Maybe but right now, I just paid almost a $200 premium for 'smart' Samsung TV. Everyone in my family, hates the UI and complained about missing channels compared to our Roku and Chromecast. $35 later and everyone is happy again.
It's not working for me Firefox. Strange since the flow experiment that it was based off of works fine. Chrome runs it perfectly. I don't know if it's lack of market share or Mozilla being too stretched thin chasing Mobile OS / IoT, but I'm been having more and more issues with FF lately.
When they discontinued VMware Server 2, I migrated over a dozen machines over to VirtualBox on CentOS. We have had no issues with performance or stability with any of our machines. VirtualBox 5.0 brought feature parity to VMware Server for our needs. The only thing we have found lacking are more remote management features.
Everyone puts a spin on things but your twisting the facts around just as badly. For example you claimed they "saved $19 mil" when in reality, the switch had the "potential to save" based on estimated increases in water cost over the next 8 years. Also that's not what the vote was for. Basically everything you said has some truth to it with details changed/omitted to make the governor look better/dems look worse.
According to the article the ONLY way to expand ZFS after the fact is to "replace every hard drive in the VDEV, one by one, with a higher capacity hard drive." If you have some better work-around that gives you both, you need to either explain it or link to an article that does.
My thinking was that expanding your underlying md RAID would be the same as replacing the initial disk ZFS sees with a bigger one, thus enabling easier expansion at the md level and presenting a "bigger disk" to the zfs vdev.
I haven't seen it done, it's just a theory, hence why I asked. I'm just not sure if zfs needs to see actual disks, or if it can work on top of any block device, like an md RAID.
I'm about to either buy a home NAS or build my own with an atom Mini ITX. I plan to expand my array in the future. So is there any configuration that gives me the best of both worlds, ie the expandability of traditional RAID with checksums to prevent replicated errors?
BTRFS allows you to add, remove drives, and change RAID levels on a mounted filesystem, while able to use differently sized drives efficiently. That alone wins me over. Some people still say BTRFS isn't ready for production, but I've had fewer problems with it than with ZFS (YMMV). Still, I don't care much as I have multiple backups.
I decided to try BTRFS on my NAS because it didn't require rebuilding a kernel. The ability to add disks to an array and have it rebalance made it very appealing.
Unfortunately, the three-drive filesystem lasted two weeks before it became unmountable. The only thing that let me mount it was finally running btrfsck. I was left with 57 unrecoverable errors, and lots of lost data.
I would not recommend running BTRFS in RAID5 or RAID6 just yet. Stick with mirroring, if you want to use it, and rebalance to RAID5/6 later on when it's more stable.
e: To anyone not up on btrfs, its features are closely tied to the kernel version it's used with. For example, raid56 scrub and device replace, and recovery and rebuild code were not available prior to kernel 3.19.
I also believe the only way to use 5/6 modes before they were stable was to explicitly compile with them enabled. It wasn't just something you could accidentally do.
It was 4.2.5-1-ARCH, and I didn't file a bug report, no.
I didn't have much data to submit. No kernel panics, no useful error messages, nothing beyond it saying it wouldn't mount. One could read the tea leaves from the filesystem as it sat, but such data spelunking could take a while on an 8TB partition, and I wanted to get the disks back into use.
I didn't notice the corruption until after I had unmounted it, so scrubbing it wasn't an option.
No, except possibly paid Solaris from Oracle (which has a newer version of ZFS), but that would probably cost a lot more than buying more disks.
What I do is have my ZFS in two "layers" (each of them 4 disks in raidz2, i.e. resilient against any two failures), and replace a whole layer at a time. So I started with 4x500GB drives for 1TB of capacity. Then I added 4x1TB drives, total capacity 3TB. Then I replaced the 500GB drives with 2TB drives, total capacity 6TB (and throwing away the 500GB disks, so "losing" 1TB). I'm shortly going to replace the 1TB drives with 4TB drives in the same way.
Look at the Netgear 516. It's got BTRFS and is plug and play. It has a small plugin library, super quiet, except for the first 20 seconds it starts up. Holds 6 disks. And it has intel server processor and more reliable sever ram. Unlike say qnap and synology which have probably more features / plugins it has less but I was sold on the file system and overall it does what I need. Support updates have been fast and perfect from what I've seen too.
If you go your own route, look at this server case silverstone cs-ds380b. I think paired with a mini-itx server board with the most sata ports, maybe get some ECC ram, server rated intel processor. I wish I knew the best software route to go. I've considered Amahi in the past and of course FreeNAS. I supect even a couple commercial packages could be sweet to have.
After all, that's kind of the point of Lua. Write all of the performance-critical / low-level stuff in C or C++, expose it to Lua, then orchestrate it from a Lua script. Lua's C API is very pleasant to use.
As a standalone scripting language, I found it rather awkward to use when compared to, say, Python or Perl. It was only when using it as an embedded scripting language (not on a game, though) that I could really see it shine.
When using LÖVE you have to write a lot of stuff in pure Lua because LÖVE is a framework and not an engine. So, for instance, if you wanna do AI you have to write everything about it yourself (without calling any of LÖVE's functions because generally they won't help you with this task), and most people will do it in Lua only.
The host does a terrible job. He's not printing the money. Woz is buying uncut sheets of legit $2 from the Mint and then having them perforated and bound. They are legal tender because they were printed by the Government.
Is it? Because what i understood from the video was that he buys the paper from the Mint and prints $2 on them. I thought it made sense because Woz said "I am not sure if its the right president on the note". Woz even talked about high quality printers which he uses.
Nothing Woz says in the interview is false, but he's being very careful in what he says.
He buys uncut sheets from the treasury, pays a printer to make them into pads and so on, and then sells them to random people at a loss just for the fun of playing with their minds :-)
"By law it's legal tender" - true because they're genuine
"I get a printer [...] to make these pads" - they make them from genuine bills
"I'm not sure if it's the right President" - white lie, it is
"The serial numbers look suspicious" - yeah because they're sequential
The warn the residents after a bird dies, while on the other side of the pond, we're dumping the entire 37 million gallons of their reservoir into the sewer after a boy pees in it.
Why can't we have a sane government that acts with logic and science? You know like one that immediately closed factories that were linked to salmonella outbreaks. Instead of punting for TEN YEARS while thousands of Americans get sick.
It's not in alpha like ReactOS. In my experience, most simple apps work well and many older games run perfectly. If there's something you want to run, check the app DB. It's complete and well maintained.