Homogenous systems tend to force everyone to adhere to the same standard, no matter what that standard is. With the substantial rise of non-Wintel platforms, Microsoft will lose their ability to shut competitors out of the market with proprietary file formats and protocols.
Because the only truly portable documents are composed of byte streams, Microsoft will have to adopt fully open and standardized formats, or risk their customers losing connectivity with the rest of the civilized world.
In much the same way that Microsoft destroyed the browser market by offering IE for free, I see Linux destroying the operating system market. It doesn't matter if only 10 percent of the users prefer Linux; Microsoft knows that some major manufacturers are selling PC's for less than the cost of a Windows license - a fact made possible because the vendor didn't have to pay Microsoft for an OS. And every hardware vendor can hang this over Microsoft's head: Give us windows at a price we like, or we'll push Linux and you won't get a dime. It really doesn't matter how many people choose Linux; the fact that it's available is problematic to Microsoft.
In the same way, the prominence of a non-Wintel platform could reduce Microsoft's influence to a truly marginal role. They would be "just another vendor" as far as computer users were concerned. If I don't like the MS-Palladium DRM equipped PC, I'll just buy some far-east hardware and run Linux on it.
Either way, it will be good for us, and good for Microsoft - they'll have to respond to what their customers want once again, and we'll get software at prices we can afford.
the way we use these devices is quite different, and so are our demends for these items.
Quite true. A television maker whose sets flashed blue at random and had to be unplugged and restarted on a regular basis wouldn't be making tv's long. But somehow, this kind of behavior is acceptable so long as the device is a PC.
I know some people run Linux, but the vast majority of PC buyers just accept Windows....
I've been riding motorcycles for several years, and I don't believe I'd have any use for this device.
First of all, a motorcyclist can tell about how fast he's going by the wind noise and drag. The rpms can usually be felt through the seat of the pants, if not heard.
One of the biggest appeals of motorcycling is the fact that the rider "feels" the road and speed. A rider who has been riding for a while only checks the guages periodically to make sure everything is o.k. with the bike. Most of us driver according to drag and sound - the wind drag we feel tells us how fast we're going, and the sound of the engine tells us when to shift. It is this "freedom" from constant guage checking that enhances the experience.
And I really wish I had availed myself of open source.
A few months ago, I wrote a utility which would copy files from one directory to another, if and only if, the files in the destination directory were older than the source files. It turns out that XCOPY wasn't working the way I wanted it to, so I wrote my own utility. Then, I stumbled across rsync while Googling one night...
But I'm still rolling my own, because it would take more time for me to make sense of the documentation. Most OS authors give a very detailed, albeit useless description of their software. It usually goes something like this:
Xdoxmkr is a free implementation of the popular Winmkr software for resyncing Xdox nodes under UNIX. We have used it on our get-apt-xgs server for the past 3 years and it is quite useful. The new release 1.02.78.998_0z99s.dox-version10.2 fixes many of the bugs in the old release, 1.02.78.996_0z99x.dox-version10.1.
Version 1.01.78.999.dox.098 is ready for beta testing! This fixes the primary_resync_down_test bug in the Xdox.h header which would occasionally reindex the first x_node if the z_index and y_offset were different by more than 10 m_syncs.
Some of our users reporting conflicts with the new OpenXMod server when running Xdoxmkr on RedCoat Linux with kernel 2.3.88.01.7.69.10-smp-alpha. The recommended workaround at this time is to recompile OpenXMod with the -df, -rm, -fNoBignumsbutnotFloat_on_x86 flags. Then recompile the kernel with _scsi_super_fast_no_ide option set, flash the BIOS, and toggle the LBA_MODE jumper on the back of/dev/hda. If you're not sure which of your drives is/dev/hda, you can download Peter Friggin's Xdrive here.
Okay.... But what does it do?
I like OS, but I must admit that having English as a second language (as opposed to C++ or Java, etc..) is definitely a hindrance. We need to get our heads out of the sand and look from the perspective of our users.
Solve your real problem first. Generalize after you have working code. Repeat. This kind of reuse is opportunistic...
This is sheer idiocy. If anyone disputes this, I've got some code I'd like to show you...
(Trying not to flame) This guy doesn't know what he's talking about. The proverbial "reinvention of the wheel" is not really reinvention. The problem is that programmers do just what he suggests - rather than think through the problem, and how they can create reusable code, they proceed to cobble together some garbage which solves only the specific problem at hand. Which leads to other programmers having to "reinvent the wheel" because the first programmer didn't make his code reusable!
You can't have it both ways. Either you reinvent the wheel every time, or you write reusable code. It's a discipline, folks - sometimes you have to put forth the extra effort up front to make gains in the long run.
The first three years as a programmer, I must have written at least half a dozen linked list implementations. It wasn't until I had worked on some large projects that I learned that writing reusable code is well worth the extra effort. I was the guy who "just coded the solution". It took me a long time to learn that the more time I spent thinking about the problem, the less time I spent on coding and debugging.
What happens if the vendor is unable to provide the backup service?
Is the vendor responsible for security breaches - i.e., a hacker breaks into their computers and steals/corrupts your data.
Most companies only think of dollars when it comes to backup solutions, without ever thinking of what would happen if their vendor becomes financially insolvent. If, for example, your vendor goes bankrupt, their equipment could be sold to the highest bidder.
The first problem of financial insolvency is a real problem for online backup vendors because the data storage medium (their servers) is not your company's property. Therefore, in the event of bankruptcy, your firm's data could be inadvertently sold to the highest bidder.
The second consideration is related to the first - what happens if the vendor is unable to provide the backup service? Are they bonded? Will they compensate your company for the inability to provide clean backups?
The third consideration is perhaps the most important. Because your data is sitting on a running server, it is subject to corruption or outright deletion should the server be compromised.
Offsite tape backup is probably the best way to go. It is secure - even in the worst of circumstances, your data can be retrieved by driving a truck to the vendor's storage facility. There's much less possibility of accidental erasure and corruption; the possibility of your data getting into the hands of hackers is almost non-existent. Because of the fact that the tapes are legally property of your company, they can't be sold should the vendor go bankrupt.
Those of us who have used Access have learned to accept that Access edits our SQL for us. In fact, it's a nice "feature" if you like to bang something out in a hurry - Access will automagically reformat the query so it looks nicer.
The real issue I have with Access is not the uncommanded editing, but the data corruption. If a database connection is lost during synchronization (phone line gets dropped, etc...), Access will corrupt the database. What's worse is that Access doesn't detect the condition and attempt to repair the database; from the user's perspective, everything is fine. Which becomes a real problem when others synchronize with a corrupted database, because the corruption will spread to any Access database which synchronizes with the corrupted one. What happens is that by the time someone notices their orders have disappeared from the database (Yes, Access WILL DELETE records during a synch), it's already too late. Instead of merely restoring the master copy, you have to restore ALL copies of the database, and no one can synchronize until you do. It's like having a virus.
Access is fine as long as it is being used as a front end for other DB's, or as a small, stand-alone database. But I've taken to advising my customers not to use Access in a multiuser environment, and to especially avoid synchronizing with another Access DB.
It is fine for teaching database concepts, but I wouldn't want to use it for any "mission critical" applications, and it's certainly not enterprise class software. As long as one makes the distinction that Access is a learning tool, it should work fine.
"The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material. [emphasis mine]"
So, according to US copyright law, even if Linux is an "unauthorized derivative" of UNIX, SCO still doesn't own the copyright!
SCO is simply a troll at this point. Under US law, they can't assert ownership of Linux, regardless of the origins. Maybe this is why HP chose to idemnify their customers - they knew that even if SCO's claims of Linux being a UNIX derivative were true, SCO still couldn't collect royalties. (legally, at least).
For me, it never comes down to a decision between RAM and HD speed. I buy the best RAM and the best HD, and make up the difference with a slower processor. Since processors have the widest price range, it's not too hard to do.
I just bought a Toshiba laptop, and even though I got the faster HD, it's still painfully slow. Since it gets rebooted often, the files are not cached more often than not, and I spend a lot of time waiting on the HD. For a desktop system that's perpetually on, large amounts of RAM can make up for a slow HD. On laptops, though, you generally want the fastest HD you can afford because you'll be using it a lot. And this is also why RAM isn't as critical on a laptop (Unless, of course, you have too little for the apps you're using.)
Faster drives also reboot faster - not generally an issue for desktops, but I hate to wait when my laptop is running down the battery.
I've got a desktop system with an AMD K6-2 500 Mhz processor and 512 MB of RAM. The hard drive is a Western Digital 7200 rpm with 8 MB of cache.
And Dell still ships new machines with 4200 rpm hard drives.
Sure, I could buy a new 3.6 GHz system, but it would be slower than the one I've already got.
I've been building fast machines on a budget for the last 7 years. What most people fail to realize is that the average desktop user never uses more than about 300Mhz of processing speed. The rest of the clock cycles are spent waiting on the hard drive, memory bus, ethernet card, or the modem. My system building strategy is this:
I buy the fastest hard drive I can afford. I get one with the largest cache offered.
I use motherboards with the fastest system bus offered.
I buy as much memory as I can afford.
I spend the rest on the processor.
Anything above 1 GHz is simply irrelevant; I'll never use the processing speed. However, adding RAM and a faster hard disk does noticeably improve performance.
And I always smile when people compliment me on the speed of my Macintosh (I've got a blue case) and I tell them it's a 500MHz PC. They can't believe that a processor "that slow" could be so fast. As if the processor speed made any difference.
It's not the hardware, it's how you configure it...
So now,tell me now where a doctor is special and gets off charging three times the rate of any OTHER profession!
Whether you like it or not, the reason why doctors can charge so much is because of basic economics. They (the doctors) are in relatively short supply, and the demand for their practice is pretty much non-negotiable; a deathly ill person doesn't have the option of foregoing treatment.
But there are other reasons as well:
The average doctor is about 8 years and a few hundred thousand dollars in debt before their professional practice even begins.
Med school is both long and difficult, so not many people do it. This results in a smaller supply of doctors.
Americans sue at the drop of a hat. Because of the critical nature of medicine, a doctor requires a much larger liability policy than a mechanic or computer programmer.
Most people would rather pay someone else to prescribe drugs than change their unhealthy lifestyle. And no, they don't mind paying for this!
It isn't a simple matter of greed. It's a matter of market conditions. If you don't like how much a doctor charges, don't go unless you're sick! Since you can't directly affect the supply of doctors, the best you can do is to affect the demand. If you want to bring down the cost of medicine, keep yourself healthy!
Barring any pre-existing conditions, the average person can stay healthy with a little regular exercise and a good diet. For these people, seeing the doctor once or twice a year is all they need.
But I'm not paying the RIAA. I don't buy commercial CD's anymore.
I buy CD's from local bands. I go to clubs to listen to live music. I'm sick of my enterainment dollars being used to support a monopoly which sues its customers, exploits the artists, and ruins the musical experience for everyone. The last thing I want to think about when listening to music is "Is the RIAA going to bust me for all these MP3's?"
I would rather pay a few dollars to hear a live musician play than put money in the coffers of the greedy.
IIRC, a few months ago they sued a Mac user. She couldn't have been sharing files because KaZaa doesn't run on Macs. (I know there are other p2p programs, but apparently the RIAA claimed she was using KaZaa.)
Disclaimer: I've worked with the FAT12, FAT16 filesystems in assembly language.
FAT is relatively well documented. IIRC, one can already format a FAT filesystem from Linux, and even if they can't, writing the drivers wouldn't take long.
But why would you use FAT in the first place? It's a very inefficient filesystem, built for ancient hardware.
Since static memory sticks have no problems with random access, it doesn't make sense to use traditional filesystems which were designed to minimize seek latency involving mechanical components. In fact, due to the block access factor, most filesystems are very inefficient when it comes to data storage.
One would think that instead of using a filesystem per se, the memory of a memory stick should be managed in a fashion similar to malloc. The difference would be named allocation - a "filename" would be associated with every section of memory allocated.
This has already happened. About 4 years ago, my college was re-imaging a bunch of Compaq servers with Windows NT when half of them suddenly died.
Turns out, the servers were sold when Compaq still sold a version of Windows NT, at prices considerably more expensive that Microsoft. To keep people from buying the machines without an OS and installing their own, the BIOS detected the OS, and if it was not a signed, Compaq-built copy of Windows NT, it refused to load it.
Fortunately, we had a support contract with Compaq, and we were able to flash the BIOS'es of the affected machines. But this was before the DMCA - today, flashing the BIOS to install an operating system of choice would be illegal.
We stopped buying Compaq machines shortly after that...
Today most people who have a computer do not really completely control their computer. They
run a Microsoft OS, and they will never put any sniffers on their connection to the Net. Viruses, Trojans, and worms parasitize their machines. In general, it is hard to get any Microsoft system to do what you want. But some folk actually have pretty good control of their computers. Palladium is designed to ensure the continuation of the situation for most users, and to prevent the sale and use of computers which can be controlled by the user. [emphasis mine]
Let's take this apart:
do not really completely control their computer. They run a Microsoft OS...
Quite true - those who run an MS OS have very little control over what their machine does. They don't have the source, so they can't fix the bugs, and their machine is constantly prone to virus infection.
In general, it is hard to get any Microsoft system to do what you want.
Nothing new, this has been the case for quite some time...
But some folk actually have pretty good control of their computers.
Translation: some folks use Linux.
Palladium is designed to ensure the continuation of the situation for most users, and to prevent the sale and use of computers which can be controlled by the user.
Translation: Party's over folks. We're going to make it so that you can't install Linux, because we don't like it. I really can't say enough about how evil this is: they want to take control of a person's PC away from the owner?! Consider what kind of mindset would want complete control over someone else...
Some features Microsoft will introduce in the future:
Web publishing fees. For an additional $15/month, you can use your MS Palladium enabled OS to publish web pages! Of course, you'll still have to pay for hosting.
Developer licensing fees. Now Microsoft has made it easier than ever to develop for Windows! With the new bulk discount program, royalties are charged only when someone buys your program.
Annual subscription rates: The new annual rate of $350 saves you $10 over the $30 monthly rate!
Free automatic system cleanup - brought to you by the RIAA and MPAA. For an additional $5/month, System Cleanup will ensure that you have no infringing copies of copyrighted works. Avoid a costly RIAA lawsuit!
This is evil, pure and simple. It's not merely designed to stop copyright infringement - this is designed to force anyone who uses a PC to pay annual or monthly subscription fees to Microsoft.
Yeah, I know. But what should we expect from a convicted felon?
I guarantee I will not buy a Palladium equipped PC. I'm serious - I'll start building my own from processor and circuit board if I have to.
The firm I work for was re-evaluating proprietary terminal emulation software. Knowing that I could get the source for x3270 from the web, I downloaded a copy, thinking that I could port it to Windows in short order.
And then I looked at the source. The first problem was that a port would require me to port not just the software, but the libraries used as well. And even then, I'd still have to figure out the build process - there are literally hundreds of files.
Yes, I suppose if I was paid minimum wage, and had until next year, I could get it done. But we need the software now. Even if we could wait, it would probably cost my firm as much to port it as we'd save in license fees.
I believe that complexity is the number one reason why OSS isn't used more often.
Yes, but if you call GM, I'm sure they would tell you that if someone poured sugar in your gas tank, you better have your car towed to the dealer for repairs.
Spyware is the equivalent of pouring sugar in someone's gas tank - the user doesn't want, and often doesn't realize they've installed it until it's too late. What Dell is basically doing is saying, "Your computer is broken, we won't fix it,we won't tell you how, and we won't even redirect you to someone who can fix it."
The only people who would need it already have it as a part of their Win2k/XP/2003 OS. Why else would anyone be using NTFS if they weren't running Windows?
Something tells me you won't get the point, but I'll try again.
Remember the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" quip? Well, to make the claim that the complex biological systems we have today arose from purely random interactions of molecules is quite an extraordinary claim. If one could show even a plausible mechanism by which this would happen, it would be an improvement.
But unlike the rest of science, evolutionary biologists seem to think they're exempt from the requirement that a hypothesis be demonstrable by experiment. When challenged, their response is that they can't reproduce the process because it would take too long. Which is ridiculous given that a modern computer could simulate millions of years of history in a few hours (for the purposes concerned).
Basically, what it boils down to is that their "proof" of abiogenesis doesn't even make sense statistically. This is what Behe and others have debunked; the hypothesis can't be true, because it isn't logically consistent - i.e. it requires faith in the ability of random events building complex structures. I've yet to see a deterministic model for the origin of life. I don't doubt that it is possible, but I haven't seen it shown.
Again, since it is the scientists who propose abiogenesis happened, I would expect that they would be able to produce something that was at least 1.)logically consistent, and 2.) demonstrable through experiment, or possibly, simulation. But they have done neither. No self-respecting physicist could get away with claiming that star formation was the result of "a lucky series of unlikely, though possible events in which all the molecules in a large space collapsed toward a central location." Such a physicist would get laughed out of the profession. All we ask is that the field of evolutionary biology hold itself to the same standards as the other sciences.
But biology is different. The first law of evolutionary biology states that a long enough series of random events will produce complex and ordered biological systems. For some reason, we are supposed to just accept this premise, without any proof or evidence whatsoever.
That is the problem. Evolution is a faith, not a science. Which is why I won't be surprised if future generations view our current understanding of evolution as a bit naive. I would expect (hopefully) that in the future, the mechanisms by which evolution occurs could be shown through experiment and reason, rather than just blind faith in the creative ability of random events.
Really, when I think about it, abiogenesis is an embarassment to science.
Actually, I'm indifferent toward the Big Bang theory. I was just pointing out that there exist among us unthinking souls who ridicule anyone who dares question conventional wisdom. I suppose that had you been alive in Galileo's time, you would have called him an idiot as well, because "as any fool can see, the Sun goes around the Earth..."
Wow. I didn't even intend to troll.
Anyway, the point was not to take science for anything beyond face value. Too many people accept science as gospel truth in spite of the fact that it has been wrong more often than not. Maybe we'll never know in our lifetimes whether or not the Big Bang really happened. But it makes little sense to ridicule those who question it when the matter is far from settled. Who knows what insights additional observations will bring?
Re: Evolution. Since evolution is a family of theories, I'll choose one - abiogenesis. IIRC, the smallest practically useful DNA chain is about 4,000 bases. Given that there are 4 bases, the odds of a single DNA molecule forming the smallest useful chain are about 1 in 4^4000. Since it's been a long time since I've heard this argument, my numbers may be wrong. But the basic gist of it is this: given what we know, to build the smallest useful DNA chain by random trial and error would require more atoms than the entire universe contains.
Michael Behe has covered similar problems in his writings.
I don't take issue with the theories that scientists propose (except when they lack logical consistency. The statistical problems inherent with most current theories of abiogenesis seem to indicate that the proponents didn't think through their ideas before they published them). My main objection is the unwavering credibility that the masses give to scientific theories. If a scientist says so, it must be true! If I had a dollar for every time someone said "Modern science proves..." in an argument, I'd be rich by now. Science doesn't prove anything!. It explains.
But since so few laymen are able to articulate the difference between explanation and proof, scientific theories are often used as the basis for supporting belief systems. Witness the manner in which evolution has been used by atheists to justify their lack of belief in God.
When science becomes entangled with religious beliefs, objectivity disappears; those wanting to question the status quo find themselves fighting not only a battle of proof, but of politics as well. Today, the idea of evolution is as firmly entrenched in the common mind as a geocentric universe was in Galileo's time.*
And of course, the real problem is that because science has become so credible, it is often sought as an authority for legislative or social changes. Thus, the otherwise objective nature of science becomes soured when funding becomes contingent on the political ramifications of the results. Again, if you want examples, Google the Exxon Valdez disaster - after 5 years, one set of scientists said the environment had healed, and another said that it would never recover.
* - Incidentally, Galileo's publishing problems were political, not religious. In his work, he advocated a Heliocentric model for prediction purposes only, and went so far as to suggest that nothing in his model should be construed as a definitive statement regarding the Heavens.
When Galileo originally proposed a heliocentric model of the Universe, he was criticized for his ideas, because "As any fool can see, the sun goes around the Earth..."
The Cuckoo rating is entirely irrelevant. Consider the Big Bang Theory. It hasn't yet been formally accepted (as a Physical Law*) by the scientific community, yet the author considers the notion of the Big Bang never happening to be nonsense?
The fact of the matter is, the scientific community has been wrong more often than right. With further investigation, ideas are refined, and those that don't fit the observations are rejected. But the process takes a long time. For nearly 2,000 years the best Western thinkers believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. That's a long time to be wrong about something so big.
So even though I believe that the scientific method has its merits, I recognize the limitations. If I had a time machine and could travel to the future, I would not be the least bit surprised if 500 years from now the Big Bang theory and Evolution were considered myths from the past. Even now, there's substantial logical and statistical problems with the "proofs" of Evolution.
* - Yes, I know it wouldn't be called a law per se.
As any adult knows, system crashes are a fact of high- tech life
I think he's got it a little wrong: system crashes are a fact of Microsoft life. Ask a Mac user how often their system crashes. Ask a Linux user how often their systems crash...
From one perspective, this is good because the mainstream press is starting to notice that Microsoft has a horrible track record when it comes to system stability. OTOH, it bothers me that the average user accepts system crashes in much the same way they accept rainy days. When I first started programming, a programmer's own professionalism would prevent him from releasing buggy code. But with the advent of widespread commercial software, there came into play a financial incentive for releasing buggy software. And unfortunately, this has given rise to a generation of programmers who have no qualms about releasing buggy code, who believe that writing good quality software is a statistical impossibility.
ubber secret 802.11g card built in for the purpose of spreading virii!
Not quite. If you read the article, Microsoft's emphasis was on getting networked computers into cars. Whether or not it's 802.11g is irrelevant; viruses were spreading via networks long before 802.11g was even a possibility. So perhaps they would use the existing cell phone infrastructure.
I mean, 15 years ago an email virus was thought impossible - email was plaintext, and everybody knew that plain text couldn't carry viruses. That was until Microsoft's auto-execute-email-attachments made the email virus a reality. The lesson: if there's a way to spread viruses, Microsoft will find it and make it a standard "feature".
I don't mean this to be a troll but Microsoft has repeatedly shown themselves to be extremely naive when it comes to security and reliability. It's not that they couldn't write a secure, bug-free OS for cars. It's that they won't; their emphasis will be on getting streaming video on the dashboard rather than fixing the bugs. They don't understand the degree of security and reliability that the consumers expect of their vehicles. A BSOD is a much bigger problem at 60 mph than when sitting behind a desk.
Slashdot Mirror
No, actually, it's a good thing.
Homogenous systems tend to force everyone to adhere to the same standard, no matter what that standard is. With the substantial rise of non-Wintel platforms, Microsoft will lose their ability to shut competitors out of the market with proprietary file formats and protocols.
Because the only truly portable documents are composed of byte streams, Microsoft will have to adopt fully open and standardized formats, or risk their customers losing connectivity with the rest of the civilized world.
In much the same way that Microsoft destroyed the browser market by offering IE for free, I see Linux destroying the operating system market. It doesn't matter if only 10 percent of the users prefer Linux; Microsoft knows that some major manufacturers are selling PC's for less than the cost of a Windows license - a fact made possible because the vendor didn't have to pay Microsoft for an OS. And every hardware vendor can hang this over Microsoft's head: Give us windows at a price we like, or we'll push Linux and you won't get a dime . It really doesn't matter how many people choose Linux; the fact that it's available is problematic to Microsoft.
In the same way, the prominence of a non-Wintel platform could reduce Microsoft's influence to a truly marginal role. They would be "just another vendor" as far as computer users were concerned. If I don't like the MS-Palladium DRM equipped PC, I'll just buy some far-east hardware and run Linux on it.
Either way, it will be good for us, and good for Microsoft - they'll have to respond to what their customers want once again, and we'll get software at prices we can afford.
the way we use these devices is quite different, and so are our demends for these items.
Quite true. A television maker whose sets flashed blue at random and had to be unplugged and restarted on a regular basis wouldn't be making tv's long. But somehow, this kind of behavior is acceptable so long as the device is a PC.
I know some people run Linux, but the vast majority of PC buyers just accept Windows....
I've been riding motorcycles for several years, and I don't believe I'd have any use for this device.
First of all, a motorcyclist can tell about how fast he's going by the wind noise and drag. The rpms can usually be felt through the seat of the pants, if not heard.
One of the biggest appeals of motorcycling is the fact that the rider "feels" the road and speed. A rider who has been riding for a while only checks the guages periodically to make sure everything is o.k. with the bike. Most of us driver according to drag and sound - the wind drag we feel tells us how fast we're going, and the sound of the engine tells us when to shift. It is this "freedom" from constant guage checking that enhances the experience.
And I really wish I had availed myself of open source.
A few months ago, I wrote a utility which would copy files from one directory to another, if and only if, the files in the destination directory were older than the source files. It turns out that XCOPY wasn't working the way I wanted it to, so I wrote my own utility. Then, I stumbled across rsync while Googling one night...
But I'm still rolling my own, because it would take more time for me to make sense of the documentation. Most OS authors give a very detailed, albeit useless description of their software. It usually goes something like this:
Xdoxmkr is a free implementation of the popular Winmkr software for resyncing Xdox nodes under UNIX. We have used it on our get-apt-xgs server for the past 3 years and it is quite useful. The new release 1.02.78.998_0z99s.dox-version10.2 fixes many of the bugs in the old release, 1.02.78.996_0z99x.dox-version10.1.
Version 1.01.78.999.dox.098 is ready for beta testing! This fixes the primary_resync_down_test bug in the Xdox.h header which would occasionally reindex the first x_node if the z_index and y_offset were different by more than 10 m_syncs.
Some of our users reporting conflicts with the new OpenXMod server when running Xdoxmkr on RedCoat Linux with kernel 2.3.88.01.7.69.10-smp-alpha. The recommended workaround at this time is to recompile OpenXMod with the -df, -rm, -fNoBignumsbutnotFloat_on_x86 flags. Then recompile the kernel with _scsi_super_fast_no_ide option set, flash the BIOS, and toggle the LBA_MODE jumper on the back of /dev/hda. If you're not sure which of your drives is /dev/hda, you can download Peter Friggin's Xdrive here.
Okay.... But what does it do?
I like OS, but I must admit that having English as a second language (as opposed to C++ or Java, etc..) is definitely a hindrance. We need to get our heads out of the sand and look from the perspective of our users.
Solve your real problem first. Generalize after you have working code. Repeat. This kind of reuse is opportunistic...
This is sheer idiocy. If anyone disputes this, I've got some code I'd like to show you...
(Trying not to flame) This guy doesn't know what he's talking about. The proverbial "reinvention of the wheel" is not really reinvention. The problem is that programmers do just what he suggests - rather than think through the problem, and how they can create reusable code, they proceed to cobble together some garbage which solves only the specific problem at hand. Which leads to other programmers having to "reinvent the wheel" because the first programmer didn't make his code reusable!
You can't have it both ways. Either you reinvent the wheel every time, or you write reusable code. It's a discipline, folks - sometimes you have to put forth the extra effort up front to make gains in the long run.
The first three years as a programmer, I must have written at least half a dozen linked list implementations. It wasn't until I had worked on some large projects that I learned that writing reusable code is well worth the extra effort. I was the guy who "just coded the solution". It took me a long time to learn that the more time I spent thinking about the problem, the less time I spent on coding and debugging.
Most companies only think of dollars when it comes to backup solutions, without ever thinking of what would happen if their vendor becomes financially insolvent. If, for example, your vendor goes bankrupt, their equipment could be sold to the highest bidder.
The first problem of financial insolvency is a real problem for online backup vendors because the data storage medium (their servers) is not your company's property. Therefore, in the event of bankruptcy, your firm's data could be inadvertently sold to the highest bidder.
The second consideration is related to the first - what happens if the vendor is unable to provide the backup service? Are they bonded? Will they compensate your company for the inability to provide clean backups?
The third consideration is perhaps the most important. Because your data is sitting on a running server, it is subject to corruption or outright deletion should the server be compromised.
Offsite tape backup is probably the best way to go. It is secure - even in the worst of circumstances, your data can be retrieved by driving a truck to the vendor's storage facility. There's much less possibility of accidental erasure and corruption; the possibility of your data getting into the hands of hackers is almost non-existent. Because of the fact that the tapes are legally property of your company, they can't be sold should the vendor go bankrupt.
Those of us who have used Access have learned to accept that Access edits our SQL for us. In fact, it's a nice "feature" if you like to bang something out in a hurry - Access will automagically reformat the query so it looks nicer.
The real issue I have with Access is not the uncommanded editing, but the data corruption. If a database connection is lost during synchronization (phone line gets dropped, etc...), Access will corrupt the database. What's worse is that Access doesn't detect the condition and attempt to repair the database; from the user's perspective, everything is fine. Which becomes a real problem when others synchronize with a corrupted database, because the corruption will spread to any Access database which synchronizes with the corrupted one. What happens is that by the time someone notices their orders have disappeared from the database (Yes, Access WILL DELETE records during a synch), it's already too late. Instead of merely restoring the master copy, you have to restore ALL copies of the database, and no one can synchronize until you do. It's like having a virus.
Access is fine as long as it is being used as a front end for other DB's, or as a small, stand-alone database. But I've taken to advising my customers not to use Access in a multiuser environment, and to especially avoid synchronizing with another Access DB.
It is fine for teaching database concepts, but I wouldn't want to use it for any "mission critical" applications, and it's certainly not enterprise class software. As long as one makes the distinction that Access is a learning tool, it should work fine.
So, according to US copyright law, even if Linux is an "unauthorized derivative" of UNIX, SCO still doesn't own the copyright!
SCO is simply a troll at this point. Under US law, they can't assert ownership of Linux, regardless of the origins. Maybe this is why HP chose to idemnify their customers - they knew that even if SCO's claims of Linux being a UNIX derivative were true, SCO still couldn't collect royalties. (legally, at least).
For me, it never comes down to a decision between RAM and HD speed. I buy the best RAM and the best HD, and make up the difference with a slower processor. Since processors have the widest price range, it's not too hard to do.
I just bought a Toshiba laptop, and even though I got the faster HD, it's still painfully slow. Since it gets rebooted often, the files are not cached more often than not, and I spend a lot of time waiting on the HD. For a desktop system that's perpetually on, large amounts of RAM can make up for a slow HD. On laptops, though, you generally want the fastest HD you can afford because you'll be using it a lot. And this is also why RAM isn't as critical on a laptop (Unless, of course, you have too little for the apps you're using.)
Faster drives also reboot faster - not generally an issue for desktops, but I hate to wait when my laptop is running down the battery.
I've got a desktop system with an AMD K6-2 500 Mhz processor and 512 MB of RAM. The hard drive is a Western Digital 7200 rpm with 8 MB of cache.
And Dell still ships new machines with 4200 rpm hard drives.
Sure, I could buy a new 3.6 GHz system, but it would be slower than the one I've already got.
I've been building fast machines on a budget for the last 7 years. What most people fail to realize is that the average desktop user never uses more than about 300Mhz of processing speed. The rest of the clock cycles are spent waiting on the hard drive, memory bus, ethernet card, or the modem. My system building strategy is this:
- I buy the fastest hard drive I can afford. I get one with the largest cache offered.
- I use motherboards with the fastest system bus offered.
- I buy as much memory as I can afford.
- I spend the rest on the processor.
Anything above 1 GHz is simply irrelevant; I'll never use the processing speed. However, adding RAM and a faster hard disk does noticeably improve performance.And I always smile when people compliment me on the speed of my Macintosh (I've got a blue case) and I tell them it's a 500MHz PC. They can't believe that a processor "that slow" could be so fast. As if the processor speed made any difference.
It's not the hardware, it's how you configure it...
Whether you like it or not, the reason why doctors can charge so much is because of basic economics. They (the doctors) are in relatively short supply, and the demand for their practice is pretty much non-negotiable; a deathly ill person doesn't have the option of foregoing treatment.
But there are other reasons as well:
It isn't a simple matter of greed. It's a matter of market conditions. If you don't like how much a doctor charges, don't go unless you're sick! Since you can't directly affect the supply of doctors, the best you can do is to affect the demand. If you want to bring down the cost of medicine, keep yourself healthy!
Barring any pre-existing conditions, the average person can stay healthy with a little regular exercise and a good diet. For these people, seeing the doctor once or twice a year is all they need.
But I'm not paying the RIAA. I don't buy commercial CD's anymore.
I buy CD's from local bands. I go to clubs to listen to live music. I'm sick of my enterainment dollars being used to support a monopoly which sues its customers, exploits the artists, and ruins the musical experience for everyone. The last thing I want to think about when listening to music is "Is the RIAA going to bust me for all these MP3's?"
I would rather pay a few dollars to hear a live musician play than put money in the coffers of the greedy.
IIRC, a few months ago they sued a Mac user. She couldn't have been sharing files because KaZaa doesn't run on Macs. (I know there are other p2p programs, but apparently the RIAA claimed she was using KaZaa.)
Disclaimer: I've worked with the FAT12, FAT16 filesystems in assembly language.
FAT is relatively well documented. IIRC, one can already format a FAT filesystem from Linux, and even if they can't, writing the drivers wouldn't take long.
But why would you use FAT in the first place? It's a very inefficient filesystem, built for ancient hardware.
Since static memory sticks have no problems with random access, it doesn't make sense to use traditional filesystems which were designed to minimize seek latency involving mechanical components. In fact, due to the block access factor, most filesystems are very inefficient when it comes to data storage.
One would think that instead of using a filesystem per se, the memory of a memory stick should be managed in a fashion similar to malloc. The difference would be named allocation - a "filename" would be associated with every section of memory allocated.
This has already happened. About 4 years ago, my college was re-imaging a bunch of Compaq servers with Windows NT when half of them suddenly died.
Turns out, the servers were sold when Compaq still sold a version of Windows NT, at prices considerably more expensive that Microsoft. To keep people from buying the machines without an OS and installing their own, the BIOS detected the OS, and if it was not a signed, Compaq-built copy of Windows NT, it refused to load it.
Fortunately, we had a support contract with Compaq, and we were able to flash the BIOS'es of the affected machines. But this was before the DMCA - today, flashing the BIOS to install an operating system of choice would be illegal.
We stopped buying Compaq machines shortly after that...
Let's take this apart:
do not really completely control their computer. They run a Microsoft OS...
Quite true - those who run an MS OS have very little control over what their machine does. They don't have the source, so they can't fix the bugs, and their machine is constantly prone to virus infection.
In general, it is hard to get any Microsoft system to do what you want.
Nothing new, this has been the case for quite some time...
But some folk actually have pretty good control of their computers.
Translation: some folks use Linux.
Palladium is designed to ensure the continuation of the situation for most users, and to prevent the sale and use of computers which can be controlled by the user.
Translation: Party's over folks. We're going to make it so that you can't install Linux, because we don't like it. I really can't say enough about how evil this is: they want to take control of a person's PC away from the owner?! Consider what kind of mindset would want complete control over someone else...
Some features Microsoft will introduce in the future:
This is evil, pure and simple. It's not merely designed to stop copyright infringement - this is designed to force anyone who uses a PC to pay annual or monthly subscription fees to Microsoft.
Yeah, I know. But what should we expect from a convicted felon?
I guarantee I will not buy a Palladium equipped PC. I'm serious - I'll start building my own from processor and circuit board if I have to.
The firm I work for was re-evaluating proprietary terminal emulation software. Knowing that I could get the source for x3270 from the web, I downloaded a copy, thinking that I could port it to Windows in short order.
And then I looked at the source. The first problem was that a port would require me to port not just the software, but the libraries used as well. And even then, I'd still have to figure out the build process - there are literally hundreds of files.
Yes, I suppose if I was paid minimum wage, and had until next year, I could get it done. But we need the software now. Even if we could wait, it would probably cost my firm as much to port it as we'd save in license fees.
I believe that complexity is the number one reason why OSS isn't used more often.
Yes, but if you call GM, I'm sure they would tell you that if someone poured sugar in your gas tank, you better have your car towed to the dealer for repairs.
Spyware is the equivalent of pouring sugar in someone's gas tank - the user doesn't want, and often doesn't realize they've installed it until it's too late. What Dell is basically doing is saying, "Your computer is broken, we won't fix it,we won't tell you how, and we won't even redirect you to someone who can fix it."
The only people who would need it already have it as a part of their Win2k/XP/2003 OS. Why else would anyone be using NTFS if they weren't running Windows?
Something tells me you won't get the point, but I'll try again.
Remember the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" quip? Well, to make the claim that the complex biological systems we have today arose from purely random interactions of molecules is quite an extraordinary claim. If one could show even a plausible mechanism by which this would happen, it would be an improvement.
But unlike the rest of science, evolutionary biologists seem to think they're exempt from the requirement that a hypothesis be demonstrable by experiment. When challenged, their response is that they can't reproduce the process because it would take too long. Which is ridiculous given that a modern computer could simulate millions of years of history in a few hours (for the purposes concerned).
Basically, what it boils down to is that their "proof" of abiogenesis doesn't even make sense statistically. This is what Behe and others have debunked; the hypothesis can't be true, because it isn't logically consistent - i.e. it requires faith in the ability of random events building complex structures. I've yet to see a deterministic model for the origin of life. I don't doubt that it is possible, but I haven't seen it shown.
Again, since it is the scientists who propose abiogenesis happened, I would expect that they would be able to produce something that was at least 1.)logically consistent, and 2.) demonstrable through experiment, or possibly, simulation. But they have done neither. No self-respecting physicist could get away with claiming that star formation was the result of "a lucky series of unlikely, though possible events in which all the molecules in a large space collapsed toward a central location." Such a physicist would get laughed out of the profession. All we ask is that the field of evolutionary biology hold itself to the same standards as the other sciences.
But biology is different. The first law of evolutionary biology states that a long enough series of random events will produce complex and ordered biological systems. For some reason, we are supposed to just accept this premise, without any proof or evidence whatsoever.
That is the problem. Evolution is a faith, not a science. Which is why I won't be surprised if future generations view our current understanding of evolution as a bit naive. I would expect (hopefully) that in the future, the mechanisms by which evolution occurs could be shown through experiment and reason, rather than just blind faith in the creative ability of random events.
Really, when I think about it, abiogenesis is an embarassment to science.
Actually, I'm indifferent toward the Big Bang theory. I was just pointing out that there exist among us unthinking souls who ridicule anyone who dares question conventional wisdom. I suppose that had you been alive in Galileo's time, you would have called him an idiot as well, because "as any fool can see, the Sun goes around the Earth..."
Wow. I didn't even intend to troll.
Anyway, the point was not to take science for anything beyond face value. Too many people accept science as gospel truth in spite of the fact that it has been wrong more often than not. Maybe we'll never know in our lifetimes whether or not the Big Bang really happened. But it makes little sense to ridicule those who question it when the matter is far from settled. Who knows what insights additional observations will bring?
Re: Evolution. Since evolution is a family of theories, I'll choose one - abiogenesis. IIRC, the smallest practically useful DNA chain is about 4,000 bases. Given that there are 4 bases, the odds of a single DNA molecule forming the smallest useful chain are about 1 in 4^4000. Since it's been a long time since I've heard this argument, my numbers may be wrong. But the basic gist of it is this: given what we know, to build the smallest useful DNA chain by random trial and error would require more atoms than the entire universe contains.
Michael Behe has covered similar problems in his writings.
I don't take issue with the theories that scientists propose (except when they lack logical consistency. The statistical problems inherent with most current theories of abiogenesis seem to indicate that the proponents didn't think through their ideas before they published them). My main objection is the unwavering credibility that the masses give to scientific theories. If a scientist says so, it must be true! If I had a dollar for every time someone said "Modern science proves..." in an argument, I'd be rich by now. Science doesn't prove anything!. It explains.
But since so few laymen are able to articulate the difference between explanation and proof, scientific theories are often used as the basis for supporting belief systems. Witness the manner in which evolution has been used by atheists to justify their lack of belief in God. When science becomes entangled with religious beliefs, objectivity disappears; those wanting to question the status quo find themselves fighting not only a battle of proof, but of politics as well. Today, the idea of evolution is as firmly entrenched in the common mind as a geocentric universe was in Galileo's time.*
And of course, the real problem is that because science has become so credible, it is often sought as an authority for legislative or social changes. Thus, the otherwise objective nature of science becomes soured when funding becomes contingent on the political ramifications of the results. Again, if you want examples, Google the Exxon Valdez disaster - after 5 years, one set of scientists said the environment had healed, and another said that it would never recover.
* - Incidentally, Galileo's publishing problems were political, not religious. In his work, he advocated a Heliocentric model for prediction purposes only, and went so far as to suggest that nothing in his model should be construed as a definitive statement regarding the Heavens.
When Galileo originally proposed a heliocentric model of the Universe, he was criticized for his ideas, because "As any fool can see, the sun goes around the Earth..."
The Cuckoo rating is entirely irrelevant. Consider the Big Bang Theory. It hasn't yet been formally accepted (as a Physical Law*) by the scientific community, yet the author considers the notion of the Big Bang never happening to be nonsense?
The fact of the matter is, the scientific community has been wrong more often than right. With further investigation, ideas are refined, and those that don't fit the observations are rejected. But the process takes a long time. For nearly 2,000 years the best Western thinkers believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. That's a long time to be wrong about something so big.
So even though I believe that the scientific method has its merits, I recognize the limitations. If I had a time machine and could travel to the future, I would not be the least bit surprised if 500 years from now the Big Bang theory and Evolution were considered myths from the past. Even now, there's substantial logical and statistical problems with the "proofs" of Evolution.
* - Yes, I know it wouldn't be called a law per se.
I think he's got it a little wrong: system crashes are a fact of Microsoft life. Ask a Mac user how often their system crashes. Ask a Linux user how often their systems crash...
From one perspective, this is good because the mainstream press is starting to notice that Microsoft has a horrible track record when it comes to system stability. OTOH, it bothers me that the average user accepts system crashes in much the same way they accept rainy days. When I first started programming, a programmer's own professionalism would prevent him from releasing buggy code. But with the advent of widespread commercial software, there came into play a financial incentive for releasing buggy software. And unfortunately, this has given rise to a generation of programmers who have no qualms about releasing buggy code, who believe that writing good quality software is a statistical impossibility.
Not quite. If you read the article, Microsoft's emphasis was on getting networked computers into cars. Whether or not it's 802.11g is irrelevant; viruses were spreading via networks long before 802.11g was even a possibility. So perhaps they would use the existing cell phone infrastructure.
I mean, 15 years ago an email virus was thought impossible - email was plaintext, and everybody knew that plain text couldn't carry viruses. That was until Microsoft's auto-execute-email-attachments made the email virus a reality. The lesson: if there's a way to spread viruses, Microsoft will find it and make it a standard "feature".
I don't mean this to be a troll but Microsoft has repeatedly shown themselves to be extremely naive when it comes to security and reliability. It's not that they couldn't write a secure, bug-free OS for cars. It's that they won't; their emphasis will be on getting streaming video on the dashboard rather than fixing the bugs. They don't understand the degree of security and reliability that the consumers expect of their vehicles. A BSOD is a much bigger problem at 60 mph than when sitting behind a desk.