Those features may be new to ext3, but not to the real competitors. I see nothing that might grant an edge over JFS or XFS. The real justifications will come from performance tests.
This reminds me of the recent NTFS article here, which actually suggested that since Hans Reiser is in jail and reiser4 is dead, we should consider NTFS. WTF? The ludicrousness of using NTFS as the primary filesystem is further justified in this article by its similar performance to ZFS, but both run in user-space (and are thus horrible in performance), so neither is really an option. What the heck is wrong with JFS and XFS?
Here are some real comparisons: First, Wikipedia's Comparison of file systems gets you started with a nice mapping of features. Second, a benchmarking of filesystems from 2006 which is still quite applicable (though it doesn't yet cover ext4). What we need is a comparison of EXT4 to XFS and JFS (et al), with EXT2/3 in there for reference.
Recall that the biggest reason for using ext3 is that it is supported best of all the filesystems. If all hell breaks loose, even Tomsrtbt (an ancient rescue floppy pre-dating knoppix) can fix it. Ext4 breaks this backwards-compatibility to ext2. Therefore, I see no reason to use it. One might as well use something more stable and proven, especially while we lack numbers suggesting it performs as well or better.
SSD's performance boost is in battery life due to its lower power consumption from zero moving parts. Flash-based storage has always had a problem with writing; don't forget about the fact that it can only be written to ~1000 times.
Furthermore, SSD is just temporary relief for batteries; I envision a laptop with both SSD and HDD that almost never writes to the SSD; on Windows, C:\WINDOWS and C:\Program Files would live in SSD while C:\Documents & Settings would live on HDD and C:\WINDOWS\Temp (or wherever that part lives nowadays) would be on ramdisk. On FOSS systems,/usr would be SSD while/home and/var would be HDD and/tmp and/var/tmp would be in shared memory (like/dev/shm).
The real future is in racetrack memory and the like, which drastically improves speed in both directions, removes the 1000-writes issue, AND further boosts SSD's impressive battery life. However, we've got ten years before it hits the market, so we have SSD until then.
It's promising, but there are still some lingering issues:
There is still work to do before an entire three-dimensional memory chip will replace your current memory solutions. The biggest problem may be heat; moving DWs requires a high current, which may destroy the wire or mangle the data it contains. Still, there are some ideas on how to deal with the heat, and this work represents a big step in the direction of a new dimension in memory storage.
I'm toying with the idea of a free implementation of 4e to be released in wiki form under a multi-license scheme of CC-SA/FDL/GPL that might also include a fourth license option of OGL so long as it also includes all three other licenses. I will request advice from Technomancer Press, Tom Buscaglia, and some more legally savvy friends before forging ahead on that venture.
Microsoft has always been the king of marketing in the software world... Gates and company could even be credited for creating the proprietary software industry as we know it today. Their bundling practices, evidenced by Internet Explorer and Media Player (et al), have proven their capability. They will take advantage of bundling again. The only question is how. Perhaps they will do it with the next generation of Xbox; a "free" operating system with their gaming platform just like the "free" Blu-ray player in the PS3. Perhaps they will buy an Asus competitor and bundle the OS with their ultra-portable. Perhaps it will come in the guise of donations in the form of Classmate PC.
What about the SRD is not free? I don't see how the "Product Identity" clause of the OGL affects the SRD because the SRD doesn't include any WotC "Product Identity." Are you referring to something else?
See my other posts in this thread for more clarification (including links to the criticism sections of the WikiPedia pages on Open gaming and d20 System). I'll also address your question here[1].
The biggest problems are outlined in the above Technomancer Press quote, which alleges that US patent and copyright laws specifically do not protect game mechanics themselves[2], only algorithmic implementations (i.e. software patents) and the copyright on the text itself (i.e. on grounds of plagiarism). Given this assumption, Technomancer Press makes d20 System/D&D-compatible products without the Open Game License or d20 System License. To avoid the copyright issues, they simply don't paste sections of the System Reference Document (or any other copyrighted works) to any excess prohibited by law. This allows them to do things expressly prohibited by the OGL, such as citing a specific page in the Players Handbook or calling the person running the game "Dungeon Master." OGL as it currently stands is a good approximation of Free Culture, but it's not quite there.
[1] - I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, I don't know the hard facts, and I have no intent to spoil or harm Wizards of the Coast or the Open Gaming movement. I am an advocate of Free Culture, and I will someday soon release my own D&D campaign world under a more free license.
[2] - I could not find a direct citation of this claim, though I'm sure I've read that there was a definitive Supreme Court ruling protecting game mechanics from patent in the same way that many Slashdotters would like to see software go. It may not have been Technomancer Press.
Singularity looks like testing the waters of an OSS kernel. This is (IMHO) a direct result of the pressure applied by PC vendors deciding to ship Ubuntu and friends. Microsoft sees the need for a move, and as you put it, the "concept car" is there to be scrutinized rather than realized.
It is in Microsoft's best interests to get the hell out of the kernel business. I don't understand why this isn't plainly clear to their executives. If they want to kill Linux, they should jump on board some other train... probably a BSD. Sure, purposeful incompatibility would be in the mix, so it won't be so interchangeable with other BSD incarnations like OS X or FreeBSD, but it would solve many of their security issues right off. This would move Microsoft's OS team from competing with Red Hat and Ubuntu to competing with GTK+/Gnome and Qt/KDE, which is wise because the BSD and Linux kernels beat the pants off of the Windows kernel, whereas it's a far closer race in the desktop environment arena, and Microsoft has the office suite battle pretty much in the bag (so this line of logic would suggest an official Linux release for Office further down the line).
There is also pressure on the mobile front, with MS solutions looking like they will lose to Google's Andriod (Java), Nokia's Qtopia (C++/Qt), and FIC's OpenMoko (C/GTK+). C# isn't half bad, so if they start developing something along the lines of an Andriod/Qt/GTK+ killer that also fuels their desktop GUI, they stay in the game. Otherwise, their mainstay will fade into X-Box, Office, and perhaps Visual Studio.
Alternatively, they could use their obscene wealth to flat-out buy Google's biggest competitor... *shudder*
As a note... I could never have imagined myself writing this two or more years ago. I was as anti-Microsoft as they come... but my fear and hate for them is transitioning to Google (see http://www.google-watch.org/ and http://www.gmail-is-too-creepy.com/ for reference). We'll see how a corporate mantra of "don't be evil" works for a company in the business of being evil.
Since my Technomancer Press citation got moderated to 5 and its parent didn't, here's what is important to note: The only redeeming bit about the OGL for 3e (and 3.5e) was that it allowed cut-and-paste actions, somewhat like a Free Software license, though certainly not "Free" or "Open" as we know it in the software industry (see Open Gaming and d20 System on WikiPedia). The new OGL takes this away, as sited at the top of this thread:
The 4th edition SRD will be much more of a reference document than the 3e SRD. The current edition contains almost all of the rules and allows "copy and paste" publishing. WotC would prefer to see 3rd party publishers to use their creativity and talent instead of reformatting or slightly changing pre-existing rules. As such, the 4e SRD will contain more guidelines and pointers, and less straightforward rules repetition.
(An aside: I'm not a fan of authors responding to (or re-posting) their own posts, but this is an important distinction. I'm sure I'm also not earning any brownie points at WotC by these posts, either... which hurts my life-long dream of working there, but there's no IT/software jobs in the Seattle area to fall-back to anyway (oww, my foot...). )
Ooh, the Technomancer Press website is actually responding today... I'd better quote them while I can. From the Technomancer Press FAQ [1]:
Are Technomancer Press books d20 System® compatible?
First, we would like to stress that "Dungeons and Dragons" and "d20 System" are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, not us. Yes. All books by Technomancer Press are compatible with Dungeons and Dragons® and other d20 System® games. A couple of them are d20-only (The Player's Companion and ConQuests), but most of them can be used with virtually any system.
Why don't Technomancer Press books have d20 System® logos on their covers?
The short, quippy answer is "it is against the terms of the d20 System License to publish the d20 System® logo in black and white." Again, we'd like to start by making it clear that d20 System® is a trademark of Wizards of the Coast, not us. To answer the question, if you read the text of the Open Gaming License (version 1.0a), it actually restricts companies from using certain terms in their books: You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. This means that saying our books are compatible with Dungeons & Dragons (a registered trademark of Wizards of the Coast) is a violation of the Open Gaming License. Further, the system reference document for D&D 3.5 released by Wizards of the Coast states: The following items are designated Product Identity, as defined in Section 1(e) of the Open Game License Version 1.0a, and are subject to the conditions set forth in Section 7 of the OGL, and are not Open Content: Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master, Monster Manual... In addition, the d20 System® Guide, v5.0 states: You may refer to the Player's Handbook by title or as the PHB. You may refer to the Dungeon Master's Guide only as the DMG and the Monster Manual only as the MM. You may refer to the Psionics Handbook only by title. You may refer to the Epic Level Handbook by title or as the ELH. You may refer to the d20 Modern Roleplaying Game only by title. You must not cite page number references... Technomancer Press finds these requirements to be restrictive and more beneficial to Wizards of the Coast than any of the d20 System® licensees. We also find it to be hypocritical, considering that Wizards of the Coast's initial product line consisted of books intended to be used in other role-playing systems. Technomancer Press believes that the d20 System® is a clever way for Wizards of the Coast to maintain their market share by advertising on their competitors' covers. The funny thing is that initially we decided that we couldn't officially do the d20 System® because they require the logo to be printed in color, and our covers are printed in black and white! We learned all the other stuff later.
So you guys think the open gaming movement is BS?
Hell no! We applaud the open gaming movement, and invite everyone to create new material inspired by our content. We just aren't pleased with Wizards of the Coast's Open Gaming License. By agreeing to the OGL, you give up some rights in return for "receiving" others*. By not signing the OGL, we are not bound to WotC's restrictions. *We contend that the rights they are "granting" are rights we already have anyway, without needing their permission.
The 4th edition SRD will be much more of a reference document than the 3e SRD. The current edition contains almost all of the rules and allows "copy and paste" publishing. WotC would prefer to see 3rd party publishers to use their creativity and talent instead of reformatting or slightly changing pre-existing rules. As such, the 4e SRD will contain more guidelines and pointers, and less straightforward rules repetition.
Translation: we are not going to release the actual rules under a free license.
They never did. The current 3e/3.5e SRD is quite far from "Free" in many regards, and the d20 System License is full-blown branding, with controls in place that let WotC retroactively change terms (this lost one company some serious money when their printed product was suddenly in violation of an update).
On top of that, it sounds like the license is reforming to such a degree that it doesn't actually grant you anything you aren't already entitled to... citing my question from the last round (which was submitted late and never saw moderation):
The view of OGL presented by Technomancer Press, for example, is that the OGL and d20 System License restrict more than they enable; US patent and trademark law already allows almost everything "granted" by OGL, whereas the only extra bit given by the license is the ability to reproduce the copyrighted text in exchange for restrictions on references to WotC printed materials. (The d20 System License grants use of the copyrighted/trademarked system logo, viewed by the industry as a requirement to sell successfully.) This presentation seems to indicate that a publisher is permitted (by law) to release D&D-compatible products and clearly mark them as such, so long as no WotC-owned logos are used and no copied text blocks are included. What response do you have to such a view?
This interpretation suggests that everything offered by the 4e "Game System License" is already permitted by law.
(Remember when Wizards of the Coast was a fledgling company, before Magic: The Gathering? They made greeting cards and a few unsanctioned D&D add-ons. TSR's (lack of) licensing did not permit this.)
Really: Ernest Gary Gygax was a god. He turned the wargaming world on its head when he created a fantasy-based game, and did it again with the little supplement in the back that dealt with more individual encounters. His legacy was this new attention to detail, a whole genre, richly inspired by Tolkien's similar work, and spawning universes of imagination to touch generations.... for this reason, I'd say he was a creation god, having created the world of role-playing games, significantly influencing the Fantasy genre itself, and even brining polyhedral dice to a more mainstream world. Gods don't die; Gygax will live on as only the most significant fathers of ideas do.
D&D has been a part of me since 1986 or so. I've been actively playing and even designing rules for most of that time, even if I had no idea of what I was doing. How did D&D improve my life? It gave me a gateway to my imagination, allowing me to express myself in creative ways that would otherwise have been developed far less aptly. It increased my vocabulary ("what does 'proficiency' mean?), and in triggering my interest in Tolkien, it caused me to learn much of linguistics, etymology, and language, not to mention the reading of fantasy novels including RA Salvatore's Drizzt books. Its limitless possibilities make me laugh at MUDs and MMORPGs for their simplicity... I can't play CRPGs or the like thanks to having discovered the real thing.
Thanks, Gary. From your days guiding the RPG movement, to your voice-overs on the D&D television show, to your return to the core team with WotC, you had a great run. We always wanted more, but that's only because you always provided so much. You will be missed, and never forgotten. So long and thanks for all the books.
PS: Anybody thinking of DMing or writing about a game or fantasy world (even outside the context of D&D) should take a look at his book Master of the Game, which is sadly out of print.
First, I agree that Thinkpads are the best out there. They are more robust and more usable than anything else, with the exception of the first run of T60s when Lenovo first broke away from IBM. Unfortunately, the key placement has moved me to purchase Dells for my company instead.
Escape and the Function key are in the wrong places... Esc must be in the NW corner, left of F1 and above back-tick (`), and the SW corner should read Ctrl, Fn, Win, Alt, Space. (Recall the fact that corners are the most easily located/accessed spots by sight and touch, to speak nothing of habit). Browser navigation buttons by the arrows are made useless by rocker gestures and ALT+Arrows. Most of my users don't even know what they do. I prefer nothing (or PgUp/PgDn if you must). Apple's defaults of Fn+arrow for home/end and pgup/pgdn are very useful (Dell uses those key combos for brightness, but how often do you change that?).
Apple's go the lack of a second mouse button (alleviated by multi-touch?) and Fn out of place, Lenovo has Esc and Fn out of place (plus funky web buttons blocking your fingers from arrow keys). I go with Dell.
Yes, I use ctrl:nocaps. Not so easy to set up (or convince of its usefulness) for my Thinkpad-based Windows users, but they'll get Dells when they're upgraded in a few months.
Open Gaming License by egg_green:
With D&D 3rd Edition, we were introduced to the D20 System and the Open Gaming License, which allowed third party publishers to produce supplements for the game. Will there be something akin to this for 4th Edition? What form will it take, and will it be more or less restrictive?
WotC:
The initial 4th Edition plans for allowing third-party publication of compatible supplements have been announced, and we're currently working with a number of independent publishers to iron out the details and get them started. Our goal is to allow 3rd party publishers, both large and small, the opportunity to publish products compatible with Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition.
First, thanks for getting rid of the red-tape-ridden "d20 System License." I'd like to follow up this line of thought with some clarifications on what the OGL can and can't actually do: What is the official response to claims that game mechanics themselves cannot be patented or protected as Intellectual Property (the way Software Patents are)?
The view of OGL presented by Technomancer Press, for example, is that the OGL and d20 System License restrict more than they enable; US patent and trademark law already allows almost everything "granted" by OGL, whereas the only extra bit given by the license is the ability to reproduce the copyrighted text in exchange for restrictions on references to WotC printed materials. (The d20 System License grants use of the copyrighted/trademarked system logo, viewed by the industry as a requirement to sell successfully.) This presentation seems to indicate that a publisher is permitted (by law) to release D&D-compatible products and clearly mark them as such, so long as no WotC-owned logos are used and no copied text blocks are included. What response do you have to such a view?
What are your goals in drafing the next OGL, and how do they differ from the current version? What can you acknowledge as mistakes made with the previous OGL and d20 System License?
Nobody here was addressing single files; scp is great for small transfers. When it comes to backing up large filetrees, scp just isn't an option. When it comes to preserving permissions, you're right... I'm usually in a situation that prevents going the easier way, so I forgot that tar preserves permissions while archiving.
I sometimes solve that by opening up root ssh access via a key, doing the transfer, and closing root ssh access (change the sshd_config file, restart sshd, start the ssh transfer, revert the sshd_config file, then restart sshd; the transfer is only on one session, and only new sessions are affected by the restarted sshd).
One thing I forgot to mention was compression-versus-bandwidth comparison. Linux Journal had a really comprehensive article on this called Compression Tools Compared back in July 2005. Basically, it boils down to suggesting even gzip may be too computationally expensive to be worthwhile if you've got a fast network hookup. On your LAN, you're best off without compression, be it through tar or ssh (set "Compression no" in your ~/.ssh/config for your LAN). Of course, it's often faster to send backup tapes via next-day mail...
Your code goes the other direction, and ignores my point about lost performance from verbosity. You're right that -C works in place of the "cd" command, which takes out the semi-colon and thus the need for quotes. I've found I can't rely on GNU extensions at work (lots of really old commercial UNIX boxes here), so its safer to do it the old-fashioned way.
Archive to a remote host:
tar cpzf - localfile1 localfile2 |ssh user@host tar -C/destination -xpzf -
Lose the "v" flag; its verbosity consumes bandwidth and takes up screen-painting time (people don't realize that the time spent to display things in your terminal is time not spent plowing through files). This is a significant speed boost when transferring lots of smaller files, and is not limited to tar-over-ssh (the saved screen-painting is more significant when purely local).
You also have an un-matched quote in the tar line, and you don't need the parenthesis. The "f" flag must be immediately followed by the file name ("-"), too. Use this instead:
tar cpzf - * | ssh user@host " cd/destination ; tar xpzf - "
(I changed the quote type just in case a user wants to use a variable in there.)
Also of note, tar does a great job of retaining ownership by UID/GID, but only when run as root. To use that, assuming there's enough room on the target system, dump a tarball there and unpacking it as root later:
sudo tar cpzf - * |ssh user@host "cat >/tmp/archive.tgz"
I'm offended by members of your religion blowing themselves up in populated areas as terrorist acts. When you stop doing that, then we can talk.
How is this "Score:5, Insightful" ?
The handful of Muslims involved in terrorist activity is both extremely small and non-representative of the religion as a whole. No major Islamic organization is represented by terrorists, and most such organizations officially condemn terrorism as a whole. I doubt you responded to the Oklahoma City Bombing by saying "Dear Christians, I'm offended by members of your religion..."
I can't interpret your post (and its moderators) as exhibiting anything but discrimination against Islam, including a rather large helping of ignorance.
You want two or three partitions in this room. Refer to the server area as the "server room" and your desk area as your "office." If there's a large enough entry/path area, call that either the "entryway" or the "foyer"... this establishes the room as a suite and helps distinguish between your space and the IT department's space (even if the dept. is currently just you). Put a nameplate or whatever on the outside of the door (or next to it) that says "IT Suite" or thereabouts (you can even put the subdivisions under it, with your name and "Server Room" getting separate entries).
Give yourself a corner desk, either an L-shape or a U-shape. You want to face the door, so this means one side of the desk follows the wall and another side sticks out into the room so that you have to walk around three sides of it to sit at your chair (this partitions the foyer and the office). Put a big shelving unit in the foyer so that people can come in and grab things without disturbing you (or falling out of your peripheral vision).
The "server room" portion should be well partitioned (hopefully with a floor-to-ceiling wall), specifically for insulation against noise and climate control (make sure those rack fans are pointed away from your desk!). It should also have an operating table, specifically always clear so that if something breaks you have space to work on it. The best way to ensure it is always clear is to have it as an island (against no wall); all walls should have shelves or racks so that the table never gets pushed against a wall. The server room portion should either have a raised floor or a ceiling with easy-access drop-down power conduits and network lines (this solves the issues of an island table, and makes for a much easier environment to maintain). The trash can should be near the door (or outside it) so that the janitor doesn't mess anything up, and the room should lock with a different key than the one to your office (the janitor shouldn't have access to it). You move the trash outside the server room when you go home (if it's full) and move it back into the server room as needed.
Put at least one waist-high shelf right by the door to the server room for cups and food, and leave an empty cup there to help remind people (including yourself) to keep food out of the server "room."
Re:Please help us improve our documentation.
on
Spying On Tor
·
· Score: 1
Some possible solutions for TOR clients to implement:
Avoid using exit nodes that prohibit encrypted content, even if using unencrypted content.
Check server fingerprints (in known protocols) on multiple exit nodes.
Cache server fingerprints for local and relayed traffic. If a server changed from a known CA to self-signed, throw a red flag somehow.
Force all nodes (not just exit nodes) to participate in a distributed web cache proxy, whose cached objects are verified through secondary exit nodes.
Items 1-3 are quick smoke tests that shouldn't really affect speed or latency. Item 4 will hopefully have the added benefit of speeding up the network... theoretically, it could go bittorrent-style and give significantly faster access to slower sites, reducing the slashdot effect and more closely matching (or even surpassing) direct access speeds.
A little reminder
on
Spying On Tor
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
This is a little reminder that we need a lot more users and exit nodes before TOR is reasonably safe.
This is a little reminder to encrypt your data end-to-end rather than through another network; anonymity is not security.
This is a little reminder that you really do need to check your SSL certificates.
TOR's encryption fools some into thinking it is a security model. It is not. TOR facilitates anonymous transactions using encryption internally. It eliminates the possibility of people spying on you by name, but it does not stop them from spying on "the people" (which includes you). You still need another encrypted transaction between you and your endpoint for real security.
The more exit nodes there are, the less likely a snooping entity will get ahold of your data. The more users there are, the more data those snoops need to filter through to get something meaningful (caveat: statistical analysis. workaround: encrypt data past the TOR network).
This is a call-to-arms; everybody needs to use encryption and anonymization to enable the system to work, otherwise somebody can set up a few nets and read the whole network's content, even brute-force decrypt it due to its low volume. Take a look at what Zimmerman's justification for PGP:
What if everyone believed that law-abiding citizens should use postcards for their mail? If a nonconformist tried to assert his privacy by using an envelope for his mail, it would draw suspicion. Perhaps the authorities would open his mail to see what he's hiding.
Remember Dark Angel? It was a show by a well-known writer (James Cameron), centering on a very attractive main character (Jessica Alba) with a corny storyline borrowed from a Jet Li kung-fu film (Black Mask). It was a weak show and was canceled early into its run. This seems rather similar.
I expect to dislike Dollhouse based on an observation that the big networks (especially Fox) always kill anything that sounds like it has its share of espionage and intrigue (the "conspiracy" theme hasn't flown since before 9/11, and hasn't been successful since the hey-day of The X-Files and The Pretender); it will either require too much intellect for Fox to keep, or it will have the banter of shows like Buffy (hint: I never liked Buffy) and Dawson's Creek, which I equate to drivel. I figure it will lean towards the latter.
Perhaps this way I can be pleasantly surprised when it surpasses my (low) expectations. I'd still rather he be working on a sequel movie to Serenity.
Jarod on the Pretender just did simulations; he knew he was a puppet, and he was aware of the programming. Dark City's premise was that the Strangers ran their mind-wiping experiments in secret; the human subjects were never intended to know what was going on, but then one day, the main character started figuring things out... just like in Whedon's new show.
Uh, Alex Proyas (The Crow, I, Robot) did this in his 1998 movie Dark City; an alien race constantly wipes the minds of their captive humans, reshuffling them in order to better understand the human concept of a soul (so that the dying alien race can learn this trait and perhaps evade their fate). The movie is one of my favorites, but I don't expect Dollhouse to be anything but drivel.
The world record for a marathon (26.218757mi) is 2:06:20, set in Amsterdam in 2005, which is 26.218757 miles / 2.105556 hours = 12.45218 mph
Since the mouse can keep that pace for 4-6 hours, it could run a marathon in 1:45:29.25 (26.218757/14.9129) and then keep going at the same pace for another few hours. That's really really fast.
Slashdot Mirror
Those features may be new to ext3, but not to the real competitors. I see nothing that might grant an edge over JFS or XFS. The real justifications will come from performance tests.
This reminds me of the recent NTFS article here, which actually suggested that since Hans Reiser is in jail and reiser4 is dead, we should consider NTFS. WTF? The ludicrousness of using NTFS as the primary filesystem is further justified in this article by its similar performance to ZFS, but both run in user-space (and are thus horrible in performance), so neither is really an option. What the heck is wrong with JFS and XFS?
Here are some real comparisons: First, Wikipedia's Comparison of file systems gets you started with a nice mapping of features. Second, a benchmarking of filesystems from 2006 which is still quite applicable (though it doesn't yet cover ext4). What we need is a comparison of EXT4 to XFS and JFS (et al), with EXT2/3 in there for reference.
Recall that the biggest reason for using ext3 is that it is supported best of all the filesystems. If all hell breaks loose, even Tomsrtbt (an ancient rescue floppy pre-dating knoppix) can fix it. Ext4 breaks this backwards-compatibility to ext2. Therefore, I see no reason to use it. One might as well use something more stable and proven, especially while we lack numbers suggesting it performs as well or better.
SSD's performance boost is in battery life due to its lower power consumption from zero moving parts. Flash-based storage has always had a problem with writing; don't forget about the fact that it can only be written to ~1000 times.
Furthermore, SSD is just temporary relief for batteries; I envision a laptop with both SSD and HDD that almost never writes to the SSD; on Windows, C:\WINDOWS and C:\Program Files would live in SSD while C:\Documents & Settings would live on HDD and C:\WINDOWS\Temp (or wherever that part lives nowadays) would be on ramdisk. On FOSS systems, /usr would be SSD while /home and /var would be HDD and /tmp and /var/tmp would be in shared memory (like /dev/shm).
The real future is in racetrack memory and the like, which drastically improves speed in both directions, removes the 1000-writes issue, AND further boosts SSD's impressive battery life. However, we've got ten years before it hits the market, so we have SSD until then.
Ars Technica picked this up yesterday and has a pretty good run-down of how it works (complete with a pretty illustration).
They also provide Links to the Science articles themselves:
It's promising, but there are still some lingering issues:
Relevant discussion on EN World: Possible [4e] Rules Patent?
GameDev.net has a campaign to fight the IP claims of Hasbro (Wizards of the Coast is a subsidiary of Hasbro): Why the Hasbro Lawsuit Should Terrify Game Developers And what we can do about it
I'm toying with the idea of a free implementation of 4e to be released in wiki form under a multi-license scheme of CC-SA/FDL/GPL that might also include a fourth license option of OGL so long as it also includes all three other licenses. I will request advice from Technomancer Press, Tom Buscaglia, and some more legally savvy friends before forging ahead on that venture.
Microsoft has always been the king of marketing in the software world ... Gates and company could even be credited for creating the proprietary software industry as we know it today. Their bundling practices, evidenced by Internet Explorer and Media Player (et al), have proven their capability. They will take advantage of bundling again. The only question is how. Perhaps they will do it with the next generation of Xbox; a "free" operating system with their gaming platform just like the "free" Blu-ray player in the PS3. Perhaps they will buy an Asus competitor and bundle the OS with their ultra-portable. Perhaps it will come in the guise of donations in the form of Classmate PC.
See my other posts in this thread for more clarification (including links to the criticism sections of the WikiPedia pages on Open gaming and d20 System). I'll also address your question here[1].
The biggest problems are outlined in the above Technomancer Press quote, which alleges that US patent and copyright laws specifically do not protect game mechanics themselves[2], only algorithmic implementations (i.e. software patents) and the copyright on the text itself (i.e. on grounds of plagiarism). Given this assumption, Technomancer Press makes d20 System/D&D-compatible products without the Open Game License or d20 System License. To avoid the copyright issues, they simply don't paste sections of the System Reference Document (or any other copyrighted works) to any excess prohibited by law. This allows them to do things expressly prohibited by the OGL, such as citing a specific page in the Players Handbook or calling the person running the game "Dungeon Master." OGL as it currently stands is a good approximation of Free Culture, but it's not quite there.
See also my earlier post citing the Technomancer Press FAQ (which more closely picks at the issues with the OGL), an IGDA article on Protecting Game-Play rules and the legal struggles of Data East (and as a cons, the rulings on KC Munchkin), which are the best I could come up with for citations.
[1] - I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, I don't know the hard facts, and I have no intent to spoil or harm Wizards of the Coast or the Open Gaming movement. I am an advocate of Free Culture, and I will someday soon release my own D&D campaign world under a more free license.
[2] - I could not find a direct citation of this claim, though I'm sure I've read that there was a definitive Supreme Court ruling protecting game mechanics from patent in the same way that many Slashdotters would like to see software go. It may not have been Technomancer Press.
Singularity looks like testing the waters of an OSS kernel. This is (IMHO) a direct result of the pressure applied by PC vendors deciding to ship Ubuntu and friends. Microsoft sees the need for a move, and as you put it, the "concept car" is there to be scrutinized rather than realized.
It is in Microsoft's best interests to get the hell out of the kernel business. I don't understand why this isn't plainly clear to their executives. If they want to kill Linux, they should jump on board some other train ... probably a BSD. Sure, purposeful incompatibility would be in the mix, so it won't be so interchangeable with other BSD incarnations like OS X or FreeBSD, but it would solve many of their security issues right off. This would move Microsoft's OS team from competing with Red Hat and Ubuntu to competing with GTK+/Gnome and Qt/KDE, which is wise because the BSD and Linux kernels beat the pants off of the Windows kernel, whereas it's a far closer race in the desktop environment arena, and Microsoft has the office suite battle pretty much in the bag (so this line of logic would suggest an official Linux release for Office further down the line).
There is also pressure on the mobile front, with MS solutions looking like they will lose to Google's Andriod (Java), Nokia's Qtopia (C++/Qt), and FIC's OpenMoko (C/GTK+). C# isn't half bad, so if they start developing something along the lines of an Andriod/Qt/GTK+ killer that also fuels their desktop GUI, they stay in the game. Otherwise, their mainstay will fade into X-Box, Office, and perhaps Visual Studio.
Alternatively, they could use their obscene wealth to flat-out buy Google's biggest competitor... *shudder*
As a note
Since my Technomancer Press citation got moderated to 5 and its parent didn't, here's what is important to note: The only redeeming bit about the OGL for 3e (and 3.5e) was that it allowed cut-and-paste actions, somewhat like a Free Software license, though certainly not "Free" or "Open" as we know it in the software industry (see Open Gaming and d20 System on WikiPedia). The new OGL takes this away, as sited at the top of this thread:
(An aside: I'm not a fan of authors responding to (or re-posting) their own posts, but this is an important distinction. ... which hurts my life-long dream of working there, but there's no IT/software jobs in the Seattle area to fall-back to anyway (oww, my foot...). )
I'm sure I'm also not earning any brownie points at WotC by these posts, either
- Are Technomancer Press books d20 System® compatible?
- Why don't Technomancer Press books have d20 System® logos on their covers?
- So you guys think the open gaming movement is BS?
[1] www.technomancer-press.com/index.php?mact=Glossary,cntnt01,show,0&cntnt01tid=9&cntnt01returnid=59First, we would like to stress that "Dungeons and Dragons" and "d20 System" are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, not us. Yes. All books by Technomancer Press are compatible with Dungeons and Dragons® and other d20 System® games. A couple of them are d20-only (The Player's Companion and ConQuests), but most of them can be used with virtually any system.
The short, quippy answer is "it is against the terms of the d20 System License to publish the d20 System® logo in black and white." Again, we'd like to start by making it clear that d20 System® is a trademark of Wizards of the Coast, not us. To answer the question, if you read the text of the Open Gaming License (version 1.0a), it actually restricts companies from using certain terms in their books: You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. This means that saying our books are compatible with Dungeons & Dragons (a registered trademark of Wizards of the Coast) is a violation of the Open Gaming License. Further, the system reference document for D&D 3.5 released by Wizards of the Coast states: The following items are designated Product Identity, as defined in Section 1(e) of the Open Game License Version 1.0a, and are subject to the conditions set forth in Section 7 of the OGL, and are not Open Content: Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master, Monster Manual... In addition, the d20 System® Guide, v5.0 states: You may refer to the Player's Handbook by title or as the PHB. You may refer to the Dungeon Master's Guide only as the DMG and the Monster Manual only as the MM. You may refer to the Psionics Handbook only by title. You may refer to the Epic Level Handbook by title or as the ELH. You may refer to the d20 Modern Roleplaying Game only by title. You must not cite page number references... Technomancer Press finds these requirements to be restrictive and more beneficial to Wizards of the Coast than any of the d20 System® licensees. We also find it to be hypocritical, considering that Wizards of the Coast's initial product line consisted of books intended to be used in other role-playing systems. Technomancer Press believes that the d20 System® is a clever way for Wizards of the Coast to maintain their market share by advertising on their competitors' covers. The funny thing is that initially we decided that we couldn't officially do the d20 System® because they require the logo to be printed in color, and our covers are printed in black and white! We learned all the other stuff later.
Hell no! We applaud the open gaming movement, and invite everyone to create new material inspired by our content. We just aren't pleased with Wizards of the Coast's Open Gaming License. By agreeing to the OGL, you give up some rights in return for "receiving" others*. By not signing the OGL, we are not bound to WotC's restrictions. *We contend that the rights they are "granting" are rights we already have anyway, without needing their permission.
They never did. The current 3e/3.5e SRD is quite far from "Free" in many regards, and the d20 System License is full-blown branding, with controls in place that let WotC retroactively change terms (this lost one company some serious money when their printed product was suddenly in violation of an update).
On top of that, it sounds like the license is reforming to such a degree that it doesn't actually grant you anything you aren't already entitled to ... citing my question from the last round (which was submitted late and never saw moderation):
This interpretation suggests that everything offered by the 4e "Game System License" is already permitted by law.
(Remember when Wizards of the Coast was a fledgling company, before Magic: The Gathering? They made greeting cards and a few unsanctioned D&D add-ons. TSR's (lack of) licensing did not permit this.)
Really: Ernest Gary Gygax was a god. He turned the wargaming world on its head when he created a fantasy-based game, and did it again with the little supplement in the back that dealt with more individual encounters. His legacy was this new attention to detail, a whole genre, richly inspired by Tolkien's similar work, and spawning universes of imagination to touch generations. ... for this reason, I'd say he was a creation god, having created the world of role-playing games, significantly influencing the Fantasy genre itself, and even brining polyhedral dice to a more mainstream world. Gods don't die; Gygax will live on as only the most significant fathers of ideas do.
D&D has been a part of me since 1986 or so. I've been actively playing and even designing rules for most of that time, even if I had no idea of what I was doing. How did D&D improve my life? It gave me a gateway to my imagination, allowing me to express myself in creative ways that would otherwise have been developed far less aptly. It increased my vocabulary ("what does 'proficiency' mean?), and in triggering my interest in Tolkien, it caused me to learn much of linguistics, etymology, and language, not to mention the reading of fantasy novels including RA Salvatore's Drizzt books. Its limitless possibilities make me laugh at MUDs and MMORPGs for their simplicity ... I can't play CRPGs or the like thanks to having discovered the real thing.
Thanks, Gary. From your days guiding the RPG movement, to your voice-overs on the D&D television show, to your return to the core team with WotC, you had a great run. We always wanted more, but that's only because you always provided so much. You will be missed, and never forgotten. So long and thanks for all the books.
PS: Anybody thinking of DMing or writing about a game or fantasy world (even outside the context of D&D) should take a look at his book Master of the Game, which is sadly out of print.
First, I agree that Thinkpads are the best out there. They are more robust and more usable than anything else, with the exception of the first run of T60s when Lenovo first broke away from IBM. Unfortunately, the key placement has moved me to purchase Dells for my company instead.
For reference, here are some pictures for keyboard comparison:
Thinkpad X300
Dell D420 keyboard
Macbook Pro Air keyboard
Escape and the Function key are in the wrong places ... Esc must be in the NW corner, left of F1 and above back-tick (`), and the SW corner should read Ctrl, Fn, Win, Alt, Space. (Recall the fact that corners are the most easily located/accessed spots by sight and touch, to speak nothing of habit). Browser navigation buttons by the arrows are made useless by rocker gestures and ALT+Arrows. Most of my users don't even know what they do. I prefer nothing (or PgUp/PgDn if you must). Apple's defaults of Fn+arrow for home/end and pgup/pgdn are very useful (Dell uses those key combos for brightness, but how often do you change that?).
Apple's go the lack of a second mouse button (alleviated by multi-touch?) and Fn out of place, Lenovo has Esc and Fn out of place (plus funky web buttons blocking your fingers from arrow keys). I go with Dell.
Yes, I use ctrl:nocaps. Not so easy to set up (or convince of its usefulness) for my Thinkpad-based Windows users, but they'll get Dells when they're upgraded in a few months.
First, thanks for getting rid of the red-tape-ridden "d20 System License." I'd like to follow up this line of thought with some clarifications on what the OGL can and can't actually do: What is the official response to claims that game mechanics themselves cannot be patented or protected as Intellectual Property (the way Software Patents are)?
The view of OGL presented by Technomancer Press, for example, is that the OGL and d20 System License restrict more than they enable; US patent and trademark law already allows almost everything "granted" by OGL, whereas the only extra bit given by the license is the ability to reproduce the copyrighted text in exchange for restrictions on references to WotC printed materials. (The d20 System License grants use of the copyrighted/trademarked system logo, viewed by the industry as a requirement to sell successfully.) This presentation seems to indicate that a publisher is permitted (by law) to release D&D-compatible products and clearly mark them as such, so long as no WotC-owned logos are used and no copied text blocks are included. What response do you have to such a view?
What are your goals in drafing the next OGL, and how do they differ from the current version? What can you acknowledge as mistakes made with the previous OGL and d20 System License?
Nobody here was addressing single files; scp is great for small transfers. When it comes to backing up large filetrees, scp just isn't an option. When it comes to preserving permissions, you're right ... I'm usually in a situation that prevents going the easier way, so I forgot that tar preserves permissions while archiving.
I sometimes solve that by opening up root ssh access via a key, doing the transfer, and closing root ssh access (change the sshd_config file, restart sshd, start the ssh transfer, revert the sshd_config file, then restart sshd; the transfer is only on one session, and only new sessions are affected by the restarted sshd).
One thing I forgot to mention was compression-versus-bandwidth comparison. Linux Journal had a really comprehensive article on this called Compression Tools Compared back in July 2005. Basically, it boils down to suggesting even gzip may be too computationally expensive to be worthwhile if you've got a fast network hookup. On your LAN, you're best off without compression, be it through tar or ssh (set "Compression no" in your ~/.ssh/config for your LAN). Of course, it's often faster to send backup tapes via next-day mail...
Your code goes the other direction, and ignores my point about lost performance from verbosity. You're right that -C works in place of the "cd" command, which takes out the semi-colon and thus the need for quotes. I've found I can't rely on GNU extensions at work (lots of really old commercial UNIX boxes here), so its safer to do it the old-fashioned way.
Archive to a remote host:
tar cpzf - localfile1 localfile2 |ssh user@host tar -C /destination -xpzf -
Archive from a remote host:
ssh user@host tar -C /remote/path -cpzf - remotefile1 remotefile2 |tar -C /destination -xpzf -
Lose the "v" flag; its verbosity consumes bandwidth and takes up screen-painting time (people don't realize that the time spent to display things in your terminal is time not spent plowing through files). This is a significant speed boost when transferring lots of smaller files, and is not limited to tar-over-ssh (the saved screen-painting is more significant when purely local).
You also have an un-matched quote in the tar line, and you don't need the parenthesis. The "f" flag must be immediately followed by the file name ("-"), too. Use this instead:
tar cpzf - * | ssh user@host " cd /destination ; tar xpzf - "
(I changed the quote type just in case a user wants to use a variable in there.)
Also of note, tar does a great job of retaining ownership by UID/GID, but only when run as root. To use that, assuming there's enough room on the target system, dump a tarball there and unpacking it as root later:
sudo tar cpzf - * |ssh user@host "cat >/tmp/archive.tgz"
And then on the target host:
cd /destination; tar xpzf /tmp/archive.tgz
How is this "Score:5, Insightful" ?
The handful of Muslims involved in terrorist activity is both extremely small and non-representative of the religion as a whole. No major Islamic organization is represented by terrorists, and most such organizations officially condemn terrorism as a whole. I doubt you responded to the Oklahoma City Bombing by saying "Dear Christians, I'm offended by members of your religion ..."
I can't interpret your post (and its moderators) as exhibiting anything but discrimination against Islam, including a rather large helping of ignorance.
The Free Software Foundation system administrators are members of an auto union (maybe UAW? I couldn't find it quickly.)
You want two or three partitions in this room. Refer to the server area as the "server room" and your desk area as your "office." If there's a large enough entry/path area, call that either the "entryway" or the "foyer" ... this establishes the room as a suite and helps distinguish between your space and the IT department's space (even if the dept. is currently just you). Put a nameplate or whatever on the outside of the door (or next to it) that says "IT Suite" or thereabouts (you can even put the subdivisions under it, with your name and "Server Room" getting separate entries).
Give yourself a corner desk, either an L-shape or a U-shape. You want to face the door, so this means one side of the desk follows the wall and another side sticks out into the room so that you have to walk around three sides of it to sit at your chair (this partitions the foyer and the office). Put a big shelving unit in the foyer so that people can come in and grab things without disturbing you (or falling out of your peripheral vision).
The "server room" portion should be well partitioned (hopefully with a floor-to-ceiling wall), specifically for insulation against noise and climate control (make sure those rack fans are pointed away from your desk!). It should also have an operating table, specifically always clear so that if something breaks you have space to work on it. The best way to ensure it is always clear is to have it as an island (against no wall); all walls should have shelves or racks so that the table never gets pushed against a wall. The server room portion should either have a raised floor or a ceiling with easy-access drop-down power conduits and network lines (this solves the issues of an island table, and makes for a much easier environment to maintain). The trash can should be near the door (or outside it) so that the janitor doesn't mess anything up, and the room should lock with a different key than the one to your office (the janitor shouldn't have access to it). You move the trash outside the server room when you go home (if it's full) and move it back into the server room as needed.
Put at least one waist-high shelf right by the door to the server room for cups and food, and leave an empty cup there to help remind people (including yourself) to keep food out of the server "room."
Items 1-3 are quick smoke tests that shouldn't really affect speed or latency. Item 4 will hopefully have the added benefit of speeding up the network ... theoretically, it could go bittorrent-style and give significantly faster access to slower sites, reducing the slashdot effect and more closely matching (or even surpassing) direct access speeds.
This is a little reminder that we need a lot more users and exit nodes before TOR is reasonably safe.
This is a little reminder to encrypt your data end-to-end rather than through another network; anonymity is not security.
This is a little reminder that you really do need to check your SSL certificates.
TOR's encryption fools some into thinking it is a security model. It is not. TOR facilitates anonymous transactions using encryption internally. It eliminates the possibility of people spying on you by name, but it does not stop them from spying on "the people" (which includes you). You still need another encrypted transaction between you and your endpoint for real security.
The more exit nodes there are, the less likely a snooping entity will get ahold of your data. The more users there are, the more data those snoops need to filter through to get something meaningful (caveat: statistical analysis. workaround: encrypt data past the TOR network).
This is a call-to-arms; everybody needs to use encryption and anonymization to enable the system to work, otherwise somebody can set up a few nets and read the whole network's content, even brute-force decrypt it due to its low volume. Take a look at what Zimmerman's justification for PGP:
Remember Dark Angel? It was a show by a well-known writer (James Cameron), centering on a very attractive main character (Jessica Alba) with a corny storyline borrowed from a Jet Li kung-fu film (Black Mask). It was a weak show and was canceled early into its run. This seems rather similar.
I expect to dislike Dollhouse based on an observation that the big networks (especially Fox) always kill anything that sounds like it has its share of espionage and intrigue (the "conspiracy" theme hasn't flown since before 9/11, and hasn't been successful since the hey-day of The X-Files and The Pretender); it will either require too much intellect for Fox to keep, or it will have the banter of shows like Buffy (hint: I never liked Buffy) and Dawson's Creek, which I equate to drivel. I figure it will lean towards the latter.
Perhaps this way I can be pleasantly surprised when it surpasses my (low) expectations. I'd still rather he be working on a sequel movie to Serenity.
Jarod on the Pretender just did simulations; he knew he was a puppet, and he was aware of the programming. Dark City's premise was that the Strangers ran their mind-wiping experiments in secret; the human subjects were never intended to know what was going on, but then one day, the main character started figuring things out ... just like in Whedon's new show.
Uh, Alex Proyas (The Crow, I, Robot) did this in his 1998 movie Dark City ; an alien race constantly wipes the minds of their captive humans, reshuffling them in order to better understand the human concept of a soul (so that the dying alien race can learn this trait and perhaps evade their fate). The movie is one of my favorites, but I don't expect Dollhouse to be anything but drivel.
Uh. 4-6 hours at 20 meters per minute... Let's show how absolutely ridiculously fast that is:
20 meters/minute * 60 minutes/hour / 1609.344 meters/mile = 14.9129 mph
The world record for a marathon (26.218757mi) is 2:06:20, set in Amsterdam in 2005, which is 26.218757 miles / 2.105556 hours = 12.45218 mph
Since the mouse can keep that pace for 4-6 hours, it could run a marathon in 1:45:29.25 (26.218757/14.9129) and then keep going at the same pace for another few hours. That's really really fast.