search for: downsides

...my domain controllers and using the AD-integrated NIS server would work well. I wouldn't need to use winbind, and I would have not only consistent but predictable ID mapping, ie I can ensure that INTERNAL\jhatfield maps to UID 115, which is what it is on the existing NIS server. Are there any downsides to doing this - it seems much simpler than deploying winbind that I feel there must be a catch!

I understand the the way to stop the constant polling of my CD-ROM drive (only used every few years to install the OS) is to disable the hal service. Is there any downside to disabling hal other that the lack of auto-insert notification? Thanks.

...wnside. I've demonstrated a situation people can face right now where it can make a website unusable. Don't handwave away the cost of forcing HTTPS, it adds overhead for all involved parties. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for properly supporting HTTPS everywhere, but it is not without downsides. Joerg

As noted in the other thread, making a new repository under the same user, which therefore must be unrelated to the original, seems to have downsides as far as commit duplication on github. Probably the downsides of that are non-critical (and less bad than a bunch of email spam), but it's still unfortunate. It still very much feels to me that the best answer should be to do none of the above, and rather to explicitly contribute the desired...

...e of internal snapshots. There are not even any QMP monitor commands to use them - you are forced to use the legacy HMP interface to QEMU for mgmt. All of the workaround providing interesting block storage mgmt is focused on external snapshots (aka the backing_file option). There are some technical downsides to internal snapshots IIUC, such as inability to free the space used by the internal snapshot when it is deleted, loading/saving snapshots blocks execution of the guest OS, and probably more I've forgotten about. The only nice thing about internal snapshots is simplicity of mgmt, and that is a...

The downsides of an additional project are small. I can see: 1) It's not possible to do pull requests from there, because GitHub won't treat it as a fork. 2) It's still visible to people ( http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2020-June/142559.html) In the end I don't have a strong opinion on...

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith < dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > Zooming into the command-line option bike-shed: > > > On 2016-May-24, at 15:41, Vedant Kumar via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > At its core I don't think -fprofile-instr-generate *implies* FE-based > instrumentation. So, I'd like

For those not following along, startingin r301379, Simplify* in InstructionSimplify now can just take a query struct instead of 8000 optional arguments. Nothing is really new since it used the same thing under the covers. I'm slowly converting the old uses away (deletion of the old APIs is a different question). Staring at most of them, i could just directly convert them using braced list

What is the downside of sticking with 5.2

I forgot to pay this month's phone bill, and never noticed until family (the in-laws, who are too cheap to try the cell phone if landline fails, because it is 'more expensive') told me they were unable to reach us... As it turns out, the phone company disconnected us, but because Asterisk routes all outgoing calls in the Netherlands over VoipBuster, I never noticed anything! ;-) If

Hi, Setting up a samba4 domain member against a samba4 ad server using Ubuntu 12.04 and sernet packages. AD server is OK. On this domain member, if I use sssd to map windows users to unix users, will I miss something if I disable winbindd entirely? With sssd I already have domain users on linux, getent works, and all seems fine. Asking for some known gotcha? Regards. -- *Marcio Merlone*

On Mon, 22 Dec, at 04:51:19PM, Gene Cumm wrote: > > Commit 6e832106 which originally created the shell scripts was the > first instance of this silencing. > > Aside from adding a few hundred lines of build output (which could be > beneficial), is there any reason not to remove the null redirects? There's no downside that I can see. Go for it. -- Matt Fleming, Intel Open

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 04:07:48PM -0500, James Y Knight via llvm-dev wrote: > But beyond that: there's no downside. Why should *anyone* continue to serve > http traffic? It's just all around better and safer to require https, for > everything, always. I take you haven't tried to use WiFi at UK airports or coaches recently? There are a lot of other places with completely

...plus kernel (kernel-plus) instead. > jfs is enabled in this kernel. > > Akemi > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos Would I simply install it by using yum? Are there any downsides to installing this kernel vs. relying on the standard kernel?

Has anyone posted an up to date hardware review lately? It seems clear that a RAID6 server with 300GB CHEETAH 15K.5 SAS drives will trump a P3 with a 30GB IDE drive, however, not everyone will spend the money required for the high end unit, I'm looking to build a new server & trying to make best use of funds (aren't we all). TIA

Hello, this mail is to raise awareness of https://reviews.llvm.org/D81728, which is substantial enough of a conceptual change that it should probably at least be mentioned in llvm-dev. InstCombine has dealt with target-specific intrinsics for a long time, since its fix-point iteration is arguably the right place to do so. A downside is that there's a pull to add an increasing amount of code

I have two assignment problems... I have written this small code for regression with two regressors . n <- 50 x1 <- runif(n,1,10) x2 <- x1 + rnorm(n,0,0.5) plot(x1,x2) # x1 and x2 strongly correlated cor(x1,x2) y <- 3 + 0.5*x1 + 1.1*x2 + rnorm(n,0,2) intact.lm <- lm(y ~ x1 + x2) summary(intact.lm) anova(intact.lm) the questions are 1.The function summary() is convenient since

I have two assignment problems... I have written this small code for regression with two regressors . n <- 50 x1 <- runif(n,1,10) x2 <- x1 + rnorm(n,0,0.5) plot(x1,x2) # x1 and x2 strongly correlated cor(x1,x2) y <- 3 + 0.5*x1 + 1.1*x2 + rnorm(n,0,2) intact.lm <- lm(y ~ x1 + x2) summary(intact.lm) anova(intact.lm) the questions are 1.The function summary() is convenient since

> On Mon, 22 Dec, at 04:51:19PM, Gene Cumm wrote: > > > > Commit 6e832106 which originally created the shell scripts was the > > first instance of this silencing. > > > > Aside from adding a few hundred lines of build output (which could be > > beneficial), is there any reason not to remove the null redirects? > > There's no downside that I can

On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 04:21:22PM -0700, Reid Spencer wrote: > Downside: > * Makes LLVM dependent on a third party library > * Makes LLVM platform support dependent on > * Error handling in APR is somewhat strange and it could be quite > difficult for us to continue to meet the "throw std::string" > approach we have today. I vote