Nobody is saying higher resolution is simple to do. But intel 386 processor was not simple to do either. Yet it got produced, sold, purchased, superceded by orders of magnitude more complex processors and they too got produced, sold, purchased.
Most of the "reasons" are excuses. Some have a hint of validity but those reasons have "reasons" which are excuses.
1. Proper DPI scaling : As is well known, most people use the operating system's own user interface and a browser (often browser is included). That's it. If other applications do not work very well, no one really cares. And I regularly user higher DPI settings than default on windows (I see my monitor from a distance). No application seems to significantly malfunction on that account - multiple browsers, code editors, chat clients, email clients, word processors and many more.
2. Interconnect bandwidth : "the very end of 2009" you say? Devices based on wifi-n 2009 specification are available from well before 2009. Specifications are slow because display industry doesn't want to react, and display industry itself is behind the specification bodies. You seriously think if large companies wanted they couldn't use the multiple display ports on modern graphics cards to advantage if interconnect bandwidth was the bottleneck?
3. but not long ago 256MB was "high end" : that was 5 years ago. Do you seriously want people to believe electronics industry takes 5 years to react to market trends? Not long ago 1GHZ dual core processors were high end. Today (admittedly ARM, but still) such processors are in average smartphone users' pockets and there are applications to take advantage of it for a long time. By your logic, processors supporting 8 GB of system RAM should come in 2020 because "not long ago", 1 GB of system RAM was "high end" ?
4. course it needs to be useful on more budget GPUs Why? WoW waited for "budget" GPUs to catch up before selling for PCs? Why would high-end screens wait for "budget" GPUs? Smartphones waited for "budget" phone plan to include unlimited internet access? Aircraft waited for "budget" traveler to be able to afford them? Rubbish excuse.
Please remind me of the chapter in logic 101 which teaches to conclude that apple not profiting from being mean to developers implies apple is not mean to developers.
it *seems* to be caused by a single app becoming very busy for a period
My dual core Atrix too does it, but most of the times it is due to high I/O load. Second core can't do much here. Is that the case with your phone as wel?
MS and Apple invest a fortune in user interface design I think the Linux community should try and let this influence them as much as possible since that is one thing open source software can rarely afford.
Yeah and the investment yields gems like 0. Huge PITA - ctrl-F on MS word / IE. Opens a stupid popup obscuring your text. Search for $x. The popup shifts right next to an occurrence of $x. When you are searching for $x, you never want to look at $x itself - otherwise you would directly look at the search window and be happy. You search so that you can look AROUND $x. But MS will very helpfully obscure the area around $x. You move the stupid popup away, hit "Next". The stupid popup is again next to next occurrence of $x.
Contrast to firefox - a search bar away from your text is opened.
1. Not allowing or making it difficult to configure focus follows mouse. 2. Not allowing resizing windows except for bottom right corner (OSX) 3. MS Windows has its fundamental settings dialogs unresizable, forcing users to scroll horizontally as well as vertically. 4. Irritating the user about updates
Apple's position appears to be that Android and Samsung have had almost no original thought in their product. Just look at Android SDK around 2007
Which is why Apple "stole" the notification bar from Android?
If you can't see that Apple changed the competitive landscape
So you are saying Apple's only contribution is changing the competitive landscape. Which is not patented. Hence they are justified in spreading patent terrorism in unrelated areas. Interesting.
Hence he gets much more respect than the average street lunatic in spite of sharing some traits with lunatics.
he tries to claim credit for everything that uses it, include the linux kernel
Citation needed. At best it is your misinterpretation of his statements, at worst you are the raving lunatic you are accusing him to be. On an average - you are letting his personal lack of charm prejudice you against him. Your choice where to stay in the aforementioned stretch of incorrectness.
"Enterprise" desktop/laptop market is comparable to retail brand name cables (maximum profit, yet price and cost don't differ by more than an order of magnitude).
"Consumer" hardware is comparable to cheap chinese cables - margin is maximum of 10s of percentage points. Quality is similar - as long as you don't give it a lot of rough usage it is likely to keep working for years. Once it breaks - better get a new one.
And assembled hardware (difficult for laptops though) is akin to neighbourhood computer hardware crimping the cable or consumer himself getting a crimp and doing it.
Yeah, I didn't realize earlier but the comparison is quite good.
If abuse turns out to be "justifiable", it's still abuse
But it is nothing to be ashamed of. I bought a hammer and use it as paper weight. Obviously an abuse of the instrument, as a hammer is not SUPPOSED to be used as a paper weight. But I am not ashamed of it and I would rather call the person mad who expects me to be ashamed of using a hammer as a paper weight.
The difference between that which IS truly justified and that which is merely excused by the abuser is that the former isn't done under pretense, is fairly and honestly open to scrutiny and is decided by someone OTHER than the abuser.
So you seek approval from your "betters"? See if this helps. You are welcome.
pointing to that which has vague similarities
Yet you are unable to point out the flaw in my analogy.
The problem is that Android is practically a bunch of operating system versions running on hardware of varying capabilities, and it only amplifies the other problems.
So is Microsoft Windows, and it amplifies no problems. You are a shill.
Agreeing or disagreeing doesn't make the person insightful (or a troll) and those who use mod points for the purpose of modding posts up or down based on agenda rather than according to the qualities the moderation is SUPPOSED to be for are violently abusing a system intended to promote dialogue and suppress that which would inhibit it.
I have read this often here, but why must all Slashdot readers do the bidding of Slashdot creators (who have themselves left Slashdot)? Slashdot readers can use the moderation system any which way we like - nothing to be ashamed of here.
PS3 is SUPPOSED to be to play games from Sony and give money to Sony, so a person who runs Apache server on his PS3 using OtherOS should be ashamed of himself? Aren't you a tool?
There are 2 kinds of people who use computer GUIs :
1. Who carefully test various GUI options, and select the best 2. Who use whatever came out of the box
The former variety has spent time and energy to choose the GUI features. They are using a particular GUI not because it just happened to be there in the box they purchased. They use it after careful consideration of many alternatives. Now if this chosen GUI changes drastically, obviously this variety of GUI users will not blindly accept the changed GUI. This is because they hadn't accepted the original GUI blindly either, but rather after careful consideration of alternatives. They hate change because present situation is not an accident for them - it is carefully chosen software carved into a part of their life via diligent customizations. They may like the new GUI also, but unlikely if the change is too drastic. Because if they liked something of this nature, they wouldn't have chosen the drastically different earlier version of it.
On the other hand, people of the latter variety are seen as "adaptable" to change. But actually they are incapable / unwilling to research the alternatives and configure them according to their own taste. Adapting is their only choice.
No, poweroff (single word) is not a word people use very frequently to describe the event of shutting down their computers. So Google search would obviously return less results (obvious provided you know the ABC of how Google search works)
Security back then was not as complex an issue as it is now.
How complex the security is doesn't matter.
Cyber Crime is real and there is a big business in raping connected users.
"Cyber Crime" the phrase might have come into more prevalence now but viruses of 1990s were cyber crime as well, were as real as now. Big business doesn't matter. Users had a lot to fear from viruses of 1990s. Data deletion / corruption was very common. Viruses made the already slow computers of the time much slower, unusably slow at times and were extremely difficult to remove. Spyware were common by late 1990s / early 2000s.
On the other hand, since there is big business now for malware, a single user doesn't lose much. Big malware business knows that to grow as a business, a single user must not be exploited so much so that he knows that there is any problem. Computers are so fast that even as part of a botnet a computer can perform its duties as the regular browsing / email box very well. And the big malware business knows that it must because otherwise the box will be buried in a landfill and another be purchased, which will have to be pwned afresh. Better keep it in good working condition while it is in use.
When fear mushrooms as reports leak in the media, isn't it only a matter of time before any mobile platform will die from the negative publicity?
A user had much more to lose from malware in the 1990s, and still no fear could stop them from using Windows, or even from clicking on the dancing bunny. If any lesson can be drawn from the success of Windows through the 1990s, it is that users don't care about security. Corporates care, and will get it by paying extra. But individual users don't care.
Media reports in 1990s were also full of vulnerabilities of Windows. Success of Windows is living proof of my point.
Android by its very design can easily be a choice target of cyber criminals. This eventually will kill adoption of Android as more stories circulate of those suffering from using Android
Like MS windows security vulnerabilities killed windows adoption in the 1990s? And Windows became a tiny minority of installed and running operating systems on internet connected devices by the turn of the century?
That's bad. So no security. I see many internet descriptions of Siri as a "voice-recognition" engine, seems there is no recognition just voice commands.
While compression is not completely worthless, COW, transactional FS (full ACID), file level RAID levels, are more important because they cannot be done in userspace. Encryption and compression can be done in userspace, and less important. Though more convenient if these are available from filesystem.
This is another case of ignorant Linux users answering with an "you don't want to do that anyway", when I perfectly know I do.
You have been unable to demonstrate you really need it, and that userspace solutions (zlib et al) are really inadequate.
Patient to doctor : Give me antibiotics for my viral fever doctor : you don't need them patient : I perfectly know I do need them
Yes, for known. Whereas we are talking about "specialized programs that not many people use". Not likely to be known. And not a single desktop search engine "knows" about all file types.
For such types of files, the heuristic I suggested is still the best after a few filterings. And like I also said, for desktop search it is an easy possibility to ignore rare file types. But not for a program that's purpose is to read those rare file types.
And of course other arguments of mine that you didn't address.
I still stand by what I said. 'Everything' will go to 'databases' at the 'human level'.
You call this standing by? Earlier you said that a database could be represented as hierarchical filesystem, it is just a database at the back-end. See
I think you must have missed the point I was making about the fact that you can easily build something just like a plain file/directory system on top of a database underneath
Now you changed tack again.
And yes, I thank you too. I enjoy arguing too, but I'd enjoy it better if you really stand by what you say.
Or, what about files made by specialized programs that not many people use? Why should OS makers have to deal with metadata standards for every filetype in existence? The way it is now, only people who write apps dealing with a particular filetype have to deal with metadata standards.
That is not the way it is now. Desktop indexing (present in Windows, OS X, and at least optionally in Linux) monitors the filesystem, re-scanning the in-file metadata when a file is modified, so it can build a central database for quick searches. So the indexing system needs to know how to read these different file types.
Very dishonest argument.
Desktop search engines have it very easy. Just consider the possibility - they can simply run/usr/bin/strings on the general area of the file where metadata is likely to be found and index the resulting data. In any order whatsoever, without making a distinction between "comment" like metadata (e.g. John's photo) and actionable metadata (e.g. photo taken when camera is at an angle of 47 degrees from the vertical). Even doing so can make a very good desktop search engine. And not supporting specialized file formats is very much a possibility.
This is much much less difficult than the program which has to make sense out of the data. To show the image appropriately rotated according to a piece of actionable metadata for instance. And not supporting specialized file formats is not an option - the particular program is for that specialized file format.
There is no comparison. At all. Especially when the GP already talked about specialized file formats, "that not many people use".
So yes, it is true to a great extent that "only people who write apps dealing with a particular filetype have to really deal with the nitty-gritty of metadata standards."; my alterations in italics.
Yep, they use GFS, which is not a database, like FAT32 and the rest.
And on top of that is Big Table.
Which is a database.
Google search index data does not use BigTable.
you will note that it mentions 'database' more than a few times
Any organized collection of data, especially if stored with special regard to efficiency of read / modify, is called database. So in that regard, all filesystems are databases. But since you talk about filesystems vs databases, Google search does NOT use databases, since it uses raw GFS and not BigTable.
I remember discussing it with Yahoo engineers, and they also explicitly avoided database usage in favour of filesystems for search index.
but its still a database at a much higher level than a file system.
Yeah, and my m3u playlist, and '/usr/bin/find > fileList'; are also databases at much higher level than a file system. Except that you were talking about something completely different and changed tack after learning that databases are not used where you thought they are used. And filesystems are used where you didn't think they are used (mbox).
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody is saying higher resolution is simple to do. But intel 386 processor was not simple to do either. Yet it got produced, sold, purchased, superceded by orders of magnitude more complex processors and they too got produced, sold, purchased.
Most of the "reasons" are excuses. Some have a hint of validity but those reasons have "reasons" which are excuses.
1. Proper DPI scaling : As is well known, most people use the operating system's own user interface and a browser (often browser is included). That's it. If other applications do not work very well, no one really cares. And I regularly user higher DPI settings than default on windows (I see my monitor from a distance). No application seems to significantly malfunction on that account - multiple browsers, code editors, chat clients, email clients, word processors and many more.
2. Interconnect bandwidth : "the very end of 2009" you say? Devices based on wifi-n 2009 specification are available from well before 2009. Specifications are slow because display industry doesn't want to react, and display industry itself is behind the specification bodies. You seriously think if large companies wanted they couldn't use the multiple display ports on modern graphics cards to advantage if interconnect bandwidth was the bottleneck?
3. but not long ago 256MB was "high end" : that was 5 years ago. Do you seriously want people to believe electronics industry takes 5 years to react to market trends? Not long ago 1GHZ dual core processors were high end. Today (admittedly ARM, but still) such processors are in average smartphone users' pockets and there are applications to take advantage of it for a long time. By your logic, processors supporting 8 GB of system RAM should come in 2020 because "not long ago", 1 GB of system RAM was "high end" ?
4. course it needs to be useful on more budget GPUs Why? WoW waited for "budget" GPUs to catch up before selling for PCs? Why would high-end screens wait for "budget" GPUs? Smartphones waited for "budget" phone plan to include unlimited internet access? Aircraft waited for "budget" traveler to be able to afford them? Rubbish excuse.
Please remind me of the chapter in logic 101 which teaches to conclude that apple not profiting from being mean to developers implies apple is not mean to developers.
Thanks
So the facts simply do not meet the "Apple is meaaaan to developers" storyline.
Yeah, the psycho doesn't profit from murdering so he never murdered. Logic.
Then you're not easily distracted. For those who are
to me, it's simply not worth it
For all your mighty powers of concentration, you can't make out that the GP was specifically talking about others, NOT you.
perl -e '$zero=`cat /dev/zero`'
You are welcome
it *seems* to be caused by a single app becoming very busy for a period
My dual core Atrix too does it, but most of the times it is due to high I/O load. Second core can't do much here. Is that the case with your phone as wel?
MS and Apple invest a fortune in user interface design I think the Linux community should try and let this influence them as much as possible since that is one thing open source software can rarely afford.
Yeah and the investment yields gems like
0. Huge PITA - ctrl-F on MS word / IE. Opens a stupid popup obscuring your text. Search for $x. The popup shifts right next to an occurrence of $x. When you are searching for $x, you never want to look at $x itself - otherwise you would directly look at the search window and be happy. You search so that you can look AROUND $x. But MS will very helpfully obscure the area around $x. You move the stupid popup away, hit "Next". The stupid popup is again next to next occurrence of $x.
Contrast to firefox - a search bar away from your text is opened.
1. Not allowing or making it difficult to configure focus follows mouse.
2. Not allowing resizing windows except for bottom right corner (OSX)
3. MS Windows has its fundamental settings dialogs unresizable, forcing users to scroll horizontally as well as vertically.
4. Irritating the user about updates
Apple's position appears to be that Android and Samsung have had almost no original thought in their product. Just look at Android SDK around 2007
Which is why Apple "stole" the notification bar from Android?
If you can't see that Apple changed the competitive landscape
So you are saying Apple's only contribution is changing the competitive landscape. Which is not patented. Hence they are justified in spreading patent terrorism in unrelated areas. Interesting.
He created a license that the movement used
Hence he gets much more respect than the average street lunatic in spite of sharing some traits with lunatics.
he tries to claim credit for everything that uses it, include the linux kernel
Citation needed. At best it is your misinterpretation of his statements, at worst you are the raving lunatic you are accusing him to be. On an average - you are letting his personal lack of charm prejudice you against him. Your choice where to stay in the aforementioned stretch of incorrectness.
Yes, it is comparable.
Apple is comparable to Denon. Vertu is similar.
"Enterprise" desktop/laptop market is comparable to retail brand name cables (maximum profit, yet price and cost don't differ by more than an order of magnitude).
"Consumer" hardware is comparable to cheap chinese cables - margin is maximum of 10s of percentage points. Quality is similar - as long as you don't give it a lot of rough usage it is likely to keep working for years. Once it breaks - better get a new one.
And assembled hardware (difficult for laptops though) is akin to neighbourhood computer hardware crimping the cable or consumer himself getting a crimp and doing it.
Yeah, I didn't realize earlier but the comparison is quite good.
For example if you isolate to $2000+ laptops Apple's share is much larger
Yeah. Denon's share is much higher when you isolate to $399+ ethernet cables.
If abuse turns out to be "justifiable", it's still abuse
But it is nothing to be ashamed of. I bought a hammer and use it as paper weight. Obviously an abuse of the instrument, as a hammer is not SUPPOSED to be used as a paper weight. But I am not ashamed of it and I would rather call the person mad who expects me to be ashamed of using a hammer as a paper weight.
The difference between that which IS truly justified and that which is merely excused by the abuser is that the former isn't done under pretense, is fairly and honestly open to scrutiny and is decided by someone OTHER than the abuser.
So you seek approval from your "betters"? See if this helps. You are welcome.
pointing to that which has vague similarities
Yet you are unable to point out the flaw in my analogy.
The problem is that Android is practically a bunch of operating system versions running on hardware of varying capabilities, and it only amplifies the other problems.
So is Microsoft Windows, and it amplifies no problems. You are a shill.
Agreeing or disagreeing doesn't make the person insightful (or a troll) and those who use mod points for the purpose of modding posts up or down based on agenda rather than according to the qualities the moderation is SUPPOSED to be for are violently abusing a system intended to promote dialogue and suppress that which would inhibit it.
I have read this often here, but why must all Slashdot readers do the bidding of Slashdot creators (who have themselves left Slashdot)? Slashdot readers can use the moderation system any which way we like - nothing to be ashamed of here.
PS3 is SUPPOSED to be to play games from Sony and give money to Sony, so a person who runs Apache server on his PS3 using OtherOS should be ashamed of himself? Aren't you a tool?
There are 2 kinds of people who use computer GUIs :
1. Who carefully test various GUI options, and select the best
2. Who use whatever came out of the box
The former variety has spent time and energy to choose the GUI features. They are using a particular GUI not because it just happened to be there in the box they purchased. They use it after careful consideration of many alternatives. Now if this chosen GUI changes drastically, obviously this variety of GUI users will not blindly accept the changed GUI. This is because they hadn't accepted the original GUI blindly either, but rather after careful consideration of alternatives. They hate change because present situation is not an accident for them - it is carefully chosen software carved into a part of their life via diligent customizations. They may like the new GUI also, but unlikely if the change is too drastic. Because if they liked something of this nature, they wouldn't have chosen the drastically different earlier version of it.
On the other hand, people of the latter variety are seen as "adaptable" to change. But actually they are incapable / unwilling to research the alternatives and configure them according to their own taste. Adapting is their only choice.
No, poweroff (single word) is not a word people use very frequently to describe the event of shutting down their computers. So Google search would obviously return less results (obvious provided you know the ABC of how Google search works)
You missed the point
You did.
Security back then was not as complex an issue as it is now.
How complex the security is doesn't matter.
Cyber Crime is real and there is a big business in raping connected users.
"Cyber Crime" the phrase might have come into more prevalence now but viruses of 1990s were cyber crime as well, were as real as now. Big business doesn't matter. Users had a lot to fear from viruses of 1990s. Data deletion / corruption was very common. Viruses made the already slow computers of the time much slower, unusably slow at times and were extremely difficult to remove. Spyware were common by late 1990s / early 2000s.
On the other hand, since there is big business now for malware, a single user doesn't lose much. Big malware business knows that to grow as a business, a single user must not be exploited so much so that he knows that there is any problem. Computers are so fast that even as part of a botnet a computer can perform its duties as the regular browsing / email box very well. And the big malware business knows that it must because otherwise the box will be buried in a landfill and another be purchased, which will have to be pwned afresh. Better keep it in good working condition while it is in use.
When fear mushrooms as reports leak in the media, isn't it only a matter of time before any mobile platform will die from the negative publicity?
A user had much more to lose from malware in the 1990s, and still no fear could stop them from using Windows, or even from clicking on the dancing bunny. If any lesson can be drawn from the success of Windows through the 1990s, it is that users don't care about security. Corporates care, and will get it by paying extra. But individual users don't care.
Media reports in 1990s were also full of vulnerabilities of Windows. Success of Windows is living proof of my point.
Android by its very design can easily be a choice target of cyber criminals. This eventually will kill adoption of Android as more stories circulate of those suffering from using Android
Like MS windows security vulnerabilities killed windows adoption in the 1990s? And Windows became a tiny minority of installed and running operating systems on internet connected devices by the turn of the century?
That's bad. So no security. I see many internet descriptions of Siri as a "voice-recognition" engine, seems there is no recognition just voice commands.
Voice recognition kicks in, I guess. So your voice is your password.
While compression is not completely worthless, COW, transactional FS (full ACID), file level RAID levels, are more important because they cannot be done in userspace. Encryption and compression can be done in userspace, and less important. Though more convenient if these are available from filesystem.
This is another case of ignorant Linux users answering with an "you don't want to do that anyway", when I perfectly know I do.
You have been unable to demonstrate you really need it, and that userspace solutions (zlib et al) are really inadequate.
Patient to doctor : Give me antibiotics for my viral fever
doctor : you don't need them
patient : I perfectly know I do need them
they recognize known file type
Yes, for known. Whereas we are talking about "specialized programs that not many people use". Not likely to be known. And not a single desktop search engine "knows" about all file types.
For such types of files, the heuristic I suggested is still the best after a few filterings. And like I also said, for desktop search it is an easy possibility to ignore rare file types. But not for a program that's purpose is to read those rare file types.
And of course other arguments of mine that you didn't address.
I still stand by what I said. 'Everything' will go to 'databases' at the 'human level'.
You call this standing by? Earlier you said that a database could be represented as hierarchical filesystem, it is just a database at the back-end. See
I think you must have missed the point I was making about the fact that you can easily build something just like a plain file/directory system on top of a database underneath
Now you changed tack again.
And yes, I thank you too. I enjoy arguing too, but I'd enjoy it better if you really stand by what you say.
Or, what about files made by specialized programs that not many people use? Why should OS makers have to deal with metadata standards for every filetype in existence? The way it is now, only people who write apps dealing with a particular filetype have to deal with metadata standards.
That is not the way it is now. Desktop indexing (present in Windows, OS X, and at least optionally in Linux) monitors the filesystem, re-scanning the in-file metadata when a file is modified, so it can build a central database for quick searches. So the indexing system needs to know how to read these different file types.
Very dishonest argument.
Desktop search engines have it very easy. Just consider the possibility - they can simply run /usr/bin/strings on the general area of the file where metadata is likely to be found and index the resulting data. In any order whatsoever, without making a distinction between "comment" like metadata (e.g. John's photo) and actionable metadata (e.g. photo taken when camera is at an angle of 47 degrees from the vertical). Even doing so can make a very good desktop search engine. And not supporting specialized file formats is very much a possibility.
This is much much less difficult than the program which has to make sense out of the data. To show the image appropriately rotated according to a piece of actionable metadata for instance. And not supporting specialized file formats is not an option - the particular program is for that specialized file format.
There is no comparison. At all. Especially when the GP already talked about specialized file formats, "that not many people use".
So yes, it is true to a great extent that "only people who write apps dealing with a particular filetype have to really deal with the nitty-gritty of metadata standards."; my alterations in italics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BigTable
Yep, they use GFS, which is not a database, like FAT32 and the rest.
And on top of that is Big Table.
Which is a database.
Google search index data does not use BigTable.
you will note that it mentions 'database' more than a few times
Any organized collection of data, especially if stored with special regard to efficiency of read / modify, is called database. So in that regard, all filesystems are databases. But since you talk about filesystems vs databases, Google search does NOT use databases, since it uses raw GFS and not BigTable.
I remember discussing it with Yahoo engineers, and they also explicitly avoided database usage in favour of filesystems for search index.
but its still a database at a much higher level than a file system.
Yeah, and my m3u playlist, and '/usr/bin/find > fileList'; are also databases at much higher level than a file system. Except that you were talking about something completely different and changed tack after learning that databases are not used where you thought they are used. And filesystems are used where you didn't think they are used (mbox).