HN user
Yes, did not mean to imply that everyone should know everything immediately, just that "the server was too small" feels a bit misguided. It might solve the problem to make the hw a real monster, but if you hit limits at 500 then I think one should look at the other parts of the equation. Glad you fixed it in the end.
In the 90s, people thought about the c10k problem, which is how to handle 10000 connections.
In those days, this 2GB server would have been a dream to have and probably had moved the needle to 20k, 50k or whatever the limit is. You only get problems with 500 connections on a modern machine if you are really really bad at handling each request.
It worked for Stephen Hawking, and he was totally worth listening to.
C64 also has a token parsing routine in zeropage.
It would also eat up even more RAM, so your 64k computer that "normally" gave you only 39k for BASIC, with Simons' BASIC loaded you would be down to 30.7k.
If we get new code by the "shovel", then it is likely trained on old bad code, so it might just (re)introduce old types of bugs by the shovel until all new fixed code overshadows the old code by a margin, which in turn will take a long while.
If they don't get scanned, then they also don't get fixed, so if they have the same amount of holes, they will stay vulnerable for longer.
Go back to amiga and C64.
The 64Ultimate goes to 64MHz, the Ultimate64 cartridge goes to 48MHz "only".
I don't really know which "we" you refer to that did find enough v4 ips. Once you could get a /24 by just applying for it, now you have to purchase second-hand ranges from some previous spammer network taken down so the ip reputation of those is total crap, and if you don't intend to run a "whole" network, you more or less have to lease one v4 ip from an American company in order to host something yourself.
That is like saying "uranium is globally available to purchase" except you can't find it in stores anywhere and you go to jail if you seriously start asking around for where to buy it.
Well, in a strict sense, it is "you" who chooses to run a nat'ing router there, you could just have one single computer per ISP connection. Or have it run a proxy for you, or nat.
I mean, I understand that this feels normal today, that 10-20-50 devices need internet and that the way to manage that is to nat the connections, but your ISP isn't doing nat, it is you.
In some sense, "you did".
Your actions, intentional and direct or not, allowed for one more sale of Win11 and an accompanying sad Dell computer, giving them the signal (however weak from you as one single individual) that whatever crap they have been doing up to now, still is a good choice in order to sell one of those combinations.
Not on all OSes. And it's not all good to have one less socket, there are still issues with people not expecting v4 traffic on a v6-capable socket, like described here:
https://radar.offseq.com/threat/ipv4-mapped-ipv6-addresses-t...
If you want to handle two protocols, it is not unreasonable to use two sockets.
Then again, remote DMA to your memory via a port on the computer, while a great tool for debugging internal stuff, is also quite the wide door to getting hacked if someone every manages to plug in a malicious device in the same port.
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/third_party/gcc... has some looong select/case things with lots of ifs in them, but I don't think they would hit 30k.
One thing could also be that by the time you have 10GE uplinks, shaping is not as important.
When we had 512kbit links, prioritizing VOIP would be a thing, and for asymmetric links like 128/512kbit it was prudent to prioritize small packets (ssh) and tcp ACKs on the outgoing link or the downloads would suffer, but when you have 5-10-25GE, not being able to stick an ACK packet in the queue is perhaps not the main issue.
Yeah, someone wrote along the lines of "userland sets the rules, the kernel enforces them" which I thought was a neat short version.
They will just move to a low-price country in Asia with their $100 and .. or not.
Sounds like you would run into E=mc^2 for your "lets just not have mass and stuff solves itself". The words "easily" here and there have a lot of work in front of them.
For the Alcubierre drive which also speculates on acquiring negative mass, the quote: "the energy requirements still generally require a Type III civilization on the Kardashev scale." says something about how well the word "easily" fits into such a solution.
Unfortunately it talks a lot of how they shoot lasers and get the plasma to emit a lot of energy, but less on how they are to turn this into electricity to first feed the reactor itself to keep it going, and get a net gain out of it.
A bit too common on the fusion reporting articles.
I think NTFS get a bit of crap from the OS above it adding limitations. If you read up on what NTFS allows, it is far better than what Windows and the explorer allows you to do with it.
And if you time travel to the 90s, this is what amiga owners with 1M ram said about PC/Win users needing 8,16,32M of ram to paint a few icons on the monitor. But noone listened then, because ram was cheap and you should not stand in the way of "progress".
So here we are, needing gigs to paint a single pixel. Congratulations everyone that chose bloat, you won.
For some people, when you are not taking over the whole machine (as you would do in demos and games), then replacing the OS with something that gives you memory protections and virtual memory, uses all ram for caches, talks ipv6 and things like that is kind of neat. It will be a somewhat slow unix box, but it is still that same machine doing both kinds of tasks for you.
It does, you make certain claims in your text, and the parent questions how to test you alternate theory against the perceived reality to see which of those two are true.
Bad link, this was better, https://github.com/microsoft/snmalloc/blob/main/docs/securit...
If you are writing HelloWorld-webscale daemon from scratch, then counting +lines is probably "ok", but considering some existing large project like Linux (for instance), you would be well off keeping people who has managed to retain functionality while removing lines. Old projects have a tendency to get a lot of old cruft in which tends to stick (chestertons fence and all that) but someone clever enough to rewrite and remove old useless code is a net win for you, so I agree that if you fire some percentage on most-committed-lines you either had a very recent project from scratch or the measurement is stupid.
How can we make programs this slow in 2025 when people have ssd and nvme drives, people have 12-24-64 threads in the cpus, memory that is lightning fast and still we wait for crap to load? How is it that noone creates pushback on applications being this bad in the first place? We get to read articles on how someone made something 10x faster, but seldom anyone complaining about it being 1/10th of decent speed to begin with.
I think it was MS Access 2.0 that had some text on the back about being up to 100x faster than the previous versions, and to me that reads as "old was crap as hell", but some marketing person thought that was a super quote to put on the packaging. Perhaps it works, perhaps not.
And another example, AI upscaling the C64 version Dragons Lair will not turn it into the amiga version, or the laserdisc version. ;)
I think I would not. When you move from 160x200 with few colors to 4k with 16M colors it places new demands on the graphics which I don't think this solution would give you. It could, but would probably require tons of people to make it happen.
Lets take the pilot walking at the start of Raid over Moscow, it was super well animated and designed for the sprite limitations a C64 has, but I am not so sure it would be upscaled to represent a walking pilot, since some of the oddly placed pixels might grow into something vastly different.
Currently with an SSD, when there’s a power cut, there’s about a 20% chance my router will require me to walk downstairs and plug in a keyboard, type “fsck” manually and press y at all the prompts.
I’d settle for a default “boot anyway, press y for all fsck questions” mode on boot. I just don’t want to have to physically touch the thing.
Look up where fsck is run in /etc/rc and add the -y there.