Please don't assume my opinion is the same as yours. I consider myself a UNIX power user, and I find OS X to be superior in almost all ways to any Linux distribution out there. Besides, what is a "UNIX-like desktop"? Last time I checked, there was no singular UNIX desktop. There are roughly a billion different window managers and desktop environments available. I don't really care about Debian or X11, so I don't see why they matter at all. What is "UNIX support", anyway? Last time I checked, OS X was POSIX compliant. It sounds to me like you're expecting OS X to act like Linux, and you're disappointed when it doesn't, regardless of whether the way OS X does things may be better or not.
I don't know why I see people always go through those crazy screens for unmounting devices in Windows. All you have to do is a single, left click on that "tiny icon", and a menu pops up with all of the removable devices you have inserted. Click on the one you want to remove, and bam, it's gone. Granted, there's no indication that that's what your supposed to do, but there's no real reason to do it the other way, either.
You can also right-click on the device in "My Computer" and click "Eject."
Re:lousy photo storage, so-so MP3 player
on
Video iPod Screen Test
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Well, let's hope that there weren't any pending operations in the filesystem when you pull your device. Especially if your device is formatted with a non-journaling filesystem! Say good-bye to data integrity.
Filesystems always need to be unmounted before physically removing them. I hope there haven't been too many times when you've lost data and blamed it on the hardware (or you haven't discovered it yet).
Consider: Pretty much everyone would agree that if a game came out tomorrow where you played the part of a Nazi soldier in a deathcamp and the goal was to exterminate Jewish citizens, that that would be distastful and 'over the line' right? (I sure hope you would agree!!)
While I do think that such a game would be distasteful, please don't assume that I would automatically agree with you. What is "the line"? Do you think that creating such a game should be illegal? I would fervently disagree on that point; I may find it distasteful, but I think that a company that made such a game should be free to sell it, if they can find anybody who's willing to buy.
Well, GTA crosses that line too - just not as far over..
Wait -- are you comparing GTA to Nazis exterminating Jewish citizens? Have you actually even played the game, or do you only know what the mass media has told you about it?
Actually, the point of Linux is to have a free (as in speech) operating system. Stability is just a useful feature. Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who don't want to leave their computers turned on 24 hours a day.
Netbeans.org doesn't actually say what NetBeans is, except that it's an IDE.
Yes, netbeans.org explicitly says what NetBeans is. If you would've gone so far as the "Products" page, you might have noticed: "NetBeans.org provides an open source, high performance, modular, extensible, multi-platform Java IDE to accelerate the development of Java applications, web services and mobile applications." Yes, it can handle things related to the net, and yes, it can also work with JavaBeans, and it can also be used for developing standard J2SE or J2ME applications.
I noticed that NetBeans comes bundled with Eclipse.
Then you were obviously not paying attention to whatever you were reading, because NetBeans and Eclipse do not come bundled together. NetBeans is Sun's official IDE, and it comes bundled with the Java Development Kit, which is obvious on their download page. Eclipse is an IDE developed by the Eclipse Foudation. Both of them are IDEs for developing Java applications of all sorts, developed separately.
Quite frankly, it is painfully obviously that you know nothing about what's your talking about. Either that, or you're a troll. Either way, it wouldn't hurt for you to do some research about what you're talking about.
Why not just use an operating system that integrates a spell checker into all of its text boxes? Then you won't have to worry about web pages (or even other applications) supporting it.
Wouldn't that encourage people to break the law? "Go ahead and download all the songs you want! Even if you get caught, you'll only have to pay half price!"
Wait, what? These two situations have nothing in common.
bnetd is a program that interacts with Blizzard's games. It does not contain any material that is the property of Blizzard. However, Blizzard is dictating what you can and can't do with this program.
On the other hand, OS X is an operating system developed by Apple. And Apple is saying what you can and can't do with their operating system.
I'm not saying that I approve of either of these situations, but really. You're stretching things pretty far here if you're trying to equate them.
I run nats at home and have 'NEVER' had to forward a port for FTP, I have had to forwards a port and reconfigure my BT client for BT.
So then you've been lucky enough to use an FTP client that attempts passive transfers by default, and you've never tried to connect to an FTP server that didn't have both ports correctly configured.
I think two ways of activating a connection is better, since it allows people to work from behind the safety of NATS and a firewall, BT doesn't have this as part of the protocol which is why you have to forward a port through the firewall making you system less secure.
If only one way is ever used, what's the point in having two? It just needlessly adds complexity. And as I've already said, you don't have to forward a port for BT if you're willing to deal with slower speeds. Besides that, forwarding a port through your firewall does not automatically make your system less secure, despite what amateur security buffs want you to think. It's entirely possible to just inject packets into an open FTP connection.
Why have you concentrated on BT vs. FTP since your first reply? The point of my original post was that for any situation you could possibly want to use FTP in, there's a better protocol out there. No, BT isn't better than FTP in every regard, but it is in most. If you want a protocol that is simply flat-out better, try HTTP. Only one port to forward on the server side, no client setup necessary. No multiple transfer modes, no crazy text/binary conversions. You can have finer-grained security controls, HTTP over SSL is widely supported, and you will probably never be denied access to HTTP from within a privately-owned network.
Servers always need ports forwarded - an apache server needs port 80 and possibly 443, a BT tracker needs ports forwarded to it.
And, unlike every other protocol, FTP requires twoports be forwarded to it. Yeah, some HTTP servers want port 443 for HTTPS, but it's not impossible to implement both protocols on the same port and switch between them depending on what the client requests.
No, but again that's the case for any server, apache needs to be told its (external) hostname.
No it doesn't. For listening purposes, you can simply set Apache to accept any connections, no matter what IP they intended to connect to. Furthermore, since all HTTP traffic is handled on a single port, there's no need to set up a second connection like FTP does -- after the initial connection is established, neither side cares what the IP is. If you want Apache to return specific content depending on what hostname the client is trying to access, then yes, it does need to know, but that's hardly a requirement for just transferring files.
That's a very contrived situation, the whole point is that you use passive from behind firewalls.
So what's the point in having two connection modes at all?
Wheras with FTP you can get full speed connections without having to forward a port. Sounds like a win for FTP to me.
Except with FTP, if you have very many clients connected, your speed starts dropping rapidly. Many FTP servers also impose a hard limit on the maximum number of connected users. I've seen tens of thousands of people connected to a single torrent at once, frequently getting download speeds of over 100 k/s; good luck getting that on an FTP server.
I didn't notice any security with bittorrent, with FTP there is some, ineffective as it may be. For a public filesserver it doesn't matter.
While BT's security isn't technically any better, the problem with FTP is that it acts like it's secure with a username and password. However, it's trivial to grab these with any sort of packet sniffer.
The C programming language does the same.
So? Why should a file transfer protocol behave like the C language? They're completely different.
Why? Security is irrelevant for publicly distributed files, you'll have problems with any protocol if your server's firewalled/NATed, and the ascii/binary distinction is handled automatically by any client worth its salt and ensures people can read text files they download.
Security isn't irrelevant if you want to remain anonymous. Besides that, modern file sharing protocols also implement things such as automatic hash checking to ensure that your transfer is never corrupted, and many also allow you to download from multiple sources at once, which, all other things being equal, will always be faster than downloading from a single source.
While BT isn't perfect in that regard, it is better. FTP uses two ports, 21 and 20; 21 is for control, 20 is for data transfers. At the very least, port 21 has to be forwarded from the firewall to the server. Furthermore, there are two different ways of activating the data connection, active and passive; "active" involves the FTP server initiating the connection to the client's data port, while "passive" involves the client initiating the connection to the server. If you want to use "active" connections, you have to have port 20 forwarded to the client; if you want to use "passive" connections, you have to have port 20 forwarded to the server. Depending on what FTP client you use, things can be further complicated; you never know whether active or passive will be the default. Furthermore, you never know whether the client or server will report their internet IP or their internal network IP; so, for example, if you're a client behind a firewall and you want to use an active connection, you would have to manually configure your client to report your external IP rather than your internal IP, because if your client tells the server to initiate a data connection to 192.168.0.2, well, that obviously won't work.
On the other hand, with BT, the only port forwarding that's actually required is if you have to forward a port to the tracker. Clients can connect and transfer files without forwarding any ports at all, although you will generally get faster speeds if you have a port forwarded to your computer.
Quite to the contrary, FTP is a horrible protocol and I wish it would die. There is no security, it's difficult to get working if either the client or server are behind a firewall or NAT, and the fact that it differentiates between ASCII and binary files is stupid. SFTP is an ideal replacement for it for normal system administration tasks, and for mass distribution of files I'd rather use HTTP, BitTorrent, eDonkey, or any other number of file sharing protocols.
Just because somebody made a shoddy port doesn't mean it's a weak system; if you want a counter-example, take a look at the port of Mario 64, which is, for the most part, exactly the same game, except it has more content and a higher texture resolution.
Another thing that the other people who've replied to you didn't point out is that all of Nintendo's portable systems lack region locking. So, you can buy games from all over the world and play them.
DS is old technology. It's a portable N64 going for $150. WTF?
For $100 more, you can have a portable PS2. THINK ABOUT IT for just a minute. When you compare dollar by dollar to the technology you're paying for, you are paying too much for the DS.
This is, of course, blatantly ignoring the fact that the DS is more powerful than the N64 and the PSP is not actually as powerful as the PS2. And handheld systems such as the Game Gear, TurboExpress, WonderSwan Color, and NGage have shown us that the portable market is all about power.
PLEASE tell me how it's not. I will admittedly shut my mouth and admit fault if you can tell me how the stylus and dual screens alone are "innovative" as opposed to the "wow" gimmick factor. I challenge you.
A touch-sensitive screen allows the user to precisely identify and manipulate objects on a screen in ways that would be impossible with a traditional crosspad and buttons. You can basically do anything with a stylus that you can with a mouse; ask yourself, are computer mice just a "wow" gimmick, or do you think that some day they might actually become indispensible tools?
Your other points are blatant trolling, but I will also address this: C'mon.. where are the supposed hit games?
Over 50 DS titles are scheduled to be released by the end of the year. Personally, from just that list I'm particularly looking forward to Lunar, Phoenix Wright, MMBN5, Animal Crossing, and Castlevania: DoS, but there might be others that could surprise me. I also know of at least one other I'm interested in, Lost in Blue, that's not on the list.
While I don't know exactly how the original poster feels, I can probably answer for him, because I'll bet I feel the same way. He's not saying that he never wants to play with a group -- just that having the ability to play solo is nice. Sometimes you want to play without dealing with other people, and sometimes even when you feel like playing with other people, getting them together can be a hassle. In addition, there are more ways to interact with other players than grouping to kill monsters; you still have PvP, item crafting, and just general socialization.
Back when I played Ultima Online, some of the most fun I had involved going out and hunting monsters for materials solo, then crafting what I could into usable items, returning to town, and peddling my wares to other players. There's still plenty of socialization going on there, but no forced grouping in order to accomplish anything.
Ok, so it's not of the greatest literary works ever. But to keep things in perspective: how many RPGs have you played that a better plot and script? The popular opinion is that this is one of the best games made in that regard; I haven't seen anybody claim it puts Shakespeare to shame.
Besides, as you said, the game wasn't a commercial success. How could it be overrated if most of this "majority" didn't even acknowledge it?
Look, it's ok to say you didn't like the game. That's great, you're welcome to your opinion. However, just because you didn't like it doesn't mean it was "overrated" -- the consensus of the majority of the people who've played the game is that it's amazing. A much more likely answer is that you're the who's underrating it.
Of course, even though the PS2 could push more polygons per second than the Dreamcast, the Dreamcast's graphics were still arguably superior. Compare the image quality of any games that had DC and PS2 releases -- Grandia II is an obvious one.
Slashdot Mirror
Please don't assume my opinion is the same as yours. I consider myself a UNIX power user, and I find OS X to be superior in almost all ways to any Linux distribution out there. Besides, what is a "UNIX-like desktop"? Last time I checked, there was no singular UNIX desktop. There are roughly a billion different window managers and desktop environments available. I don't really care about Debian or X11, so I don't see why they matter at all. What is "UNIX support", anyway? Last time I checked, OS X was POSIX compliant. It sounds to me like you're expecting OS X to act like Linux, and you're disappointed when it doesn't, regardless of whether the way OS X does things may be better or not.
I don't know why I see people always go through those crazy screens for unmounting devices in Windows. All you have to do is a single, left click on that "tiny icon", and a menu pops up with all of the removable devices you have inserted. Click on the one you want to remove, and bam, it's gone. Granted, there's no indication that that's what your supposed to do, but there's no real reason to do it the other way, either.
You can also right-click on the device in "My Computer" and click "Eject."
Well, let's hope that there weren't any pending operations in the filesystem when you pull your device. Especially if your device is formatted with a non-journaling filesystem! Say good-bye to data integrity.
Filesystems always need to be unmounted before physically removing them. I hope there haven't been too many times when you've lost data and blamed it on the hardware (or you haven't discovered it yet).
In contrast, the last time I used iTunes I couldn't find any way of making it want to take up less than almost all of my avialable screen real estate.
You mean like the Mini player mode that's been in iTunes for as long as I can remember?
Consider: Pretty much everyone would agree that if a game came out tomorrow where you played the part of a Nazi soldier in a deathcamp and the goal was to exterminate Jewish citizens, that that would be distastful and 'over the line' right? (I sure hope you would agree!!)
While I do think that such a game would be distasteful, please don't assume that I would automatically agree with you. What is "the line"? Do you think that creating such a game should be illegal? I would fervently disagree on that point; I may find it distasteful, but I think that a company that made such a game should be free to sell it, if they can find anybody who's willing to buy.
Well, GTA crosses that line too - just not as far over..
Wait -- are you comparing GTA to Nazis exterminating Jewish citizens? Have you actually even played the game, or do you only know what the mass media has told you about it?
Actually, the point of Linux is to have a free (as in speech) operating system. Stability is just a useful feature. Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who don't want to leave their computers turned on 24 hours a day.
Netbeans.org doesn't actually say what NetBeans is, except that it's an IDE.
Yes, netbeans.org explicitly says what NetBeans is. If you would've gone so far as the "Products" page, you might have noticed: "NetBeans.org provides an open source, high performance, modular, extensible, multi-platform Java IDE to accelerate the development of Java applications, web services and mobile applications." Yes, it can handle things related to the net, and yes, it can also work with JavaBeans, and it can also be used for developing standard J2SE or J2ME applications.
I noticed that NetBeans comes bundled with Eclipse.
Then you were obviously not paying attention to whatever you were reading, because NetBeans and Eclipse do not come bundled together. NetBeans is Sun's official IDE, and it comes bundled with the Java Development Kit, which is obvious on their download page. Eclipse is an IDE developed by the Eclipse Foudation. Both of them are IDEs for developing Java applications of all sorts, developed separately.
Quite frankly, it is painfully obviously that you know nothing about what's your talking about. Either that, or you're a troll. Either way, it wouldn't hurt for you to do some research about what you're talking about.
Why not just use an operating system that integrates a spell checker into all of its text boxes? Then you won't have to worry about web pages (or even other applications) supporting it.
Why must they be related? I like Firefox and the sky is blue today, but those two things do not necessarily have anything in common.
Nah, Mar's aren't nearly that big.
Wouldn't that encourage people to break the law? "Go ahead and download all the songs you want! Even if you get caught, you'll only have to pay half price!"
Wait, what? These two situations have nothing in common.
bnetd is a program that interacts with Blizzard's games. It does not contain any material that is the property of Blizzard. However, Blizzard is dictating what you can and can't do with this program.
On the other hand, OS X is an operating system developed by Apple. And Apple is saying what you can and can't do with their operating system.
I'm not saying that I approve of either of these situations, but really. You're stretching things pretty far here if you're trying to equate them.
I run nats at home and have 'NEVER' had to forward a port for FTP, I have had to forwards a port and reconfigure my BT client for BT.
So then you've been lucky enough to use an FTP client that attempts passive transfers by default, and you've never tried to connect to an FTP server that didn't have both ports correctly configured.
I think two ways of activating a connection is better, since it allows people to work from behind the safety of NATS and a firewall, BT doesn't have this as part of the protocol which is why you have to forward a port through the firewall making you system less secure.
If only one way is ever used, what's the point in having two? It just needlessly adds complexity. And as I've already said, you don't have to forward a port for BT if you're willing to deal with slower speeds. Besides that, forwarding a port through your firewall does not automatically make your system less secure, despite what amateur security buffs want you to think. It's entirely possible to just inject packets into an open FTP connection.
Why have you concentrated on BT vs. FTP since your first reply? The point of my original post was that for any situation you could possibly want to use FTP in, there's a better protocol out there. No, BT isn't better than FTP in every regard, but it is in most. If you want a protocol that is simply flat-out better, try HTTP. Only one port to forward on the server side, no client setup necessary. No multiple transfer modes, no crazy text/binary conversions. You can have finer-grained security controls, HTTP over SSL is widely supported, and you will probably never be denied access to HTTP from within a privately-owned network.
Servers always need ports forwarded - an apache server needs port 80 and possibly 443, a BT tracker needs ports forwarded to it.
And, unlike every other protocol, FTP requires twoports be forwarded to it. Yeah, some HTTP servers want port 443 for HTTPS, but it's not impossible to implement both protocols on the same port and switch between them depending on what the client requests.
No, but again that's the case for any server, apache needs to be told its (external) hostname.
No it doesn't. For listening purposes, you can simply set Apache to accept any connections, no matter what IP they intended to connect to. Furthermore, since all HTTP traffic is handled on a single port, there's no need to set up a second connection like FTP does -- after the initial connection is established, neither side cares what the IP is. If you want Apache to return specific content depending on what hostname the client is trying to access, then yes, it does need to know, but that's hardly a requirement for just transferring files.
That's a very contrived situation, the whole point is that you use passive from behind firewalls.
So what's the point in having two connection modes at all?
Wheras with FTP you can get full speed connections without having to forward a port. Sounds like a win for FTP to me.
Except with FTP, if you have very many clients connected, your speed starts dropping rapidly. Many FTP servers also impose a hard limit on the maximum number of connected users. I've seen tens of thousands of people connected to a single torrent at once, frequently getting download speeds of over 100 k/s; good luck getting that on an FTP server.
I didn't notice any security with bittorrent, with FTP there is some, ineffective as it may be. For a public filesserver it doesn't matter.
While BT's security isn't technically any better, the problem with FTP is that it acts like it's secure with a username and password. However, it's trivial to grab these with any sort of packet sniffer.
The C programming language does the same.
So? Why should a file transfer protocol behave like the C language? They're completely different.
Why? Security is irrelevant for publicly distributed files, you'll have problems with any protocol if your server's firewalled/NATed, and the ascii/binary distinction is handled automatically by any client worth its salt and ensures people can read text files they download.
Security isn't irrelevant if you want to remain anonymous. Besides that, modern file sharing protocols also implement things such as automatic hash checking to ensure that your transfer is never corrupted, and many also allow you to download from multiple sources at once, which, all other things being equal, will always be faster than downloading from a single source.
While BT isn't perfect in that regard, it is better. FTP uses two ports, 21 and 20; 21 is for control, 20 is for data transfers. At the very least, port 21 has to be forwarded from the firewall to the server. Furthermore, there are two different ways of activating the data connection, active and passive; "active" involves the FTP server initiating the connection to the client's data port, while "passive" involves the client initiating the connection to the server. If you want to use "active" connections, you have to have port 20 forwarded to the client; if you want to use "passive" connections, you have to have port 20 forwarded to the server. Depending on what FTP client you use, things can be further complicated; you never know whether active or passive will be the default. Furthermore, you never know whether the client or server will report their internet IP or their internal network IP; so, for example, if you're a client behind a firewall and you want to use an active connection, you would have to manually configure your client to report your external IP rather than your internal IP, because if your client tells the server to initiate a data connection to 192.168.0.2, well, that obviously won't work.
On the other hand, with BT, the only port forwarding that's actually required is if you have to forward a port to the tracker. Clients can connect and transfer files without forwarding any ports at all, although you will generally get faster speeds if you have a port forwarded to your computer.
Quite to the contrary, FTP is a horrible protocol and I wish it would die. There is no security, it's difficult to get working if either the client or server are behind a firewall or NAT, and the fact that it differentiates between ASCII and binary files is stupid. SFTP is an ideal replacement for it for normal system administration tasks, and for mass distribution of files I'd rather use HTTP, BitTorrent, eDonkey, or any other number of file sharing protocols.
Just because somebody made a shoddy port doesn't mean it's a weak system; if you want a counter-example, take a look at the port of Mario 64, which is, for the most part, exactly the same game, except it has more content and a higher texture resolution.
Another thing that the other people who've replied to you didn't point out is that all of Nintendo's portable systems lack region locking. So, you can buy games from all over the world and play them.
DS is old technology. It's a portable N64 going for $150. WTF?
For $100 more, you can have a portable PS2. THINK ABOUT IT for just a minute. When you compare dollar by dollar to the technology you're paying for, you are paying too much for the DS.
This is, of course, blatantly ignoring the fact that the DS is more powerful than the N64 and the PSP is not actually as powerful as the PS2. And handheld systems such as the Game Gear, TurboExpress, WonderSwan Color, and NGage have shown us that the portable market is all about power.
PLEASE tell me how it's not. I will admittedly shut my mouth and admit fault if you can tell me how the stylus and dual screens alone are "innovative" as opposed to the "wow" gimmick factor. I challenge you.
A touch-sensitive screen allows the user to precisely identify and manipulate objects on a screen in ways that would be impossible with a traditional crosspad and buttons. You can basically do anything with a stylus that you can with a mouse; ask yourself, are computer mice just a "wow" gimmick, or do you think that some day they might actually become indispensible tools?
Your other points are blatant trolling, but I will also address this:
C'mon.. where are the supposed hit games?
Over 50 DS titles are scheduled to be released by the end of the year. Personally, from just that list I'm particularly looking forward to Lunar, Phoenix Wright, MMBN5, Animal Crossing, and Castlevania: DoS, but there might be others that could surprise me. I also know of at least one other I'm interested in, Lost in Blue, that's not on the list.
While I don't know exactly how the original poster feels, I can probably answer for him, because I'll bet I feel the same way. He's not saying that he never wants to play with a group -- just that having the ability to play solo is nice. Sometimes you want to play without dealing with other people, and sometimes even when you feel like playing with other people, getting them together can be a hassle. In addition, there are more ways to interact with other players than grouping to kill monsters; you still have PvP, item crafting, and just general socialization.
Back when I played Ultima Online, some of the most fun I had involved going out and hunting monsters for materials solo, then crafting what I could into usable items, returning to town, and peddling my wares to other players. There's still plenty of socialization going on there, but no forced grouping in order to accomplish anything.
Ok, so it's not of the greatest literary works ever. But to keep things in perspective: how many RPGs have you played that a better plot and script? The popular opinion is that this is one of the best games made in that regard; I haven't seen anybody claim it puts Shakespeare to shame.
Besides, as you said, the game wasn't a commercial success. How could it be overrated if most of this "majority" didn't even acknowledge it?
Look, it's ok to say you didn't like the game. That's great, you're welcome to your opinion. However, just because you didn't like it doesn't mean it was "overrated" -- the consensus of the majority of the people who've played the game is that it's amazing. A much more likely answer is that you're the who's underrating it.
Of course, even though the PS2 could push more polygons per second than the Dreamcast, the Dreamcast's graphics were still arguably superior. Compare the image quality of any games that had DC and PS2 releases -- Grandia II is an obvious one.