All governments reflect the will of the majority, except in the very short term. No dictator could stand without popular support. This horrible truth makes "Western Democracy" a polite facade for the same experience everyone's endured since one guy first discovered he could win friends and influence people.
What you mean is, "The distinctions are irrelevant to me." Your mistake is to want everyone to be like you. You try to define words so that any distinctions which are irrelevant to you become irrelevant to everyone.
Unfortunately for you, language only conveys a particular sentiment. No matter how awkward you make it to highlight the crucial difference between the freedom of local software and the lack of control offered by of "web apps", where the only app actually running is a web browser, the distinction still exists. We've been where you want to be - we were there in the '70s, maybe before you were even born.
They don't really exist.
Are they irrelevant, or do they not exist? Make up your mind. You're trying very hard to rewrite reality in your image.
The processes are running and HTML is part of the display format.
Precisely which "processes are running" and where?
I can run a word processing program locally and use PDF as the display format (OS X native display) and guess what, multiple users can log in simultaneously and use it.
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, but can you actually tell me (again) what you're talking about? Which word processing program using PDF as the display format can multiple users log in to simultaneously and use, and in what sense?
It is self contained in a useless sense completely invisible to users.
I'm not sure what's wrong with your machine, but there's nothing more visible to me than the difference between a slow, unresponsive "web app" and something running locally.
Skype advertises their service as being able to "call other people around the world for free", not "connect to Skype".
We're discussing what the Skype client does, not what the whole Skype service does.
So you think a Skype client doesn't lose it's functionality when it can't connect to the Skype network,
No, it doesn't. All Skype client features remain available even if they're not all usable - surely the difference isn't that hard to understand. Any offline storage/logging is still accessible; modifications could be applied to connect to alternative services; the code and configuration can be analysed to identify problems; etc.
but GoogleDocs loses it's functionality, when you can't connect to Google?
Correct. It's useless.
In the case of Google Apps I'm running an app on Google's servers and connecting to the interface via my browser. It's the same as running Word on a remote server and connecting to it vie Citrix, except for the specific software.
No, it isn't. Google isn't giving you the CPU time to run your word processor remotely and just view it on your local screen. They're just serving up a load of web pages which simulate a word processing application for lots of people at once. The difference in experience is as obvious as the difference in control. Running a Google "App" is nothing like running Word over a Citrix remote desktop.
Heck I can even buy a box from Google (if I have the money) to run Google docs locally on my own machine and connect to localhost via a browser.
You can buy a box to run it on your own machine? Que? While you're discussing a completely different thing, it'd help if it made sense:-).
But it does nothing at all without Skype run servers to connect to. If there is not a service running on the internet or if that service is unreachable, even if you can get to other parts of the internet, you can do nothing with the client software. Another good example would be an AIM application.
You're not thinking hard enough. The purpose of the Skype client is to act as a client to the Skype system, not to act as the whole Skype system. It fulfils that role using only the workstation in front of you. Thus it is self-contained in the sense described.
There is no such notion as absolute self-containment - almost everything relies on the Sun and you could argue that the solar system's behaviour in some way depends on the rest of the galaxy/universe. But that's the kind of silly, self-diagnosed-Asperger's-derived argument which gets no-one anywhere.
A server app is an app that runs on a remote machine, but that you connect to via a client. E.g. MS Word running on a server connected via Citrix.
That's just an application having its UI displayed somewhere distant. There's no inherent reason it cannot be run locally.
What about local apps that use HTML as the display format? Are they then, not applications?
Well, it makes for a slow, bloated choice, but there's nothing about choosing it which makes it not an application. It stops becoming an application when it is no longer self-contained, i.e. you lose the ability to execute the software's functionality. A web app is the on-screen equivalent of printing out the UI, sending the printout to someone, letting someone fill in any empty boxes and circle whatever they want to click on, then following the written instructions. The level of control is pathetic and you haven't given any sort of "application" to anyone.
Since you are having difficulty understanding, how about the following question for classification: ask, "What am I running?" In the case of Skype, you are running the Skype client. In the case of Office over Citrix, you are running Office on a remote machine. In the case of Google "Apps"... you are running nothing.
No, no, no. Innovation is when you look at interesting things in academia, learn from the mistakes of early commercial ventures, build your own version, and market like buggery. You take A's work, previously accessible only to B, and make it available to C to Z, and you're sorta heavily rewarded for it.
Well, that's what innovation was up to the mid '80s or so.
Now, innovation is the religious basis for deregulation. If you wonder, for example, why banks or telecoms providers can get away with so many things, the answer is that they need the freedom to innovate. It's like the freedom to breathe in that they already had it and that giving someone the freedom to breathe doesn't mean they're not an undead corpse which hasn't respired for decades.
world-wide web = global interconnected information resource - like a spider's web with vertices representing information resources and edges representing explicitly defined links between those resources
application = self-contained software for fulfilling some well-defined task
There are governments and media corporations with pro-Israel interests. There are governments and media corporations with anti-Israel interests. Some of these groups represent extreme views, others more moderate. But each one has a bias and its output will reflect its interests.
You, OTOH, are erecting a crazy straw man, harming Israel by painting such a ridiculously polarised picture that you overshadow reasoned argument from those moderates who try to defend Israel.
Revolution... in the sense that Egypt has one of these mobs-in-the-street things every so often. What comes around comes around again.
Democratic... in the sense of replacing one dictator with the military rallied on by the power elite.
Internet... in the sense that the first job of any twit/facebooker is to sit on his ass and read about something, repeat it, then think he had something to do with it.
My reputation is too important for me to want to change my nick just to avoid marketing. It's useful for recruiters or prospective employers to be able to do a quick search and find out more about me. It's like an implicit and well-earnt LinkedIn.
Que? The concept of (absolute) ownership (in the sense that you may dispose of certain things as you please) predates the idea of capitalism ("forming the basis") and both these predate "Americas". While possessing the strength to keep something for yourself predates Man (although what is prevalent in nature is not necessarily right), it's a far simpler concept to that of an absolute and necessarily protected right to dispose of something ("property right"). The latter is mystical nonsense.
I believe "property rights" are a mystical notion forming the basis for the religion that is "capitalism".
Just as Marx's theory of Revolution forms the basis for his religion.
In the end, any formally established moral code always ends up with some circular argument. The best you can do is follow your emotional sense of compassion, refine your ability to empathise, and not be a dick in life.
Seriously, Google starting to charge for VP8 at some point is about as likely as Microsoft opensourcing their most recent Windows and Office.
Look at the political and corporate landscape of 20 years ago and see how many ways you can begin the sentence, "...then seemed about as likely as Microsoft opensourcing their most recent Windows and Office." It takes a teenager, or someone with a teenage mindset, to look so much in the here and now.
Also, Windows source code. "I meant open in precisely the way I want it to be open." Of course you did.
Also, of course Google hasn't promised a blanko cheque for every user of VP8. MPEG-LA hasn't done it either for h264.
Which, after a long and complicated series of technical legal arguments, allows us to conclude that you're no safer with one than the other.
Returning to a dumb terminal era where everything's controlled by the big server owner across the country is Google's aim, and that's the worst thing possible for the consumer. Well, no, it could be worse: Google could mine the data it collects as server operator and use it to deliver adverts. Oh.
Microsoft has done great things for computing, helping (with various other firms from the '80s) to change the global technology landscape and realising the PC-on-every-desk vision. It does not always offer the best implementation, but it sure as hell spent a lot of the past three decades delivering. Over the past 5 years, Apple has occupied traditional Microsoft ground in popularising new platforms.
Google, meanwhile, has produced... a slightly better search engine. It's like the modern RIAA - it's only powerful because everyone else's content goes through it.
Your argument gives the conclusion "no" - Google wants to control the infrastructure because the infrastructure is a basis for their profit-making activity - but your assertion is the opposite: "yes".
You would be turning down Einstein, Edison, Bell, Oppenheimer, Hubble, Freud, Churchill, Roosevelt, Kennedy and, until recently, Obama. Hope that's OK with you.
A bad worker who may also be an addict leaves his trash everywhere and takes a break every 20 minutes.
FTFY.
My fat self-labelled socialist uncle, who at family get-togethers would sit back after the meal and light a fatter cigar like a tropical dictator, neither smoked at work nor found other excuses to shirk.
While we're doing your thing, I once worked with one black guy who was a bit clueless. So:
Blacks suck because they mumble and don't really know what they're doing. God help you if you work with one; they'll produce unmaintainable code and take far too long to do it.
This is the kind of thinking that can only lead to more ridiculous bans that hurt us all. Didn't we have enough already? You know, while one slashdotter thinks it's cool to ban a popular fad that annoys him, the society might decide to ban his hobbies. I guess there won't be enough people to care if someone banned tinkering. What would you say?
...am far more likely to go somewhere which bans all this junk. It's like passive smoking, except being surrounded by pretentious jack-offs with unnecessary toys is painful to my mental health.
You haven't actually answered the question - you could have at least tried to explain how ext3 tries to minimise fragmentation, at which point I'd have given you a list of scenarios where its techniques won't work over time and linked to a few reports about it. Nor does your example of a couple of machines "running for years on their original native FS" tell us anything at all (except maybe that your use is sufficiently light that you've never needed to upgrade). What are the systems doing from day to day?
Finally, do you actually understand what percentage fragmentation represents? IOW, can you think of particular servers which may have horrible performance due to high fragmentation but a very low "percentage fragmented" statistic?
Would you mind explaining carefully and precisely why you think that OS X's filesystem (and others) aren't prone to fragmentation? It's true that many filesystems incorporate techniques to reduce the likelihood and effect of fragmentation, but it still happens, and it's still possible to optimise the position of data on rotating media - as any good defragmenter will do.
Filesystems which claim not to suffer from defragmentation concern me more because people end up not noticing the decrease in performance over time. For a machine not in 24/7 operation, a scheduled defrag run is always a good idea; otherwise, slowly doing the same during less busy moments should be mandatory.
Slashdot Mirror
All governments reflect the will of the majority, except in the very short term. No dictator could stand without popular support. This horrible truth makes "Western Democracy" a polite facade for the same experience everyone's endured since one guy first discovered he could win friends and influence people.
Your distinctions, as always, are irrelevant.
What you mean is, "The distinctions are irrelevant to me." Your mistake is to want everyone to be like you. You try to define words so that any distinctions which are irrelevant to you become irrelevant to everyone.
Unfortunately for you, language only conveys a particular sentiment. No matter how awkward you make it to highlight the crucial difference between the freedom of local software and the lack of control offered by of "web apps", where the only app actually running is a web browser, the distinction still exists. We've been where you want to be - we were there in the '70s, maybe before you were even born.
They don't really exist.
Are they irrelevant, or do they not exist? Make up your mind. You're trying very hard to rewrite reality in your image.
The processes are running and HTML is part of the display format.
Precisely which "processes are running" and where?
I can run a word processing program locally and use PDF as the display format (OS X native display) and guess what, multiple users can log in simultaneously and use it.
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, but can you actually tell me (again) what you're talking about? Which word processing program using PDF as the display format can multiple users log in to simultaneously and use, and in what sense?
It is self contained in a useless sense completely invisible to users.
I'm not sure what's wrong with your machine, but there's nothing more visible to me than the difference between a slow, unresponsive "web app" and something running locally.
Skype advertises their service as being able to "call other people around the world for free", not "connect to Skype".
We're discussing what the Skype client does, not what the whole Skype service does.
So you think a Skype client doesn't lose it's functionality when it can't connect to the Skype network,
No, it doesn't. All Skype client features remain available even if they're not all usable - surely the difference isn't that hard to understand. Any offline storage/logging is still accessible; modifications could be applied to connect to alternative services; the code and configuration can be analysed to identify problems; etc.
but GoogleDocs loses it's functionality, when you can't connect to Google?
Correct. It's useless.
In the case of Google Apps I'm running an app on Google's servers and connecting to the interface via my browser. It's the same as running Word on a remote server and connecting to it vie Citrix, except for the specific software.
No, it isn't. Google isn't giving you the CPU time to run your word processor remotely and just view it on your local screen. They're just serving up a load of web pages which simulate a word processing application for lots of people at once. The difference in experience is as obvious as the difference in control. Running a Google "App" is nothing like running Word over a Citrix remote desktop.
Heck I can even buy a box from Google (if I have the money) to run Google docs locally on my own machine and connect to localhost via a browser.
You can buy a box to run it on your own machine? Que? While you're discussing a completely different thing, it'd help if it made sense :-).
But it does nothing at all without Skype run servers to connect to. If there is not a service running on the internet or if that service is unreachable, even if you can get to other parts of the internet, you can do nothing with the client software. Another good example would be an AIM application.
You're not thinking hard enough. The purpose of the Skype client is to act as a client to the Skype system, not to act as the whole Skype system. It fulfils that role using only the workstation in front of you. Thus it is self-contained in the sense described.
There is no such notion as absolute self-containment - almost everything relies on the Sun and you could argue that the solar system's behaviour in some way depends on the rest of the galaxy/universe. But that's the kind of silly, self-diagnosed-Asperger's-derived argument which gets no-one anywhere.
A server app is an app that runs on a remote machine, but that you connect to via a client. E.g. MS Word running on a server connected via Citrix.
That's just an application having its UI displayed somewhere distant. There's no inherent reason it cannot be run locally.
What about local apps that use HTML as the display format? Are they then, not applications?
Well, it makes for a slow, bloated choice, but there's nothing about choosing it which makes it not an application. It stops becoming an application when it is no longer self-contained, i.e. you lose the ability to execute the software's functionality. A web app is the on-screen equivalent of printing out the UI, sending the printout to someone, letting someone fill in any empty boxes and circle whatever they want to click on, then following the written instructions. The level of control is pathetic and you haven't given any sort of "application" to anyone.
Since you are having difficulty understanding, how about the following question for classification: ask, "What am I running?" In the case of Skype, you are running the Skype client. In the case of Office over Citrix, you are running Office on a remote machine. In the case of Google "Apps"... you are running nothing.
The dog didn't think you were a threat, you dumb shit.
Your definition is too vague. What does "self-contained" mean?
It means that the software requires no external processing support to fulfil its particular purpose.
N.B. This includes software such as the Skype client, since its purpose is to be a client for voice/video communication and it does so on its own.
Do server apps count?
What's a server app, exactly?
Web apps?
No. That's just an abuse of HTML to make a document of information look like the UI of a software application.
Picasa?
Not used it. Never managed to see the value in any of Google's offerings beyond its straight web search.
No, no, no. Innovation is when you look at interesting things in academia, learn from the mistakes of early commercial ventures, build your own version, and market like buggery. You take A's work, previously accessible only to B, and make it available to C to Z, and you're sorta heavily rewarded for it.
Well, that's what innovation was up to the mid '80s or so.
Now, innovation is the religious basis for deregulation. If you wonder, for example, why banks or telecoms providers can get away with so many things, the answer is that they need the freedom to innovate. It's like the freedom to breathe in that they already had it and that giving someone the freedom to breathe doesn't mean they're not an undead corpse which hasn't respired for decades.
world-wide web = global interconnected information resource - like a spider's web with vertices representing information resources and edges representing explicitly defined links between those resources
application = self-contained software for fulfilling some well-defined task
web browser = browser for the world-wide web
HTH, all web browser writers.
There are governments and media corporations with pro-Israel interests. There are governments and media corporations with anti-Israel interests. Some of these groups represent extreme views, others more moderate. But each one has a bias and its output will reflect its interests.
You, OTOH, are erecting a crazy straw man, harming Israel by painting such a ridiculously polarised picture that you overshadow reasoned argument from those moderates who try to defend Israel.
Revolution... in the sense that Egypt has one of these mobs-in-the-street things every so often. What comes around comes around again.
Democratic... in the sense of replacing one dictator with the military rallied on by the power elite.
Internet... in the sense that the first job of any twit/facebooker is to sit on his ass and read about something, repeat it, then think he had something to do with it.
My reputation is too important for me to want to change my nick just to avoid marketing. It's useful for recruiters or prospective employers to be able to do a quick search and find out more about me. It's like an implicit and well-earnt LinkedIn.
Que? The concept of (absolute) ownership (in the sense that you may dispose of certain things as you please) predates the idea of capitalism ("forming the basis") and both these predate "Americas". While possessing the strength to keep something for yourself predates Man (although what is prevalent in nature is not necessarily right), it's a far simpler concept to that of an absolute and necessarily protected right to dispose of something ("property right"). The latter is mystical nonsense.
I believe "property rights" are a mystical notion forming the basis for the religion that is "capitalism".
Just as Marx's theory of Revolution forms the basis for his religion.
In the end, any formally established moral code always ends up with some circular argument. The best you can do is follow your emotional sense of compassion, refine your ability to empathise, and not be a dick in life.
Fanboy,
Seriously, Google starting to charge for VP8 at some point is about as likely as Microsoft opensourcing their most recent Windows and Office.
Look at the political and corporate landscape of 20 years ago and see how many ways you can begin the sentence, "...then seemed about as likely as Microsoft opensourcing their most recent Windows and Office." It takes a teenager, or someone with a teenage mindset, to look so much in the here and now.
Also, Windows source code. "I meant open in precisely the way I want it to be open." Of course you did.
Also, of course Google hasn't promised a blanko cheque for every user of VP8. MPEG-LA hasn't done it either for h264.
Which, after a long and complicated series of technical legal arguments, allows us to conclude that you're no safer with one than the other.
Returning to a dumb terminal era where everything's controlled by the big server owner across the country is Google's aim, and that's the worst thing possible for the consumer. Well, no, it could be worse: Google could mine the data it collects as server operator and use it to deliver adverts. Oh.
Microsoft has done great things for computing, helping (with various other firms from the '80s) to change the global technology landscape and realising the PC-on-every-desk vision. It does not always offer the best implementation, but it sure as hell spent a lot of the past three decades delivering. Over the past 5 years, Apple has occupied traditional Microsoft ground in popularising new platforms.
Google, meanwhile, has produced... a slightly better search engine. It's like the modern RIAA - it's only powerful because everyone else's content goes through it.
Your argument gives the conclusion "no" - Google wants to control the infrastructure because the infrastructure is a basis for their profit-making activity - but your assertion is the opposite: "yes".
You remind me of any other cultist.
I mean, seriously: do you think that Google has released 'WebM' out of kindness?
You would be turning down Einstein, Edison, Bell, Oppenheimer, Hubble, Freud, Churchill, Roosevelt, Kennedy and, until recently, Obama. Hope that's OK with you.
A bad worker who may also be an addict leaves his trash everywhere and takes a break every 20 minutes.
FTFY.
My fat self-labelled socialist uncle, who at family get-togethers would sit back after the meal and light a fatter cigar like a tropical dictator, neither smoked at work nor found other excuses to shirk.
While we're doing your thing, I once worked with one black guy who was a bit clueless. So:
Blacks suck because they mumble and don't really know what they're doing. God help you if you work with one; they'll produce unmaintainable code and take far too long to do it.
This is the kind of thinking that can only lead to more ridiculous bans that hurt us all. Didn't we have enough already? You know, while one slashdotter thinks it's cool to ban a popular fad that annoys him, the society might decide to ban his hobbies. I guess there won't be enough people to care if someone banned tinkering. What would you say?
Nice straw man.
Smoking? I understand - It's unpleasant and it stinks. People talking on the phone? I understand - it's annoying.
So you only agree with someone else's private establishment banning what you find annoying.
...am far more likely to go somewhere which bans all this junk. It's like passive smoking, except being surrounded by pretentious jack-offs with unnecessary toys is painful to my mental health.
You haven't actually answered the question - you could have at least tried to explain how ext3 tries to minimise fragmentation, at which point I'd have given you a list of scenarios where its techniques won't work over time and linked to a few reports about it. Nor does your example of a couple of machines "running for years on their original native FS" tell us anything at all (except maybe that your use is sufficiently light that you've never needed to upgrade). What are the systems doing from day to day?
Finally, do you actually understand what percentage fragmentation represents? IOW, can you think of particular servers which may have horrible performance due to high fragmentation but a very low "percentage fragmented" statistic?
So fire the guy who's guilty and move on. Let it be a lesson to treat your employees better so they won't leak your stuff.
(And in the vanishingly unlikely case that it's not an employee choosing to leak, let it be a lesson in IT security nevertheless.)
Would you mind explaining carefully and precisely why you think that OS X's filesystem (and others) aren't prone to fragmentation? It's true that many filesystems incorporate techniques to reduce the likelihood and effect of fragmentation, but it still happens, and it's still possible to optimise the position of data on rotating media - as any good defragmenter will do.
Filesystems which claim not to suffer from defragmentation concern me more because people end up not noticing the decrease in performance over time. For a machine not in 24/7 operation, a scheduled defrag run is always a good idea; otherwise, slowly doing the same during less busy moments should be mandatory.