To be honesty, I was just looking for a quick summary of why OpenSolaris was still relevant, not trolling. I personally never used it, so I'm not sure of its strengths and weaknesses. Course, the "anything of value" phrase carries some pretty negative connotations, so I'm not surprised I came off as a troll.
Everything that can be invented has been invented.
The telephone has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication.
640k ought to be enough for anybody.
Turns out nobody can ever predict the future of technology (except maybe Orwell, but no one wants to admit that).
Just because we can't think of any way to break this "theoretical limit" doesn't mean it can't be broken. I'm sure at one time they said it was impossible to go faster than sound.
Sounds like a good idea, but I'm almost positive there will be instances where important data is going to be screwed with by mistake. I personally would rather not have my hard drive erasing my data without my express approval, but I'm not the average Joe.
My grade 10 and 11 computer science classes taught programming, but there was one problem: it was in Turing. For those of you who don't know, Turing is a simple language similar to Pascal that is only used in Ontario. The textbooks are from 1989 (refer to Mac OS 7 and the ICON computer). The funny thing is that the school paid for the IDE (which contains the only compiler in existence), so they wouldn't let students take a copy home (dang proprietary software!). (Un)fortunately, the company behind the language went under and they released it as freeware, along with a PDF copy of our textbooks.
Learning in Turing is enough to drive most people away from computers. The developers tried to make it a more powerful language by converting it to object-oriented part way through its life cycle, so its a bastardized hybrid. No bindings for external things, either; no SQL, no system widget toolkits. You had to work with whatever they decided to build in to the language. Some of us (the real programmers) could work with what we had; most couldn't. By grade 12 we finally moved on to Java, but most of the students were traumatized by then.
I agree, fitting more chips in a box seems like a good idea. With hard disks, you can add another platter for more space, or make the diameter bigger. Why not do the same for SSDs? They try to make them the same size as standard hard drives so you can easily switch them in existing computers, but if you're building a new one, it shouldn't be much of a bother to fit a physically bigger drive inside your case. There's no reason to assume that the NAND always has to get smaller, is there?
How far does the storage capacity really need to expand? Hard drives are in the terabyte range now, but not many people really use that much. On media servers or something, maybe, but on your average computer? I've got 50GB in my laptop once you account for my windows partition, and I'm fine with that. A 320GB SSD would last me a lifetime, especially considering the btrfs is supposed to support on-the-fly compression.
Like I said, the only place where I can see the large capacities being needed is behind the scenes on a server or similar device, in which case hard disks aren't much of a problem. On consumer computers, I'm pretty sure they're going to catch on.
It's GPG encrypted, for one thing. Also, the info-sharing settings actually work, and don't get changed by default every couple months. As far as funding goes, so far the plan is to offer a paid hosting service, or let you run your own server.
I fail to see how Android is at fault here. That is basically how voicemail is intended to work, and if you don't put a password on it, you're just as much to blame - same as with any computerized system. The fact that you're spoofing it using an Android app is irrelevant.
How much money are we paying these "experts" to sit around and come up with this again? Next up: Water's wet. Crap slides downhill. kdawson gets no respect.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny how that's coming from the guy who's indexing it all so we can find it easier.
To be honesty, I was just looking for a quick summary of why OpenSolaris was still relevant, not trolling. I personally never used it, so I'm not sure of its strengths and weaknesses. Course, the "anything of value" phrase carries some pretty negative connotations, so I'm not surprised I came off as a troll.
In Soviet Russia, Netcraft is dying!
...was anything of value lost?
Everything that can be invented has been invented.
The telephone has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication.
640k ought to be enough for anybody.
Turns out nobody can ever predict the future of technology (except maybe Orwell, but no one wants to admit that).
Just because we can't think of any way to break this "theoretical limit" doesn't mean it can't be broken. I'm sure at one time they said it was impossible to go faster than sound.
All this means is we need to be more imaginative with our designs. Limits are made to be broken.
Sounds like a good idea, but I'm almost positive there will be instances where important data is going to be screwed with by mistake. I personally would rather not have my hard drive erasing my data without my express approval, but I'm not the average Joe.
Sorry, my mistake. This is still happening.
My grade 10 and 11 computer science classes taught programming, but there was one problem: it was in Turing. For those of you who don't know, Turing is a simple language similar to Pascal that is only used in Ontario. The textbooks are from 1989 (refer to Mac OS 7 and the ICON computer). The funny thing is that the school paid for the IDE (which contains the only compiler in existence), so they wouldn't let students take a copy home (dang proprietary software!). (Un)fortunately, the company behind the language went under and they released it as freeware, along with a PDF copy of our textbooks.
Learning in Turing is enough to drive most people away from computers. The developers tried to make it a more powerful language by converting it to object-oriented part way through its life cycle, so its a bastardized hybrid. No bindings for external things, either; no SQL, no system widget toolkits. You had to work with whatever they decided to build in to the language. Some of us (the real programmers) could work with what we had; most couldn't. By grade 12 we finally moved on to Java, but most of the students were traumatized by then.
I code in Python, you insensitive clod! Don't talk to me about indenting!
Is it wrong that that comic makes me want to cry? It's a freakin' robot, but I feel like its my own kid or something!
Wait, so...Bobby Thomson is the Antichrist?
what medium we should use if we want to store data for a really, really long time
Answer: Facebook
I agree, fitting more chips in a box seems like a good idea. With hard disks, you can add another platter for more space, or make the diameter bigger. Why not do the same for SSDs? They try to make them the same size as standard hard drives so you can easily switch them in existing computers, but if you're building a new one, it shouldn't be much of a bother to fit a physically bigger drive inside your case. There's no reason to assume that the NAND always has to get smaller, is there?
How far does the storage capacity really need to expand? Hard drives are in the terabyte range now, but not many people really use that much. On media servers or something, maybe, but on your average computer? I've got 50GB in my laptop once you account for my windows partition, and I'm fine with that. A 320GB SSD would last me a lifetime, especially considering the btrfs is supposed to support on-the-fly compression.
Like I said, the only place where I can see the large capacities being needed is behind the scenes on a server or similar device, in which case hard disks aren't much of a problem. On consumer computers, I'm pretty sure they're going to catch on.
Why won't I love ME? Because it was a terrible operating system. Why do you ask?
This is just begging for a "your momma" joke. Anyone want to do the honors?
inventor of the fundamental technology on which wireless email is based
Really? Which technology would that be: wireless or email?
It's GPG encrypted, for one thing. Also, the info-sharing settings actually work, and don't get changed by default every couple months. As far as funding goes, so far the plan is to offer a paid hosting service, or let you run your own server.
the supplies are not critical and will not affect station operations
Not to worry, the whole station's basically running on autopilot.
Oh, shoot!
I believe you missed the joke.
P! divided by P will not cancel out the P's. It would be actually give (P-1)!.
I fail to see how Android is at fault here. That is basically how voicemail is intended to work, and if you don't put a password on it, you're just as much to blame - same as with any computerized system. The fact that you're spoofing it using an Android app is irrelevant.
How much money are we paying these "experts" to sit around and come up with this again? Next up: Water's wet. Crap slides downhill. kdawson gets no respect.
While from a formal point of view it is impossible to distinguish between software developers from the oil.
When software developers screw up, they don't leave a billion barrels of their product on the shores of Louisiana.