But that's a major advantage. It means, for example, that I can use my mobile as a modem or send text messages whilst never actually taking it out of my pocket.
Hmmm, I guess I just don't see that as a very big deal. If you're going to be doing what you're describing, you've already got a laptop or PDA or something out- right? I guess the idea of having to take my phone out and plug it in to my computer just doesn't seem like that much of a hassle to me.
Yes, anyone who would like to use it in a car.
Agreed- that totally didn't occur to me until I saw it mentioned in the comments below. That *is* a very good feature!
What is Bluetooth? Short-range RF wireless- nothing more. What advantages does it have over already-existing FastIR? You don't have to aim it. That's it.
Yes, I'm well aware that most new phones are coming with Bluetooth, but is it really being used? Those Bluetooth headsets are big and bulky, requiring the use of batteries. Does anyone really require this for some reason VS a lightwieght, small headset that's tied to the phone with a cord and powered by the phone's internal rechargeable battery? What other uses are there for Bluetooth in mobile phones? I can only think of a couple- wireless head-to-head gaming (ala N-Gage), and wireless PDA-info sync to a computer. But even still- this has already been done with FastIR. The "don't have to aim" thing I think helps gaming a lot more than syncing, as I can't believe that having to aim my pda at my computer is such a big deal for anyone.
As for computers, I've only seen 1 implementation of Bluetooth that made even the slightest bit of sense to me: the new hideously expensive MS Bluetooth Keyboard and Mouse set. Yes, it's expensive but it does make sense to standardize on the whole wireless keyboard/mouse systems. It comes with a USB Bluetooth receiver as well (cause your computer likely doesnt have one).
Beyond that? I really just don't know- I don't see it going anywhere. And it seems you've been bitten by the marketing bug as well. Just because its showing up in phones doesn't mean its really useful for anything.
(Please point out any other uses beyond what I mention above)
Aren't there any distance requirements or anything? ????
So if I buy 20 machines able to fill their Gig-E cards, and then use 10 of them to transfer pr0n to the other 10 at ~7-8gbps, with one of them being connected to the Internet, does that mean I have just "broken the Internet speed record"?
Yeesh- my experience shows that on a worldwide level, to the edge routers, you can expect to average out at about 2mbps.
> Photoshop - The only relavant and fair app they bothered to test, and the G5 is noticablly faster than any of the Athlon 64 systems, beaten only by the Opteron.
I really wanted to hope not, but that site's been up for a pretty long time, and the guy also does stuff like comparos between 3 brands of $200 *power cords*:p
"The earliest document I have on the SMB protocol is an IBM document from 1985. It is a copy of an IBM Personal Computer Seminar Proceedings from May 1985. It contains the IBM PC Network SMB Protocol. The next document I have access to is a Microsoft/Intel document called Microsoft Networks/OpenNET-FILE SHARING PROTOCOL from 1987. The protocol was subsequently developed further by Microsoft and others. Many of the documents that define the SMB protocol(s) are available at ftp.microsoft.com in the SMB documentation area."
I dunno- SAMBA does a lot more than simple SMB passing, and my understanding is that most of the reverse-engineering work was done on the weird MS-proprietary auth schemes and such, though I could be wrong.
In any case, I'm not trying to denigrate anyones' effort.
What a fucking tool- I run Linux day-to-day on my laptop and have for months so I'm certainly no naysayer, but he's delusional. Simply insane.
What are his major issues?
First he doens't like the fact that an office suite isn't included in WinXP. Then he states that he has a Staroffice CD with a windows version on it- ok. So his big huge complaint is that "most Linux distribution CDs include either StarOffice or Openffice". Call me insensitive, but when either of those are freely downloadable I don't see that as a big "OS difference"...
Next he doesn't like MIRC, both cause he finds it hard to use and it's not free. Hey genius- you just said that XChat is available for windows- since you love it so much why don't you use it?!?!?! I use it on both Windows and Linux, and actually- the Windows version has a couple more features than the Linux version does. I thought this was an OS comparison.
Next he goes on to the browser, IE- and complains cause it sucks. Well great- again, you mention that Mozilla and Opera are much better- why didn't you use them? They actually run better on Windows than they do on Linux. Again- I thought this was an OS comparison.
Then it's on to Outlook Express, and he derides it just like all of the above.
Well FUCKING GREAT Robin- what the hell are you thinking? Comparing OSes while refusing to use the apps that you know and love on one of them? What kind of idiot are you?
This entire article is just full of snide, smarmy remarks that just piss me off.
XChat works great on both Windows and Linux. Mozilla and Opera work great on both Windows and Linux.
The fact that you purposely *dont* use your chosen programs when running windows is not a comment on the OS itself AT ALL.
Get a clue- what you have just written is despicable.
> First, a question: What's up with all this "Ctrl C" and Ctrl V" copy/paste stuff? In almost all Linux programs, when I want to copy a block of text (or a graphic or whatever) I just highlight the original, then click both mouse buttons (or the middle button if I have a 3-button mouse) where I want to paste it. This is fast, easy, and takes little hand motion on my laptop keyboard. All this Ctrl key action slows me down. I don't know about the rest of the world, but I need to work quickly if I want to earn a living, and I don't see why Windows wants me to go through all those extra hand motions just to paste a URL into a story. Geh.
I *hate* this behavior- let me tell you why. Selecting things should do just that, select them for an action. Lets say I'm in an AIM conversation and someone sends me a link- I want to copy it, then paste it in to the web browser URL bar. So I simply "select" the URL, and now it's in the clipboard buffer- then I want to paste it in to the URL bar. In windows, I select the already-existing URL in the bar (by dragging or double-clicking) and then Ctrl-V over it and hit return. How do I do that in Un*xland? I can't select the already-existing URL because that will overwrite my paste buffer. So I have to click in the URL bar, and then hold down delete/backspace to erase everything that's there, only *then* can I paste.
This is my #1 problem with Linux- all I ask for is universal cut and paste commands, it shouldn't be that fucking hard.
Look at my screen shot of it viewing Slashdot: http://www.thedenofsin.org/tiki-browse_ image.php?i mageId=140
And LJ: http://www.thedenofsin.org/tiki-browse_image.php?i mageId=141
It crashes when I go to my own journal as well- And it's http://consumptionjunction.com/ (not safe for work)
And as for other browsers meeting your qualifications? My choice would be Epiphany: http://epiphany.mozdev.org/
You'll probably say "anything using the Mozilla rendering engine can't be fast or lightweight by any means" but really, an HTML engine these days is just *not* a lightweight thing. Also check out the lighter-than-konqueror KHTML-based browsers.
I can't find a site that it renders in any usable fashion. yahoo is the closest- livejournal? no slashdot? no consumptionjunction? no
not to rain on anyone's parade, but dillo is going to need a LOT of work before its even usable. i would say ditch it and get to work on something more competitive.
No, no proxy- you're sure you were waiting for the page to entirely load?
The latest Netscape doesn't display the page until it's finally done, and it makes a very effective use of cache through "partial page rendering"- Like when in yahoo mail, the left pane wont even blink or anything as you're going through messages-
I dunno- there's a lot of other factors involved I suppose.
I've replicated my shitty site to thousands of machines across the Internet- they *all* are the "real address". Being able to monitor the requests coming to you if you were on one of the machines wouldn't provide anything at all.
It's making decisions at the DNS layer, and as others have pointed out, that would be the best place to take it out.
The startup times for Netscape are of course much higher than IE- but after it's running it is faster than IE. FYI The 2 machines that I speak of are a Celeron 800 and a Duron 700- the linux machine is my laptop- a P2040 with a Crusoe 867
Mozilla/Firebird on my Linux machine bogs like a lame dog. The *only* browser usable on this machine is Opera7. But on Windows? after it starts up- Netscape is FAST. (Yes, I say Netscape- I really don't know what's going on but the commercial Netscape is quicker than Mozilla or Firebird on my 2 guest computers downstairs) It makes so sense to me whatsoever, but Netscape can open new tabs/background tabs in the blink of an eye on these machines. In Mozilla/Firebird- there is a small, noticible delay.
I wonder if Netscape keeps some secret sauce for itself?
Slashdot Mirror
But that's a major advantage. It means, for example, that I can use my mobile as a modem or send text messages whilst never actually taking it out of my pocket.
Hmmm, I guess I just don't see that as a very big deal.
If you're going to be doing what you're describing, you've already got a laptop or PDA or something out- right?
I guess the idea of having to take my phone out and plug it in to my computer just doesn't seem like that much of a hassle to me.
Yes, anyone who would like to use it in a car.
Agreed- that totally didn't occur to me until I saw it mentioned in the comments below.
That *is* a very good feature!
Interesting- that is a use that had not occurred to me in my bashing article below-
That *is* pretty useful- get in your car and all your calls are automatically sent to your stereo system-
I think you're wrong- consider these points:
What is Bluetooth?
Short-range RF wireless- nothing more.
What advantages does it have over already-existing FastIR?
You don't have to aim it.
That's it.
Yes, I'm well aware that most new phones are coming with Bluetooth, but is it really being used?
Those Bluetooth headsets are big and bulky, requiring the use of batteries.
Does anyone really require this for some reason VS a lightwieght, small headset that's tied to the phone with a cord and powered by the phone's internal rechargeable battery?
What other uses are there for Bluetooth in mobile phones?
I can only think of a couple- wireless head-to-head gaming (ala N-Gage), and wireless PDA-info sync to a computer.
But even still- this has already been done with FastIR.
The "don't have to aim" thing I think helps gaming a lot more than syncing, as I can't believe that having to aim my pda at my computer is such a big deal for anyone.
As for computers, I've only seen 1 implementation of Bluetooth that made even the slightest bit of sense to me: the new hideously expensive MS Bluetooth Keyboard and Mouse set.
Yes, it's expensive but it does make sense to standardize on the whole wireless keyboard/mouse systems. It comes with a USB Bluetooth receiver as well (cause your computer likely doesnt have one).
Beyond that?
I really just don't know- I don't see it going anywhere.
And it seems you've been bitten by the marketing bug as well.
Just because its showing up in phones doesn't mean its really useful for anything.
(Please point out any other uses beyond what I mention above)
What is this "Internet Speed Record"?
Aren't there any distance requirements or anything?
????
So if I buy 20 machines able to fill their Gig-E cards, and then use 10 of them to transfer pr0n to the other 10 at ~7-8gbps, with one of them being connected to the Internet, does that mean I have just "broken the Internet speed record"?
Yeesh- my experience shows that on a worldwide level, to the edge routers, you can expect to average out at about 2mbps.
> Photoshop - The only relavant and fair app they bothered to test, and the G5 is noticablly faster than any of the Athlon 64 systems, beaten only by the Opteron.
:D
Look again, that's the *Dual* G5
I really wanted to hope not, but that site's been up for a pretty long time, and the guy also does stuff like comparos between 3 brands of $200 *power cords* :p
Are you forgetting about the very-powerful NVidia GPU in the XBox?
If you've got a task that uses math that the GPU is good at, there is little these days that can touch it in cost/performance for a cluster.
I *shudder* at even the mention of the word.
Make a promise to yourself, from this day forward, never utter the word "audiophile" ever again.
Lest you start buying Amber Tweaks:
http://www.1388.com/html/amber_tweak.html
Yeah- that was my understanding- that most of the cruftiness was in the NT-Auth, and the PDC functionality.
:)
Heh- sounds like a good time to upgrade samba on my in-house fileserver.
(P5-133, 32MB, FreeBSD 4.2-RELEASE)
It's great that SAMBA and a machine that old can still nicely saturate a 100tx link
From the article I linked:
"The earliest document I have on the SMB protocol is an IBM document from 1985. It is a copy of an IBM Personal Computer Seminar Proceedings from May 1985. It contains the IBM PC Network SMB Protocol. The next document I have access to is a Microsoft/Intel document called Microsoft Networks/OpenNET-FILE SHARING PROTOCOL from 1987. The protocol was subsequently developed further by Microsoft and others. Many of the documents that define the SMB protocol(s) are available at ftp.microsoft.com in the SMB documentation area."
I dunno- SAMBA does a lot more than simple SMB passing, and my understanding is that most of the reverse-engineering work was done on the weird MS-proprietary auth schemes and such, though I could be wrong.
In any case, I'm not trying to denigrate anyones' effort.
For fuck's sake- it's a very valid point...
No, SMB is and always has been a very published spec.
l
See this informative page:
http://samba.anu.edu.au/cifs/docs/what-is-smb.htm
Amen- and look- you get -5 flamebait.
Fucking idiots.
What the hell is this supposed to be?
What a fucking tool- I run Linux day-to-day on my laptop and have for months so I'm certainly no naysayer, but he's delusional.
Simply insane.
What are his major issues?
First he doens't like the fact that an office suite isn't included in WinXP.
Then he states that he has a Staroffice CD with a windows version on it- ok.
So his big huge complaint is that "most Linux distribution CDs include either StarOffice or Openffice".
Call me insensitive, but when either of those are freely downloadable I don't see that as a big "OS difference"...
Next he doesn't like MIRC, both cause he finds it hard to use and it's not free.
Hey genius- you just said that XChat is available for windows- since you love it so much why don't you use it?!?!?!
I use it on both Windows and Linux, and actually- the Windows version has a couple more features than the Linux version does.
I thought this was an OS comparison.
Next he goes on to the browser, IE- and complains cause it sucks.
Well great- again, you mention that Mozilla and Opera are much better- why didn't you use them?
They actually run better on Windows than they do on Linux.
Again- I thought this was an OS comparison.
Then it's on to Outlook Express, and he derides it just like all of the above.
Well FUCKING GREAT Robin- what the hell are you thinking?
Comparing OSes while refusing to use the apps that you know and love on one of them?
What kind of idiot are you?
This entire article is just full of snide, smarmy remarks that just piss me off.
XChat works great on both Windows and Linux.
Mozilla and Opera work great on both Windows and Linux.
The fact that you purposely *dont* use your chosen programs when running windows is not a comment on the OS itself AT ALL.
Get a clue- what you have just written is despicable.
> First, a question: What's up with all this "Ctrl C" and Ctrl V" copy/paste stuff? In almost all Linux programs, when I want to copy a block of text (or a graphic or whatever) I just highlight the original, then click both mouse buttons (or the middle button if I have a 3-button mouse) where I want to paste it. This is fast, easy, and takes little hand motion on my laptop keyboard. All this Ctrl key action slows me down. I don't know about the rest of the world, but I need to work quickly if I want to earn a living, and I don't see why Windows wants me to go through all those extra hand motions just to paste a URL into a story. Geh.
I *hate* this behavior- let me tell you why.
Selecting things should do just that, select them for an action.
Lets say I'm in an AIM conversation and someone sends me a link- I want to copy it, then paste it in to the web browser URL bar.
So I simply "select" the URL, and now it's in the clipboard buffer- then I want to paste it in to the URL bar.
In windows, I select the already-existing URL in the bar (by dragging or double-clicking) and then Ctrl-V over it and hit return.
How do I do that in Un*xland?
I can't select the already-existing URL because that will overwrite my paste buffer.
So I have to click in the URL bar, and then hold down delete/backspace to erase everything that's there, only *then* can I paste.
This is my #1 problem with Linux- all I ask for is universal cut and paste commands, it shouldn't be that fucking hard.
Why doesn't somebody just create a distro that uses the BSD versions of the common userland tools so that RMS can finally shut his piehole-
What's actually needed from the GNU camp?
gcc and gmake?
Well- I dunno what to tell you-
_ image.php?i mageId=140
i mageId=141
Look at my screen shot of it viewing Slashdot:
http://www.thedenofsin.org/tiki-browse
And LJ: http://www.thedenofsin.org/tiki-browse_image.php?
It crashes when I go to my own journal as well-
And it's http://consumptionjunction.com/ (not safe for work)
And as for other browsers meeting your qualifications? My choice would be Epiphany:
http://epiphany.mozdev.org/
You'll probably say "anything using the Mozilla rendering engine can't be fast or lightweight by any means" but really, an HTML engine these days is just *not* a lightweight thing.
Also check out the lighter-than-konqueror KHTML-based browsers.
dillo?
certainly you must be joking-
I can't find a site that it renders in any usable fashion.
yahoo is the closest-
livejournal? no
slashdot? no
consumptionjunction? no
not to rain on anyone's parade, but dillo is going to need a LOT of work before its even usable.
i would say ditch it and get to work on something more competitive.
Interesting-
No, no proxy- you're sure you were waiting for the page to entirely load?
The latest Netscape doesn't display the page until it's finally done, and it makes a very effective use of cache through "partial page rendering"-
Like when in yahoo mail, the left pane wont even blink or anything as you're going through messages-
I dunno- there's a lot of other factors involved I suppose.
HAHAHHAHAH
:P
Both of those sites fail horribly in Opera7.
I see nothing but a white background for one, and a black background for the other
Huh?
There is *no* "real address".
I've replicated my shitty site to thousands of machines across the Internet- they *all* are the "real address".
Being able to monitor the requests coming to you if you were on one of the machines wouldn't provide anything at all.
It's making decisions at the DNS layer, and as others have pointed out, that would be the best place to take it out.
Right- I'm not talking abotu startup times-
The startup times for Netscape are of course much higher than IE- but after it's running it is faster than IE.
FYI The 2 machines that I speak of are a Celeron 800 and a Duron 700- the linux machine is my laptop- a P2040 with a Crusoe 867
Hmmmm- you're half right.
Mozilla/Firebird on my Linux machine bogs like a lame dog.
The *only* browser usable on this machine is Opera7.
But on Windows? after it starts up- Netscape is FAST.
(Yes, I say Netscape- I really don't know what's going on but the commercial Netscape is quicker than Mozilla or Firebird on my 2 guest computers downstairs)
It makes so sense to me whatsoever, but Netscape can open new tabs/background tabs in the blink of an eye on these machines.
In Mozilla/Firebird- there is a small, noticible delay.
I wonder if Netscape keeps some secret sauce for itself?
"cutting edge"?
I took pictures of this over a year ago in Fry's electronics.
(Oooooo photography in Fry's is banned... shhhhh!): http://www.thedenofsin.org/scosol/fridge.jpg
Happy day!