He thinks he's a lot of things. In reality, he's just a living, breathing example of Dunning-Kruger in action.
r00ty
joined 2 years ago
Yeah, basically as soon as money changes hands, a recommendation becomes an ad.
Too late, I voted against him. If only I saw this before I left!
Humans? I knew it! Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them!
Killing for your government: Government will track you down, kick your door in and throw you in prison for refusing to.
Fixed thar for you :P
Pretty sure mine was 16399753. But, not logged in for probably 15 or more years, so could be wrong.
No idea whatsoever about the password :P
I think people's experience with PLE will always be subjective. In the old flat we were in, where I needed it. It would drop connection all the time, it was unusable.
But I've had them run totally fine in other places. Noisy power supplies that aren't even in your place can cause problems. Any kind of impulse noise (bad contacts on an old style thermostat for example) and all kinds of other things can and will interfere with it.
Wifi is always a compromise too. But, I guess if wiring direct is not an option, the OP needs to choose their compromise.
Aha, glad to hear it.
OK, one possibility I can think of. At some point, files may have been created where there is currently a mount point which is hiding folders that are still there, on the root partition.
You can remount just the root partition elsewhere by doing something like
mkdir /mnt/rootonly
mount -o bind / /mnt/rootonly
Then use du or similar to see if the numbers more closely resemble the values seen in df. I'm not sure if that graphical tool you used that views the filesystem can see those files hidden this way. So, it's probably worth checking just to rule it out.
Anyway, if you see bigger numbers in /mnt/rootonly, then check the mount points (like /mnt/rootonly/home and /mnt/rootonly/boot/efi). They should be empty, if not those are likely files/folders that are being hidden by the mounts.
When finished you can unmount the bound folder with
umount /mnt/rootonly
Just an idea that might be worth checking.
I think in 99% of use cases, upgrading isn't a problem. Most of the time new SQL versions are backward compatible. I've never personally had a problem upgrading a database for a product that expects an older version.
They do have compatibility modes too, but those only go back so far too.
But, I think companies with their production databases for perhaps older complex systems are likely very weary of upgrading their working database. This is most likely where this situation comes from. Imagine being the person responsible for IT, that upgraded the DB server and database to the latest version. Everything seemed to be working fine. Then accounts run their year-end process, it falls over and now there are months of data in the newer version that won't work properly. It'd be an absolute pain to get things working again.
Much safer to leave that SQL 2005 server doing what it does best. :P
I think most people that were gaming held onto their CRTs as long as possible. The main reason being, the first generation of LCD panels took the analogue RGB input, and had to present that onto the digital panel. They were generally ONLY 60hz, and you often had to reset their settings when you changed resolution. Even then, the picture was generally worse than a comparable, good quality CRT.
People upgraded mainly because of the reduced space usage and that they looked aesthetically better. Where I worked, we only had an LCD panel on the reception desk, for example. Everyone else kept using CRTs for some years.
CRTs on the other hand often had much better refresh rates available, especially at lower resolutions. This is why it was very common for competitive FPS players to use resolutions like 800x600 when their monitor supported up to 1280x960 or similar. The 800x600 resolution would often allow 120 or 150hz refresh.
When LCD screens with a fully digital interface became common, even though they were pretty much all 60hz locked, they started to offer higher resolutions and in general comparable or better picture quality in a smaller form factor. So people moved over to the LCD screens.
Fast-forward to today, and now we have LCD (LED/OLED/Whatever) screens that are capable of 120/144/240/360/Whatever refresh rates. And all the age-old discussions about our eyes/brain not being able to use more than x refresh rate have resurfaced.
It's all just a little bit of history repeating.
Apparently at work "some servers are experiencing problems". Sadly, none of the ones I need to use :(