Why do you have to take the machine down? Maybe I'm used to *BSD, but if you have empty space on a disk, that is unpartitioned (or hot swappable disks), you should be able to move/home without taking the machine down (you may need to have several users log off, but that is about it).
As for the registry, I responded to hose as to why that isn't an issue.
I should clarify - I created a/home partition, but when I tried their default/recommended layout it didn't.
But, the issues with the backups come from relying on default behavior of badly written apps on install. So the issues are still rather parallel between the OSes.
I've never heard of that. Thank you for the reference.
Although, reading the Wikipedia article, he said there is much to be gained if God exists, and little to be gained from wagering God doesn't exist. I'd argue that there is a lot to be gained from wagering that God doesn't exist, proportionally speaking. All choices are valid, and even if you do wager God does exist, there are so many possible views. My involves that God should be worthy of us, and deciding if a rule is from God or the church based on that... (and hence, how important it is). But that is a huge digression.
Your logic requires a minimum number of votes to get someone in.
All someone needs is "the most votes". So if there are three votes (each candidate votes once, and one of their spouses votes, for example), then you will have a winner.
Not voting does nothing. The best you can do is vote for "the best available" and hope that they see what works, and move in that direction to try to get votes. Unfortunately, since there is no consensus (a lot of people LOVE these rancid maggots), there isn't a unified direction to "improve towards".
I agree, but you can hardly blame MS for it, all they can do is try to discourage such bad practices (which, in a way, this will do, since those applications will break).
Yes, I do. I also know how to use my operating system. Windows 7, at least, has a recommended place to install such poorly designed/written software under the "Users" directory. Quite a few applications (Mathematica comes to mind) don't need that though.
Consider if a bunch of programs used the same config file format, and then one system program read all of these config files located in/etc and/usr/etc. Next, then when a user logged in, a sub-process spawned and loaded all the configuration files in the users home directory (that it knew to load). THAT is the registry. Prior to Windows XP, and a few poorly written programs afterward, would put user data in the global segments, but outside of legacy programs, the per-user registry settings are stored in the user's profile.
Yeah, and Steam (and similar such poorly written programs) should be installed to "/users/All Users/[???]" (can't remember the [???], so that you don't have to click "yes" on UAC every time you run it, or disable UAC. Don't blame MS because some shitheads couldn't write their programs properly. Would you accpet a program that requires you to 'sudo' it in Linux because it stores per-user configuration in etc? No? Would you blame Linux for a program that does that? No? Why are you blaming MS for it?
So long as you live in your hypocritical little double-standards world, yes, blame MS for crappy written programs, and not knowing how to install them properly.
The registry, outside of hives hiding in the folders I mentioned, are system settings, and the equivalent of what you find in the '/etc/' and '/usr/local/etc' directories, and therefore would also not be preserved with a *nix method of preserving "home"
Likewise with "Program Files", the parallel to that stuff typically goes to */bin, */sbin, */lib, etc. None of which are under/home, except on a pretty fucked up installation of *nix.
Mind you, there are legacy programs that will put saved data in the install directory, but that has been phased out for a long time, and with Windows Vista and 7, those are typically put in a sub-folder of Users, which would again fix the problem.
Finally, a valid complaint on this topic, instead of an "It is made by MS, so I'm gonna bitch!"
My first thought reading the article was "If I were writing malware, my first goal would to be infect those files!"
Actually, I've had the same issue with install partitions that many vendors use on their computers - what will keep malware vendors from mucking those up, and screwing up future installs?
PITA? Only if you are truly a putz of a programmer.
Everything that would be in "Home/" for a normal *nix install is in "Documents and Settings" or "Users" folder, depending on Windows version.
I've had quite a few Linux/BSD installs not put Home/ in it's own partition, however, traversing a directory tree, and getting which files/directories (and their corresponding disk nodes/table-entries) might take a couple extra minutes, but I wouldn't describe it as particularly challenging code.
Atheism, requires faith. Faith to NOT believe in something for which there is no evidence against.
FTFY
Agnosticism, is a lack of faith - a state of uncertainty, where you don't believe or disbelieve in either. Either side, both theism and atheism, requires some faith.
I don't think you quite get what the GP said, or you have some very interesting ideas.
There is a difference between believing something doesn't occur, and having uncertainty about it's occurrence.
There was a time people believed that plate tectonics and continental drift absolutely did not exist. That was a belief in such a "not", and even with a lot of evidence towards the contrary.
Faith is simply a belief in a concept (including a concept that another is wrong) or idea, particularly without sufficient evidence for its accuracy.
Consider a ants in an iron box (say, floating over the ground by a magnetic field) that cannot be opened.
(1) The outside of the box is slick, so the ant's can't stick their feet to it, they'll fall off. (2) There is a surface below the box, that stands, and is similarly slick, so the ants cant
Now we have two variables. An ant eater at the bottom of the surface below the box, and a hole at the bottom of the box. This hole is slick, and deeper than an ant is long, so the ant cant peer out, if it goes in the hole, it slides out, and onto the ramp, then onto the surface below, where the anteater waits.
Now, let's say the ant eater can 'smell' how old an ant is, and it only likes to eat younger ants.
If the hole does not exist, your described view makes sense. Who cares? There's no way those ants will interact with the ant eater, if it does exist.
If the hole exists, the ants in the box cannot know about the ant eater for certain, but should they leave the box, if it exists, it may certainly affect them. Now they have the risk - to leave the box young, and explore and outside world with many more resources (and potentially an ant eater), or wait in safety until later?
One theme I've heard is, "I could be wrong in two ways, one would leave me having wasted some time, and the other would leave me globally screwed." Mind you, along with that, faith in god (and even attending a church) does not necessarily correspond to faith in the church.
Problem is, we get the same garbage up to the point where we are given a choice, so the question is not so much which candidate is good, as which maggot is the least rancid.
There's no way to sort by price, but there are way to select free-as-in-beer apps only, I don't have an android device nearby at the moment, but I remember it being very easy to do.
But that is rather non-sequetor (sp?) to the matter at hand, which is a desire for software with Open Source licenses.
in the case of #2, there will be little issue due to this wonderful thing called "Natural Selection". The nice part is, it works, even on unnatural changes.
No, I meant easier to write hard-to-be-human-readable code. Perl, in my experience, is the worst of the bunch. I used to work in a shop where we did mostly Perl, I was the only one who attempted to make it readable. Everyone else used every trick and shortcut to make it concise, but also make it totally unreadable.
I should add - PHP is *NOT* a bad solution, depending on what you are doing, the very large library of available functionality built into it, is EXTREMELY nice. It simply is not my first choice, as much of that functionality can be obtained from Python or C# with only a little more effort (finding the correct library to download), and it is easier to call C libraries from Python or C#.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you have to take the machine down? Maybe I'm used to *BSD, but if you have empty space on a disk, that is unpartitioned (or hot swappable disks), you should be able to move /home without taking the machine down (you may need to have several users log off, but that is about it).
As for the registry, I responded to hose as to why that isn't an issue.
I should clarify - I created a /home partition, but when I tried their default/recommended layout it didn't.
But, the issues with the backups come from relying on default behavior of badly written apps on install. So the issues are still rather parallel between the OSes.
I've never heard of that. Thank you for the reference.
Although, reading the Wikipedia article, he said there is much to be gained if God exists, and little to be gained from wagering God doesn't exist. I'd argue that there is a lot to be gained from wagering that God doesn't exist, proportionally speaking. All choices are valid, and even if you do wager God does exist, there are so many possible views. My involves that God should be worthy of us, and deciding if a rule is from God or the church based on that... (and hence, how important it is). But that is a huge digression.
Your logic requires a minimum number of votes to get someone in.
All someone needs is "the most votes". So if there are three votes (each candidate votes once, and one of their spouses votes, for example), then you will have a winner.
Not voting does nothing. The best you can do is vote for "the best available" and hope that they see what works, and move in that direction to try to get votes. Unfortunately, since there is no consensus (a lot of people LOVE these rancid maggots), there isn't a unified direction to "improve towards".
It doesn't work like that here :-(
I agree, but you can hardly blame MS for it, all they can do is try to discourage such bad practices (which, in a way, this will do, since those applications will break).
That method does have a lot of good logic to it.
What does UL stand for? I'd probably go for 'pub' myself.
-Jim
Yes, I do. I also know how to use my operating system. Windows 7, at least, has a recommended place to install such poorly designed/written software under the "Users" directory. Quite a few applications (Mathematica comes to mind) don't need that though.
The registry is full of user crap, yes.
But the registry isn't a monolithic entity.
Consider if a bunch of programs used the same config file format, and then one system program read all of these config files located in /etc and /usr/etc. Next, then when a user logged in, a sub-process spawned and loaded all the configuration files in the users home directory (that it knew to load). THAT is the registry. Prior to Windows XP, and a few poorly written programs afterward, would put user data in the global segments, but outside of legacy programs, the per-user registry settings are stored in the user's profile.
Yeah, and Steam (and similar such poorly written programs) should be installed to "/users/All Users/[???]" (can't remember the [???], so that you don't have to click "yes" on UAC every time you run it, or disable UAC. Don't blame MS because some shitheads couldn't write their programs properly. Would you accpet a program that requires you to 'sudo' it in Linux because it stores per-user configuration in etc? No? Would you blame Linux for a program that does that? No? Why are you blaming MS for it?
So long as you live in your hypocritical little double-standards world, yes, blame MS for crappy written programs, and not knowing how to install them properly.
The registry, outside of hives hiding in the folders I mentioned, are system settings, and the equivalent of what you find in the '/etc/' and '/usr/local/etc' directories, and therefore would also not be preserved with a *nix method of preserving "home"
Likewise with "Program Files", the parallel to that stuff typically goes to */bin, */sbin, */lib, etc. None of which are under /home, except on a pretty fucked up installation of *nix.
Mind you, there are legacy programs that will put saved data in the install directory, but that has been phased out for a long time, and with Windows Vista and 7, those are typically put in a sub-folder of Users, which would again fix the problem.
So, sorry, your argument really doesn't work.
Finally, a valid complaint on this topic, instead of an "It is made by MS, so I'm gonna bitch!"
My first thought reading the article was "If I were writing malware, my first goal would to be infect those files!"
Actually, I've had the same issue with install partitions that many vendors use on their computers - what will keep malware vendors from mucking those up, and screwing up future installs?
PITA? Only if you are truly a putz of a programmer.
Everything that would be in "Home/" for a normal *nix install is in "Documents and Settings" or "Users" folder, depending on Windows version.
I've had quite a few Linux/BSD installs not put Home/ in it's own partition, however, traversing a directory tree, and getting which files/directories (and their corresponding disk nodes/table-entries) might take a couple extra minutes, but I wouldn't describe it as particularly challenging code.
FTFY
Agnosticism, is a lack of faith - a state of uncertainty, where you don't believe or disbelieve in either. Either side, both theism and atheism, requires some faith.
I don't think you quite get what the GP said, or you have some very interesting ideas.
There is a difference between believing something doesn't occur, and having uncertainty about it's occurrence.
There was a time people believed that plate tectonics and continental drift absolutely did not exist. That was a belief in such a "not", and even with a lot of evidence towards the contrary.
Faith is simply a belief in a concept (including a concept that another is wrong) or idea, particularly without sufficient evidence for its accuracy.
Consider a ants in an iron box (say, floating over the ground by a magnetic field) that cannot be opened.
(1) The outside of the box is slick, so the ant's can't stick their feet to it, they'll fall off.
(2) There is a surface below the box, that stands, and is similarly slick, so the ants cant
Now we have two variables. An ant eater at the bottom of the surface below the box, and a hole at the bottom of the box. This hole is slick, and deeper than an ant is long, so the ant cant peer out, if it goes in the hole, it slides out, and onto the ramp, then onto the surface below, where the anteater waits.
Now, let's say the ant eater can 'smell' how old an ant is, and it only likes to eat younger ants.
If the hole does not exist, your described view makes sense. Who cares? There's no way those ants will interact with the ant eater, if it does exist.
If the hole exists, the ants in the box cannot know about the ant eater for certain, but should they leave the box, if it exists, it may certainly affect them. Now they have the risk - to leave the box young, and explore and outside world with many more resources (and potentially an ant eater), or wait in safety until later?
One theme I've heard is, "I could be wrong in two ways, one would leave me having wasted some time, and the other would leave me globally screwed."
Mind you, along with that, faith in god (and even attending a church) does not necessarily correspond to faith in the church.
I believe you would fall under the first sentence of the GP. That is still a belief that such a thing does not exist, and not an uncertainty.
I don't think I've ever had a class where the professor [co]authored the book, but plenty where it was necessary.
Books certainly are a nice way to get some royalties, but it isn't a universal method.
Problem is, we get the same garbage up to the point where we are given a choice, so the question is not so much which candidate is good, as which maggot is the least rancid.
Given the "or didn't" at the end, that really isn't devil's advocate.
The problem in any case is, if the buyer swaps the violin, how do you prove the buy swapped it, or didn't?
There's no way to sort by price, but there are way to select free-as-in-beer apps only, I don't have an android device nearby at the moment, but I remember it being very easy to do.
But that is rather non-sequetor (sp?) to the matter at hand, which is a desire for software with Open Source licenses.
in the case of #2, there will be little issue due to this wonderful thing called "Natural Selection". The nice part is, it works, even on unnatural changes.
o.O
How can people not notice bad code in a given language?
No, I meant easier to write hard-to-be-human-readable code. Perl, in my experience, is the worst of the bunch. I used to work in a shop where we did mostly Perl, I was the only one who attempted to make it readable. Everyone else used every trick and shortcut to make it concise, but also make it totally unreadable.
I should add - PHP is *NOT* a bad solution, depending on what you are doing, the very large library of available functionality built into it, is EXTREMELY nice. It simply is not my first choice, as much of that functionality can be obtained from Python or C# with only a little more effort (finding the correct library to download), and it is easier to call C libraries from Python or C#.