had no such thing; DRAM refresh was usually provided by custom logic, usually part of the video controller.
• S-100 machines had huge power supplies because they had huge numbers of slots (eight or more being common), and had to have enough reserve power for all of them.
• There was nothing special about the 6502's memory access patterns, and 6502 would get starved out like any other CPU if another device held the bus. On the C-64 in particular, every eight video lines, the VIC would grab the bus for 40 uSecs to fetch the next row of character cells, holding off the 6502 the whole time. This led to all kinds of problems with timing-sensitive operations, and was directly responsible for transfers to/from the 1541 floppy drive to be glacially slow.

Schwab

Agreed. I have a Z61t that is seriously starting to show its age. But the last ThinkPad I will seriously consider buying is the T420, which is no longer made. The current xx30 models (T430, X230, etc.) gratuitously changed the keyboard.

Seriously, Lenovo? You fscked with the ThinkPad keyboard?? The keyboard by which all other laptop keyboards were judged for well over ten years? You just threw that away?

I've been idly looking at "white box" laptops as a possible upgrade avenue, but I have no idea what's going to replace my Z61t. Hell, if I could upgrade its guts to something modern, I'd do it...

You are forbidden from deploying this design. Dear $(GOD), what the hell is the matter with you? Who told you this was a good idea? Which three-pleat consultant said that this highly technical readership wanted this site to look like a fluffy blog with fscktons of whitespace? How much money did s/he take from you? Have you caught them yet?

For those of you who would rather browse Slashdot without pictures, click the icon at the top right of the story column, and switch to Classic View.

Does. Not. Work.

This is real, pathetically simple, Mr. S:

• Install Firefox.
• Install NoScript plugin. Leave at default settings.
• Surf to your site.

If your site does not operate correctly using this browser setup, --== YOUR SITE IS BROKEN!!==-- Please do not assume that the users on this of all sites are fscking morons who leave their browsers in an insecure state and happily execute just Any Damned Script. You're lucky I'm willing to whitelist fsdn.com, but just who the fsck is rpxnow.com, or ooyala.com?

Scrap the whole damned thing and start over. Better still: Don't start over. It's fine the way it is.

A press release is not a fiber rollout. I seriously doubt they have any genuine plans for an actual fiber roll-out, except possibly to the most lucrative neighborhoods.

Also, this mealy-mouthed "up to 1Gb" sets off my bullshit meter, and leads me to suspect that AT&T are going to try and do this on the cheap. OTOH, GFiber starts at 1Gb, and there's plenty of upside built in to their backbone.

What I would be very careful of is the agreements AT&T manages to strong-arm out of Austin in "exchange" for promsing to think about maybe deploying fiber someday. I could easily see AT&T wresting an agreement that grants AT&T exclusive access for 50 years to municipal poles for deploying new information services (as an "incentive," of course). Oh, and the agreement will have no or an extremely vague performance clause. Once they get that agreement, they can shut out all competitors and then do nothing, or as close to nothing as they can get away with.

This sounds curiously like the model that the 3DO console was supposed to embody 20 years ago (well, 20 years minus ten days or so). In fact, I'm having trouble identifying any significant differences from it.

The idea as presented was to create a common reference platform and get multiple HW vendors to build to the spec and compete on price, like they all were doing with VCRs at the time. The 3DO Company itself wouldn't build anything, getting its money from per-disc royalties ($3/copy). Ultimately, three manufacturers put out 3DO-compatible machines -- Matsushita (Panasonic), LG (nee Goldstar), and Sanyo.

However, the 3DO console famously released at a staggering $700 (1993) and, despite several price drops, never really lost the stigma of being, "too expensive." As a consequence, the installed base never really took off to the same degree as Nintendo and Sega (Sony's Playstation didn't exist back then). As such, 3DO started publishing its own games, and doubled the per-disc fees. Still not enough. 3DO eventually shed all of its platform development talent and become another game development house until it died around 2003.

It'll be interesting to see if Newell can succeed where Hawkins failed.

I hear that somewhere in the company there's a short video that serves as an introduction to their GPU architecture for new driver engineers. I wonder if they'll release it, too?

(*uncontrollable giggling*)

Cinelerra works well - and has for years.

You have got to be kidding.

I have tried on several different occasions to get Cinelerra to do something useful, and have failed every time. The program is incredibly unreliable, and will crash or hang at the slightest provocation.

There are two versions in circulation -- the "original" Heroine Virtual version, still occasionally updated; and the "community" version. I have no idea what the alleged differences are.

It claims to accept a wide variety of video codecs, but in my experiments only appears to reliably support DV -- an uncompressed format that will quickly fill every disk you have.

Like Blender 3D, Cinelerra blazes its own trail for the user interface. In fairness, if you have some patience, it will gradually start to make sense. It's ugly as hell, but that ugliness could be forgiven if the program worked reliably and produced decent videos.

There are enough glowing reviews of Cinelerra out there to make me wonder if my setup is the problem, but I rather doubt it, since Kdenlive has worked just fine on the same machine. My current theory is that long-time Cinelerra users have learned over the years what bits are irredeemably flaky and just automatically avoid them.

The last time I tried Cinelerra in earnest was about two years ago. After about half a dozen crashes in an hour just trying to put together a slideshow-ish thing, I gave up and started using Kdenlive fairly successfully. But I still watch for updates to the Cinelerra packages. Given the number of updates I've seen over the past two years (very few), I'm not confident the warts have been addressed.

There are some nice things that Cinelerra (allegedly) does, and its timeline has a few advantages over Kdenline. If you know of some magical incantation that will get Cinelerra working crash-free, I will honestly give it another shot. But I'm not sanguine about the results.

I can think of few topics in which linking to this sketch comedy video from last year is more appropriate.

So people fiddle with the settings and the browser "breaks?" Is there some reason it wasn't possible to create a button reading, "Restore Factory Settings," in large, friendly letters? Or was that too hard?

The simple answer is that there is a growing movement to reduce user options that can break applications.

Please try to remember whose machine you're running on. You're a guest under my roof, and guests that behave badly do not get invited back. So no, you don't get to run code in my browser until you've earned a certain level of trust, and you certainly don't get to invite in your friends' code. (I mean, just who the fsck is rpxnow.com, anyway?)

For example, there are websites that not only don't work without JavaScript, but they fail in complex ways [ ... ]

The technical term for sites that behave this way is, "Broken."

Hence, once you remove the disable JavaScript option Firefox suddenly works on a lot of websites.

Firefox already works on a lot of Web sites. Is someone shipping FF with JavaScript turned off by default? What exactly is the alleged problem here?

Today there are a lot of programmers of the opinion that if the user has JavaScript off then its their own fault and consuming the page without JavaScript is as silly as trying to consume it without HTML."

These programmers are called, "Wrong."

Back in the 1990's -- in the days of sneaker-net, recall -- macros in Microsoft Word documents, originally thought to be oh so terribly clever, proved to be a monumental nightmare for their ability to spread viruses and generally wreak havoc. It was so bad that even Microsoft was forced to admit it fscked up, and no longer executed macros in a loaded document by default, but would ask first. So you'd think the lesson on embedding executable content in what was fundamentally a document would have been learned.

Then some allegedly clever person kluges together JavaScript in an afternoon, and suddenly executable content embedded in documents -- over a genuine network, mind -- becomes a fantabulous idea again.

Uh, no, it didn't. JavaScript was a stupid idea, and should never have been allowed to happen. Unless your site is trustworthy and useful, you DO NOT GET TO RUN JAVASCRIPT.

Let's look at another example. Suppose there were a billionaire who made his money making crappy products and pushing those products on people. Suppose that man decided to then dedicate his life to wiping out a series of specific species completely from their native environments. Sounds like a supervillain, right? Well, that man is Bill Gates, and the species in question are the four species of malaria.

This is a tautology; everyone already knows Bill Gates is a super-villain.

And like most power-mad super-villains, I'm quite certain Gates hasn't bothered to consider the possible long-term downsides to putting his fumbling thumb on the scale of evolution and genociding several species of pathogen.

Dr. Jafee:

Pursuant to your comments reported on 27 June 2013 on ZDNet.com:

You're fired, for cause, effective immediately. Please collect your personal belongings and vacate W3C premises no later than 17:00 local time today.

Regards,
The Web

Experts from Google, Youtube, Facebook, and others must tell the court in two weeks if this is technically possible.

No.

This has been another edition of Simple Answers to Simple Questions: Simpleton Edition.

Schwab

It seems like, in order to get these nosy little snoops to stop snooping on you, you have to explicitly visit their site, provide them with even more info, and hope they keep their word that they won't compile data on you.

For those who are, shall we say, less sanguine about these companies being true to their word, can you suggest client-side methods users might try that either block the trackers' ability to collect data in the first place, or would give the trackers useless or conflicting data?