You're building a server but don't need VT-d or TXT? If that's the case, AMD CPUs tend to end up cheaper once you factor in a cheaper motherboard.
If you do need VT-d or TXT, AMD CPUs offer that across their entire range (for current-gen parts anyway) whereas Intel arbitrarily disables these features on certain CPU models
Intel CPUs do have significantly better performance per clock than AMD, but Intel is currently on the 7th-generation of the Core architecture, whereas AMD's Bulldozer is only up to generation 2.
Personally, I need a CPU that runs at 4.2GHz on 4 cores with VT-d support for reasons. I can buy a CPU that has that capability from AMD right now. Intel does not have a product that meets those requirements, or if it does, it is significantly more expensive
OTOH, it would probably work just fine shutting out a wardriver or any non-tech-oriented neighborhood mooch.
The point is that anyone with the technical skills to break WPA2/WPS is going to be able to spoof their MAC address. Ergo, if you're using WPA2, you don't need a MAC filter because anyone trying to break it will likely already be spoofing their MAC address
Of course at the fundamental level, you don't want to do that, because you would take away the possibility to compile programs.
Why not? Compilation is just converting data into more data that is afterward executed as code. It would make JIT a lot harder, if not impossible, however.
You don't need Java or C# (and all their inefficiencies such as the GC and "allocate everything on heap")
I'm not sure that's entirely true. Primitive types in Java and value types (including structs) in C# are by-value. I may be showing my inexperience here, but why would you want to allocate a value type on the heap? And does it even matter, given that value types are passed on the stack anyway?
MP3 does not include any form of DRM. Sure, any MP3 player that supports PlaysForSure or iTunes has some for of DRM on it, but mine does not support either.
Computers also have memory protection which prevents an application from copying data from another application.
I'm pretty sure this is false. Memory protection prevents programs writing to another application's memory space. That's providing data integrity, and in no way prevents copying.
I don't think you understand asymmetric encryption. You need the "secret" key to decrypt data. The public key is not secret and is only used to encrypt data. DRM require the user to have the "secret" private key on their computer, but not have any form of access to it themselves, and no way to capture the decrypted data.
Does Microsoft actually advertise that it has 64GB of storage space? Or do they advertise that it has a 64GB SSD? Whether it's misleading or not is another question, but I don't believe it's false advertising.
And when my computer boots, it will say it has 4.294967296 GB of RAM. Honestly, it makes more sense to me to use GiB, as stupid as it sounds, for the rare occasions where it makes more sense (like memory addressing)
What GP is suggesting is that RAM and RAM only should be referred to in sizes of MiB, GiB, etc. as it makes no sense to apply KiB to network transfer rates or hard disk storage space (although it does work for SSDs).
So how does one do this on Windows? I suppose you could do it by IP with the Windows firewall but I thought you were against firewalls; additionally, with IPv6 there's no guarantee that the prefix assigned by the ISP will remain the same, if I'm reading other comments correctly. Isn't this kind of task is exactly what a firewall is supposed to do for you?
Most don't like the fact that the Start menu has been replaced
It is almost an improvement over the start menu. I found the start menu too small in Vista/7 once I had 10+ applications installed. A pop-up launcher (if the Modern UI launcher opened in a pop-up over the current app/desktop, for example) would actually be an improvement, in my opinion. As it is, running full-screen on my 27" monitor is rather wasteful and used to break my focus before I got used to it.
new apps take up the entire screen
This is another thing that makes sense on a tablet or notebook screen, but is just wasteful on a large desktop monitor. Why can't Windows 8 have a proper tiling window manager for Modern UI apps or allow you to run them in a window on the desktop? This would, in my opinion, completely eliminate my problems with them.
The problems aren't so much being touch-friendly. But that it is also mouse unfriendly in many ways
That's exactly what I mean by "touch-first". Touch interaction is (supposed to be) the primary interaction method for Modern UI, and that is, if not a major problem, an annoyance if you have no inclination or ability (no touchscreen) to use that input method.
There are a rather large number of options in the OS that are only accessible via that UI
Aside from (some parts of) Networking and the Lock Screen, I can't think of many settings that need to use the Modern UI interface to access.
The Start Menu was removed for the sole purpose of shoving a tablet-centric UI down users throats for the sake of their presence in the Tablet market. The entire Modern environment is centered around that (and to establish Microsoft's walled garden.)
TBH, I was originally somewhat excited to hear that MS was (finally) making their UI touch-friendly. Instead, we got a patchily-implemented touch-first UI. They threw out everything to force an Android/iOS-style mobile OS onto their users when there wasn't even any evidence that users actually wanted that. Instead, MS is trying to enter an already-crowded market with an inferior product. Then again, they pulled it off through sheer persistence with XBox, so maybe it will be considered an acceptable alternative 4 years down the line.
Slashdot Mirror
building a server
ust a Celeron or i3.
You're building a server but don't need VT-d or TXT? If that's the case, AMD CPUs tend to end up cheaper once you factor in a cheaper motherboard.
If you do need VT-d or TXT, AMD CPUs offer that across their entire range (for current-gen parts anyway) whereas Intel arbitrarily disables these features on certain CPU models
Intel CPUs do have significantly better performance per clock than AMD, but Intel is currently on the 7th-generation of the Core architecture, whereas AMD's Bulldozer is only up to generation 2.
Personally, I need a CPU that runs at 4.2GHz on 4 cores with VT-d support for reasons. I can buy a CPU that has that capability from AMD right now. Intel does not have a product that meets those requirements, or if it does, it is significantly more expensive
Unless you're using applications that don't use GTK, Qt, Cairo, etc. you're already doing remote a framebuffer over X.
They aren't dropping client-server XMPP, just server-server XMPP. 3rd-party clients still work with Google servers (albeit only for one-to-one text chat). AFAIK, that is not going anywhere for the foreseeable future. See: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/05/hands-on-with-hangouts-googles-new-text-and-video-chat-architecture/
OTOH, it would probably work just fine shutting out a wardriver or any non-tech-oriented neighborhood mooch.
The point is that anyone with the technical skills to break WPA2/WPS is going to be able to spoof their MAC address. Ergo, if you're using WPA2, you don't need a MAC filter because anyone trying to break it will likely already be spoofing their MAC address
That attack is related to clients who are already authed. WPA2 authentication has not been broken, AFAIK.
Of course at the fundamental level, you don't want to do that, because you would take away the possibility to compile programs.
Why not? Compilation is just converting data into more data that is afterward executed as code. It would make JIT a lot harder, if not impossible, however.
You don't need Java or C# (and all their inefficiencies such as the GC and "allocate everything on heap")
I'm not sure that's entirely true. Primitive types in Java and value types (including structs) in C# are by-value. I may be showing my inexperience here, but why would you want to allocate a value type on the heap? And does it even matter, given that value types are passed on the stack anyway?
And yet it is so useless without the concept of destructors.
s/useless/cumbersome
It's more that if you can't prevent the decrypted stream from being recorded, your DRM is useless.
Last I heard, the iPad had well over 80% of the tablet marketshare in the US
mp3 players
MP3 does not include any form of DRM. Sure, any MP3 player that supports PlaysForSure or iTunes has some for of DRM on it, but mine does not support either.
Computers also have memory protection which prevents an application from copying data from another application.
I'm pretty sure this is false. Memory protection prevents programs writing to another application's memory space. That's providing data integrity, and in no way prevents copying.
Even on "tee-resistant" systems there is always the analogue hole.
I don't think you understand asymmetric encryption. You need the "secret" key to decrypt data. The public key is not secret and is only used to encrypt data. DRM require the user to have the "secret" private key on their computer, but not have any form of access to it themselves, and no way to capture the decrypted data.
Does Microsoft actually advertise that it has 64GB of storage space? Or do they advertise that it has a 64GB SSD? Whether it's misleading or not is another question, but I don't believe it's false advertising.
And when my computer boots, it will say it has 4.294967296 GB of RAM. Honestly, it makes more sense to me to use GiB, as stupid as it sounds, for the rare occasions where it makes more sense (like memory addressing)
Right, and we should still be using feet over meters and gallons over liters, etc.
What GP is suggesting is that RAM and RAM only should be referred to in sizes of MiB, GiB, etc. as it makes no sense to apply KiB to network transfer rates or hard disk storage space (although it does work for SSDs).
So how does one do this on Windows? I suppose you could do it by IP with the Windows firewall but I thought you were against firewalls; additionally, with IPv6 there's no guarantee that the prefix assigned by the ISP will remain the same, if I'm reading other comments correctly. Isn't this kind of task is exactly what a firewall is supposed to do for you?
Most don't like the fact that the Start menu has been replaced
It is almost an improvement over the start menu. I found the start menu too small in Vista/7 once I had 10+ applications installed. A pop-up launcher (if the Modern UI launcher opened in a pop-up over the current app/desktop, for example) would actually be an improvement, in my opinion. As it is, running full-screen on my 27" monitor is rather wasteful and used to break my focus before I got used to it.
new apps take up the entire screen
This is another thing that makes sense on a tablet or notebook screen, but is just wasteful on a large desktop monitor. Why can't Windows 8 have a proper tiling window manager for Modern UI apps or allow you to run them in a window on the desktop? This would, in my opinion, completely eliminate my problems with them.
The problems aren't so much being touch-friendly. But that it is also mouse unfriendly in many ways
That's exactly what I mean by "touch-first". Touch interaction is (supposed to be) the primary interaction method for Modern UI, and that is, if not a major problem, an annoyance if you have no inclination or ability (no touchscreen) to use that input method.
There are a rather large number of options in the OS that are only accessible via that UI
Aside from (some parts of) Networking and the Lock Screen, I can't think of many settings that need to use the Modern UI interface to access.
The Start Menu was removed for the sole purpose of shoving a tablet-centric UI down users throats for the sake of their presence in the Tablet market. The entire Modern environment is centered around that (and to establish Microsoft's walled garden.)
TBH, I was originally somewhat excited to hear that MS was (finally) making their UI touch-friendly. Instead, we got a patchily-implemented touch-first UI. They threw out everything to force an Android/iOS-style mobile OS onto their users when there wasn't even any evidence that users actually wanted that. Instead, MS is trying to enter an already-crowded market with an inferior product. Then again, they pulled it off through sheer persistence with XBox, so maybe it will be considered an acceptable alternative 4 years down the line.
Common use case: User wants to run a SMB server on his home network without it being accessible from the Internet.
Yes. The violation would occur when you execute the code in order to read or write from an exFAT partition.
It works on Windows out of the box
Write support only works out of the box on Vista and later. Not a huge problem to work around, but it's there
UDF certainly looks like the most appropriate candidate for a truly universal file system, though