So what is the thought on Btrfs? Is Oracle not contributing back with that project?

I am no Oracle fan but I'm already using Btrfs and am pleased to finally have something in the same vein as ZFS for Linux.

This 510 series is not considered a successor to the X-25. If you're wanting a true improvement, hold out for the upcoming 320 series around April.

I thouht 510 is Intel's temporary solution for high-end, needed because the delays with newer X-25 (G3); and the true X-25 successor will be the new X-25 whenever that comes out. Now where will the new X-25 fit in this picture?

I refer to them as "convenience frameworks" as they usually provide what I need most often such as very basic routing, auth(thentication/orization),sessions, templates and maybe an ORM but also easily allow me to plug in something else. I tend to stay away from the "heavy" frameworks such as Rails and Catalyst and Django. Those might be called "full stack" frameworks.

I consider something like Perl's Dancer and Python's Flask(based out of Werkzeug) as very similar frameworks to Sinatra.

I'm rather interested here... once you have routing, auth, sessions, templates and an orm... how is that not heavy? we are talking terminology here so i'm really interested in when you consider the line for 'heavy' gets crossed?

for me what you describe above would be heavy in my mind.

as i'm trying to come up w/ terminology that will convey my general idea to the widest range of people possible and yours is so far the farthest afield from what i was thinking of, you have really peeked my interest.

Because while all those "conveniences" are available you are not at the mercy of more opinionated frameworks like Rails. You are free to use them or add your own or use none.

I don't have time to do simple request/response building although if I did Python's Paste/Webob would be my choice so I choose frameworks that I can add in the usual "extra" requirements that I do need.

This blog post is a couple of years old but sheds some light on the abundance of frameworks in the Python world at least. The closing section sums up the difference between full stack frameworks and lighter frameworks.

http://bitworking.org/news/Why_so_many_Python_web_frameworks

Another term I've seen around is "utility library" instead of framework. Perhaps that is better?

Flask (which calls itself a microframework) is built on top of Werkzeug (which calls itself a WSGI utility library).

When I hear utility library, I think more low level than microframework.

Ah yes, that makes perfect sense- when I read and, I read it as all inclusive rather than pick and choose.

Cloud Linux is marketed towards shared hosting providers, often the kind that might have 300-2000 websites on a single server. The isolation prevents rogue PHP scripts from taking down the entire server normally seen with non-updated/misconfigured WordPress or common forum software.

Just an FYI, Linode used to have UML "back in the day."

There was an interesting quote about a year ago from the CEO of Linode regarding uncertainty of staying with Xen and instead moving on to KVM.

http://searchservervirtualization.techtarget.com/news/151637...

That's not an uncommon experience: http://blog.bytemark.co.uk//2011/02/28/why-we-skipped-xen

Can you provide me a single instance of democracy that is independent of PSYOP?

Human life is about effecting change from the first instance of cognition.

Perhaps you can share what it is that bothers you enough to prompt your question to me?

*Note: Ironic that with my username, I forgot my password.

"Perhaps you can share what it is that bothers you enough to prompt your question to me?"

I was noting the incongruity between: 1 - the weight of the article (whether you agree or disagree) and 2 - your criticism of the article (nitpicking capitalization). Hence my comment.

Nitpicking I think is perceived by the relevant knowledge/experience of the subject matter.

Mac to MAC. RAMs to RAM. Very different things.

There is no such thing as Psy-Ops/PSYOPS/PSYOPs at least according to the US Department of Defense. There is only the singular PSYOP. To have interviewed a commissioned officer and present a report whose whole article is on a single subject, I am disappointed that the magazine could not throughly investigate what it is they were reporting on. An article that implicates others (whether they are a general officer or not) in some light that is less becoming of their expected role bears extra responsibility to be a credible source.