Slashdot Mirror

Oops, sorry, wrong story

will it copy a 17MB file in under 20 minutes?

Did you seriously hold onto that blog entry for SEVEN YEARS to post it?

will it copy a 17MB file in under 20 minutes?

...when the Google Browser is on the way! ;-)

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Google OS fanatics? . . .

My Google PC sucks

• What Wold Microsoft Do (Editor's Blog)
• A Google OS by 2010 (Article)
• GooOS (Blog)
• The new 'G' o/s (Article)

This is a piece of speculation that's inside a piece of gossip that's inside a bloody "Predictions for 2006" article.

Which isn't to say that it can't be true. But it feels like someone heard the phrase "Google OS" and made up a rumor without knowing what the phrase meant.

Try something like this next time:

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you telegraph fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a telegraph . . .etc.

It's sort of like mad libs. Go here, change words where appropriate, and voila! instant troll!

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you GUI fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of 3 Ghz white box loaded with KDE for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one directory on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running tsch, which by all standards should be a lot slower than KDE, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

In addition, during this file transfer, Firefox will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even Pico is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Linux distros, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a GUI that has run faster than its shell counterpart, despite the vast number of volunteers working on GUI/Linux. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs a shell faster than this 3 Ghz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the GUI distros are superior interfaces.

GUI addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a GUI over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.

Names have been changed to protect the innocent.

How the Adobe-Macromedia Merger Could Impact PDF
Interview of both CEOs
Staff's comments
Article with a bit more bulk on the subject (The article linked about is quite small)

Oh, and the Kottke Troll is famous, at least here on slashdot. Watch for it's many variations!

It's easy to spot. It starts out with the words "I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you [*] fanatics?"

The reason I made the mod_troll joke is that . . . well, surely you're aware that this is one of the major flamewar topics in the Mac/Windows war?

until AMD starts to become / feel like an evil giant corp

I may well be totally wrong, is a bunch of hard working people that started off fighting a battle that everyone thought they would lose in 10 minutes flat. But through determination and quality products they have succeded in making something of themselves. Everyone loves the under-dog :o)

because this is certainly better than this

It's interesting to note that authors don't really have any say in this affair even when they're in favour of Google Print.

All in all, no matter how you do it, the project will
* take a long time
* cost a lot of money

Check out Kottke's article GoogleOS? YahooOS? MozillaOS? WebOS?. In which he speculates about the future of the WebOS.

"I completely second that. Adsense makes a painfully small amount of money unless you get a ridiculous amount of hits. I get hit by The pirate bay [thepiratebay.org] every time I post a torrent (I post info/screenshots pages) and the thousands of hits add up to 40 cents here and there when someone buys something expensive through an ad."

The irony here is killing me. It's not just the number of hits, it depends on the popularity/desirability (from the adwords advertiser auction point of view) of the keyword(s) identified by the google adsense bot.

Surprisingly the cost per clickthrough bids on the "x86 OSX dev kit torrent" key word is low. Not sure why that is...

To the o.p. there's a 3rd option:

Have a semi-desirable topical site with modest traffic and people click on a few ads that have text that *shock* appeals to/interests them?! If you're lucky you can make a reasonably amount of scratch to cover hosting and maybe a little more. Who knew it could work legitimately?!!?

In my experience having high traffic isn't enough for adsense, you need to have a topic/key words that advertisers are interested in (anyone remember the asbestos lung cancer methsolopmisaiaiaaia blog adsense experiment?) good, but not obnoxious placement of the ads/color scheme, and of course gobs of traffic never hurt.

To be more on topic, it's interseting the dilemna they are facing... and it'll be interested in seeing how they make out with the contribution drive... It seemed to work on a smaller scale for kottke

I think they're obnoxious use of multiple adsense units inside articles hurts their clickthroughs... and they could probably do better with a full tower on the main page (from my experience, YMMV)

They could consider getting traditional advertisers or sponsors... but all this means thinking about business and developing business relationships instead of working on the site and doing the journalist/editor stuff... dem da breaks though if you want to make the big time =)

e.

Besides the Google Instant Messenger client rumor, there are quite a few other opportunities that Google might be trying to fund.

Well there's that Broadband over Power Line rumor. And the massive country-wide Wi-Fi rumor. Also the streamable Google Operating System. Oh and the Google Browser rumor

And lets not forget Google needs some money to finance their trip to Mars

Don't forget about Google Browser and Google OS.

Don't forget about Google Browser and Google OS.

Remember, about a year or so ago there was talk of a Google web browser.

If they teamed up with Mozilla, they would save development costs, have a robust product already with a niche in the marketplace and also avoid alot of potential snags with P.R. and market perception.

I think the last thing that Google would want to do is be compared (or percieved threat...) to MS with thier own browser, search engine, maps, etc. What would be next? GoogleOS?

Something like that would give MS the perfect reason to 'lean on' Google, and perhaps even get some other companies who see an emerging threat to join in.

"Copied from somebody's weblog in 1998" . . . Did this thing originally come from Kottke, or was he copying it too in that post?

Why don't you learn how to write your own trolls, instead of plagiarizing them from others.

What happened to the yesteryear of well thought /. posts? This place has caught the DailyKos/LGF emotion over thinking meme. It's no wonder Maddox and Kottke are thinking that blogs are starting to suck ass.

November '98 - My Mac Sucks
http://www.kottke.org/98/11/

June 2002 - Switching to the Mac
http://www.kottke.org/02/06/switching-to-the-mac

Wait a second . . .

November '98 - My Mac Sucks
http://www.kottke.org/98/11/

June 2002 - Switching to the Mac
http://www.kottke.org/02/06/switching-to-the-mac

Wait a second . . .

Methinks you've been had. This is an update of a quite famous rant made about one of the earlier PPC Macs, the 8600/300, as found here.

Slashdot readers may wish to know that the parent copied his/her rant from here from 1998 and just updated the hardware.

The main concept that if everyone blocks ads, *some* sites will go away is correct.

BUT, there's more than just profit motive for creating web content AND there's more than one way to generate revenue (if there is a profit motive).

Example: Jason Kottke's micro-patron experiment his site is ad free. He did a fairly un-agressive (although getting boingboinged certainly helps) pledge campaign to raise enough ducats to live on for a year with a suggested donation of 30 beans. some gave more, some gave less...

In anycase, if everyone blocks ads the model will change. Now if it's for the better or for the worse, that would be remain to be seen. Obviously if you're doubleclick it would probably be for the worse.

I'd be up crap's creek myself if everyone blocked ads, but I sorta understand the mentality (I'm Mr. FFwd through commercials on his PC PVR, after all.. ) :)

e.

Remember this one?

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what's up with you Mac fanatics? I'm sitting here at my freelance gig in front of my Dual 2Ghz G5, and it's taking 20 minutes to commit these 3 SQL transactions to my weblog InnoDB database. I mean, on my single Xeon, which by all rights should be half as fast, this operation would take 3 ticks. If that.

In addition, during these commits, Nestcape will not work.

etc etc etc

I gotta say, I'm a big fan of the old cut'n'paste trolls, and this one in particular is nice. Quite literally, LOL. I'm tempted to throw a "my mac sux"-> my tats suck on to the fire, but I guess I'll leave it alone for now.

Well played, oh most cowardly of anonymouses. Definitely a funny c'n'p.

Jason Kottke blogs for a living, taking voluntary "micropayments" which, so far, have been enough to support him.

Silly, Jason Kottke, won't you ever learn? Trolls are for kids.

I'm curious to see who ends up in the top spots for the blogebriy top 100 (the superstars of blogging). I'm hoping to see Jason Kottke pretty high up there. I mean... quitting job to go blogging full time (and money made not through ads but a fundraiser in the style that of NPR). Jeff Jarvis also has gone blogging full time (well... more so consulting about blogging) and you can catch more on that here

Bwahahahahahah.. this is funny shit. Mod this guy up.

For those of you who don't recognize this, it's the Kottke troll (edited) from way back in 1998, originally posted here. (It's at the bottom)

The My freelance gig in front of a Mac trolls appear in virtually every discussion about Apple Computer. The troll claims to have witnessed taking 20 minutes to copy a 17 MB file from one folder to another and proceeds to question all Apple users as to their platform choice. It is a straight forward copy-and-paste from a weblog entry (http://www.kottke.org/98/11/my-mac-sucks) by Jason Kottke. It has also led to some very inspired and amusing parodies.

I think this is where Graham gets it very wrong... However, finding paying customers is time-consuming and expensive. I've worked for a startup, and they went under because they had a product, but no customers. Marketing ought to be 80% of your starting budget. ...

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Tiger fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of Tiger on a dual 2.5 Ghz G5 with 2.5 GB of RAM for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Power Mac running OS 8.5, which by all standards should be a lot slower than the dual G5, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

In addition, during this file transfer, Safari will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even iWork is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on Tiger, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen Spotlight run faster than Sherlock, despite Tiger's modern kernel. My Fat Mac with 512K of ram runs faster than this dual G5 machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that Tiger is a superior OS.

Tiger addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Tiger over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.

(For those of you who are new here, please see the original before you get your panties in a wad.)

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Tiger fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of Tiger on a dual 2.5 Ghz G5 with 2.5 GB of RAM for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Performa 600 running OS 8.5, which by all standards should be a lot slower than the dual G5, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

In addition, during this file transfer, Safari will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even TextWrangler is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on Tiger, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen Spotlight run faster than Sherlock, despite Tiger's modern kernel. My Fat Mac with 512K of ram runs faster than this dual G5 machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that Tiger is a superior OS.

Tiger addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Tiger over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.

(For those of you who are new here, please see the original before you get your panties in a wad.)

Ever try to copy something on a Mac? Grab a cup of coffee and a few magazines, because you'll be there a while.

Maybe this is part of their .net vision to have web-enabled windows? Trying to compete with GooOS maybe?

Come on, if you're going to quote a joke, at least get the punchline right! It's "20 minutes to copy a 17Mb file"

It has been speculated that Google is (or will be) developing a web browser.

Check out: http://www.kottke.org/04/09/more-google-browser

Wow, does that mean in the next version of OS X it won't be the case that, "Even BBEdit Lite is straining to keep up as I type this"? Dude, it's like we're letting the trolls win!

Then again, it might be interesting to see Natalie Portman covered in grits... Hmm. I guess I, for one, will welcome our new /. troll overlords!

As if to add insult to injury, Steve Jobs has apparently dealt with this inevitable delay by ordering that the BSD-underpinnings of the operating system be stripped out and replaced with GNU or Unix code, citing an internal study that shows BSD developers in complete disarray, with usage - based upon Usenet postings - showing a definite decline in BSD support. Perhaps if Apple ported Mac OS X to Intel, they wouldn't be suffering these problems.

On an unrelated note, I've just heard on Talk Radio that the famed computer hacker Stephen Wozniak has died, aged 54. Whether you enjoyed his Integer BASIC interpreter, you can't deny his contribution to modern computing. Truly an American icon.

yep, just wait till you try copying a 17MB file on that thing for your freelance gig, the AMD system is at least 10/60 of a second faster. All depends what he needs that machine for doesn't it. What's the software like on that AMD machine?

Your text is neither new nor yours in any sense of the word.
http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=%22I've+been+s itting+here+at+my+freelance+gig%22&btnG=Google-Suc he&meta=/
And it is old too.
http://www.kottke.org/98/11/my-mac-sucks/

mfg. Julian

Jason! 1998 called. They want your troll back.

I'm here to help. Check here for better deals on RAM than Apple is likely to offer. Make sure that whatever you buy comes with a guarantee, or even stick with a name brand if you want to be safe. I've heard Kingston is usually a good bet.

The page at the dealram site for 256 MB for an iBook G4 has RAM for as low as $27 with free shipping from a reputable vendor (18004Memory.com). Brand name stuff is a little pricier: Kingston's 256 MB is $44.

Or maybe the problem is that she's trying to copy a 17 MB file in the background. (Note to retarded mods: that's a joke)

C'mon, that post is almost SEVEN YEARS OLD. We're talking pre-OS X pre-G3 old Mac technology. Yeah, before OS X the Mac sucked hard at multithreading, but that's not the case anymore. I just transferred a 20MB file in under a second.

Hell, there was no such thing as Safari or Pages when he posted that, so they couldn't possibly grind to a halt. Way to spread FUD.

Incindentally, Jason Kottke still uses a Mac, and seems pretty happy with them: http://www.kottke.org/order/apple