The windows dir structure makes sense? When did that happen? I suspect you're trolling, but I'll respond anyway -- I like trolls.
In your root drive you have, in Windows, a \My Documents folder for most user stuff (if you choose to use it for that) Not in Windows 2000 you don't. You have \WINNT\Profiles\\My Documents\ How does that compare with/home//docs?
\Program Files folder for applications Which, incidentally, you need to have on each drive if you're committed to putting apps in that folder. Since drives get mounted under an individual letter, there's no way to have a coherent filesystem hierarchy on a system with multiple drives.
a \Windows folder for the actual system files. That makes sense. The \Windows folder is then subdivided into folders for different types of components, and most of the folder names make sense--like, \Command is where the command-line stuff is, \Tasks is where scheduled tasks are kept, etc. \WINNT on real MS operating systems. I object to the assertion that this makes more sense than/bin. You can convince me otherwise by explaining why I have a \WINNT\system and a \WINNT\system32? And about that tasks folder, have you ever tried to edit a task on a remote system? Here's what happens, you mount the \\server\admin$ share, you cd to tasks, suddenly there's the tasks folder on your own box! There's no way to open that folder on a remote box through the GUI. There's also no tool supplied to edit them through the command line and no remote management tool. To top it all off, the scheduled tasks component REPLACES the reasonably functional AT service that NT has been shipping with forever.
You can fsck up the names entirely, installing Windows into a directory called \MSSUCKS and using the registry or any number of third-party graphical programmes to change the other usual system folders into whatever you want Have you tried this? I have. It's a sure way to break third party applications. Broke a lot of in house apps too, and I was working at MS at the time. Even a lot of older MS applications couldn't handle it.
the huge advantage of the Windows directory structure is that you can add your own directories in the root of the main drive without feeling as if you're doing something "bad." Unless you share the workstation with others. In which case you HAVE done something bad. Your files go in %windir%\profiles\username on NT. In linux they go in ~username. Only castrated systems that don't support multiple users make it easy to pollute the top level directory.
To me, this layout makes sense. In Windows you are free to customize the directory structure as much as you want, to create a machine that is easiest for you to work with. If you ever work on a shared system, you'll lose this freedom in a hurry.
In Linux, everyone always tells you "this must go here" "that must go there" "keep all user files here." Bollocks, it makes no sense for me personally to have a root filesystem that isn't optimal for my personal configuration. No one has ever cracked my linux box and criticized my filesystem layout. I doubt it's happened to you. You can fuck with the filesystem all you want as long as you're using it as a single user box.
And what the Hell is up with/usr/usr/local/lib/usr/lib??? HUH??? Talk about confusing structure. But in Windows, all the system stuff is in \Windows and all the apps are in \Program Files and that makes sense. So what's in \WINNT\Driver Cache and how does it differ from \WINNT\System32\DLLCache and how does this differ from \WINNT\System32\Cache? It seems that the details are always a bit fuzzy. And how do I know if a dll is in \Program Files\Common or \Program Files\Office?
I think the fundamental difference here is that the Linux directory structure makes a lot of sense for command-line users, because everything is in short hierarchical directory names that you can type to quickly if you know where they are supposed to be. But Windows directory structure is better for GUI users, because the names are longer and more descriptive and the structure can be easily put into custom configurations perfect for point-and-click quickness. I think the real difference is that you don't really grasp that Win98 is a single user system and Linux is a multi-user (timesharing) system and that tradeoffs need to be made to keep one user from mucking with anothers files. NT makes a lot of those tradeoffs too.
>> I've come across several folks who are relatively new Linux users... but consider themselves "Linux Gods". > Is there some environment where they are most common? It's called slashdot.org
Perl can construct programs "on the fly". So can TCL, and so can (I believe?) Python. Probably not exactly with the same ease, since you must do it in ascii strings form (as in, you can't manipulate the syntax tree directly). Um, yeah, practically any language can output code. You don't even have to use a turing complete language -- here's a T-SQL quine: CREATE PROCEDURE print_me AS exec(sp_helptext 'print_me') As long as you have something like exec(), eval() or even system() you can generate and execute code on the fly. --Shoeboy
Those who code well are our gods. Nice. I'm just pissed because Jim Gray and Bruce Lindsay are my gods and none of you gamer geeks even recognize the names. --Shoeboy
John Carmack will make the X box a great platform!! John Carmack has officially sold out!!! OpenGL is dead!!! Get a fucking grip. Carmack is just a developer. He's the best at what he does and he's got a lot of expertise, but he's hardly capable of making or breaking a console platform. Additionally, nobody has said anything about DirectX vs. OpenGL wrt this deal - which is just a rumor anyway. You guys sound like JeffK -- John Carmaeke is SMARtey ProraEMIng WiZARD MaN!!!!! --Shoeboy
I still have no idea what's going on with osm. Let me help you out. osm sits at his computer composing stories about Natalie Portman. He puts these up on his website and posts them on/. Now you know all there is to know about what's going on with osm. --Shoeboy
Why not simply modify his Ebay account so that all bids start at -1? They could call it something clever like the bitchslap. I wonder why CmdrTaco hasn't thought of something like this. --Shoeboy
CobolScript which is "a COBOL based interpreter that allows Web development" It's official - there is no god. Next thing you know, someone will release a version of INTERCAL that produces Java bytecode. If you really want to deal with COBOL on Linux, I suggest the 'rm' utility. --Shoeboy
I used to support Linux and thought it was really cool; a rebel, upstart, underdog OS that really might give us a chance at something new and different! I find myself yearning for a new "Unsung Hero" OS. I totally groove with this. As soon as you find a new OS that's worthy, it'll just become mainstream like Linux is. Anything cool eventually gets picked up by the uncool and then urban hipsters like you and me find the whole scene ruined. Remember when we shopped thrift stores back in 96 for old atari shirts and crap? Now everyone is doing it. It's SOOOOOO cliche and bourgeois. What we need to do is find a trend they won't imitate and coopt. I say we resurect COBOL on the PRIME MiniComputer. That'll rock. We can say things to the Linux guys like 'PrimeOS never needs to worry about new hardware compatibility' and 'Linux won't succeed in the market due to all you "C" hackers refusing to support the COmmon Business Oriented Language.' --Shoeboy
90 pics on a server in Germany? Not only that, but based on the response time, it's a 386 server, fronted by a z-80 powered firewall. The only possible explanation is that Hemos is cackling with diabolical laughter and telling his new bride "Look honey, I just threw 400,000 DSL connected geeks at a box that's connected to the net with tin cans and string." I bet she gets off on that. I would. --Shoeboy
There are many other flavors of poppies you can obtain that do not produce opium. Yes yes, but decorative flowergarden type poppies are Papaver Giganteum - which is simply a large sized strain of Papaver Somniforum. It's rumored to contain reduced quantites of morphine, but I've found it to be adequate. California poppies really look nothing at all like a poppy. It's an extremely small plant with a rather different looking bulb and flower. --Shoeboy
But opium can be distilled from the garden variety poppies found in flowerbeds accross the country. Breeds of poppy differ in strength, but all contain morphine. To harvest, take a pin or a razor blade and make thin cuts around the bulb of the poppy. Do not cut all the way through, just scratch the surface so that sap begins to ooze out. The sap will be milky white. Now wait for 12-24 hours. The sap will have become thick and gooey and black. Scrape the sap off with a spoon or razor blade. This is raw opium. You can extract the morphine out of this, and refine it into heroin if you have the know how, but I just do the raw opium. The safest way to do this is by smoking it. Another good method is to drop the opium into strong lemonade, stir and gulp. Warning, opium is very bitter tasting. Don't do this with a large quantity however, since you may OD. The opium high can best be described as a general sense of well being. Pain, fatigue, appetite and sexual desire are suppressed. Concentration is much easier. You can code like the devil himself. Some people combine the opium with hash when smoking it. I think this is a mistake as the opium high is far superior to being stoned and should be enjoyed as much as possible. Have fun and try not to get caught. --Shoeboy
"hates and fears" you for being different ... It's a parallel for all of them, plus the geeks, nerds, wiccans, Arab-Americans, you name it -- not one or two specific groups. Wiccans? Sweet Jesus, nobody hates and fears wiccans. We may laugh at them, but it's the good natured laugh we use for special olympics contestants. --Shoeboy
Sitting in a corner office with an executive level salary getting paid to not spy on people. This is sweet. If there's one thing I'm good at it's not doing stuff. --Shoeboy
Winna iz da 1st person ta flik their opponinets balls with their tongue First prize is being deep throated by the loser. Warning, I WILL play to lose. --Shoeboy
You are a stupid fuck. Ouch. In realworld applications, Rambus does perform better. Where is your fucking PROOF asshole? Is Bryce 4 not a 'real world application'? How about CorelDraw 9? Naturally Speaking? Quake III? Netscape Communicator? Paradox 9.0? Photoshop 5.5? Powerpoint 2000? Windows Media encoder 4.0? Word 2000? I think all of these are 'real world applications' and guess what, the 440bx at 133 smacks the i820 all over the fucking place. The only real world app where I saw Rambus with an advantage was excel 2000. --Shoeboy
I wouldn't be suprised if some tech-head came and showed me RDRAM spanking the benchmarks for big server apps, but why do I care? Really? It would shock the hell out of me. RDRAM latency degenerates rapidly as you add chips. Get a Quad Proc system with 4GB of RDRAM and you'll see some truly abysimal benchmarks. That's why intel was trying to position RDRAM as a desktop/workstation tech for Williamette (the P4) while pushing SDRAM for Foster (the P4 Xeon). --Shoeboy
Sweet Troll man. Two biters with the +1 bonus already and neither of them have any suspiscion. God, you'd think at least one of them would have bothered to read your fucking post. The simple truth is that in most real-world applications, Rambus handily outperforms PC133 DIMMs, and is worth the extra expense. Yeah, that's a well supported assertion;) --Shoeboy
I also ought to point out that the i840 was beaten by the 440Bx Oc'd to 133 in a fair number of tests and that while i840 was competitive, it didn't have any kind of edge. This based on the Tom's Hardware benchmark the original poster mentioned. --Shoeboy
Intel's high-end RDRAM motherboard beat the hell out of SDRAM systems. It had two interleaved RIMM slots, doubling effective bandwidth. Wrong. The PIII has a 64 bit memory bus operating at 133Mhz. That's 1.06GB/s. Adding a second channel of PC-800 RDRAM -- theoretical max bandwith of 1.6GB/s -- does not give you 3.2GB/s of effective bandwith, you're still limited by the CPU. A PIII can't handle any more bandwith than PC-133 delivers. The reason the i840 outpowers the i820 is that it reduces latency. RDRAM latency gets worse the more sticks you add. So a system with 2 Rimms on two channels will have lower latency than a system with 2 Rimms on 1 channel. --Shoeboy
AMD is doing what Intel should have done. The problem with unlocked chips is that they get remarked. The rips off customers, pisses of resellers and makes the manufacturer look bad. So how do you fix it? One solution is to multiplier lock the chip so it can't be overclocked without OC'ing the FSB. This sucks. Increasing the FSB also overclocks the PCI and AGP ports. This can fuck a lot of older cards. The other approach is to allow easy identification of the processors rated speed. This stops the remarking and doesn't cost you the enthusiast market. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that this is the solution the market will reward. (all other things being equal - which they never are.) Back in the days of the P5, when remarking was at its height, Intel refused to release software (which it had developed) to identify the rated speed of a proc. Once this strategy started hitting them in the pocketbook (like I said, remarking is bad for everyone) they decided to stop overclocking (and thus remarking) by locking the CPU. Why? Because Intel is a heavy handed company that doesn't give a shit about the end user. This is why they're forcing Rambus down our throats. This is why they haven't produced a chipset that even approaches the 440bx. This is why they refused to admit that the i820 with MTH was flawed for months after they released the buggy thing. That's why the Celeron still runs at 66mhz fsb. Go AMD. Down with Intel. --Shoeboy
Slashdot Mirror
The windows dir structure makes sense? When did that happen? I suspect you're trolling, but I'll respond anyway -- I like trolls.
/home//docs?
/bin. You can convince me otherwise by explaining why I have a \WINNT\system and a \WINNT\system32? And about that tasks folder, have you ever tried to edit a task on a remote system? Here's what happens, you mount the \\server\admin$ share, you cd to tasks, suddenly there's the tasks folder on your own box! There's no way to open that folder on a remote box through the GUI. There's also no tool supplied to edit them through the command line and no remote management tool. To top it all off, the scheduled tasks component REPLACES the reasonably functional AT service that NT has been shipping with forever.
/usr /usr/local /lib /usr/lib??? HUH??? Talk about confusing structure. But in Windows, all the system stuff is in \Windows and all the apps are in \Program Files and that makes sense.
In your root drive you have, in Windows, a \My Documents folder for most user stuff (if you choose to use it for that)
Not in Windows 2000 you don't. You have \WINNT\Profiles\\My Documents\ How does that compare with
\Program Files folder for applications
Which, incidentally, you need to have on each drive if you're committed to putting apps in that folder. Since drives get mounted under an individual letter, there's no way to have a coherent filesystem hierarchy on a system with multiple drives.
a \Windows folder for the actual system files. That makes sense. The \Windows folder is then subdivided into folders for different types of components, and most of the folder names make sense--like, \Command is where the command-line stuff is, \Tasks is where scheduled tasks are kept, etc.
\WINNT on real MS operating systems. I object to the assertion that this makes more sense than
You can fsck up the names entirely, installing Windows into a directory called \MSSUCKS and using the registry or any number of third-party graphical programmes to change the other usual system folders into whatever you want
Have you tried this? I have. It's a sure way to break third party applications. Broke a lot of in house apps too, and I was working at MS at the time. Even a lot of older MS applications couldn't handle it.
the huge advantage of the Windows directory structure is that you can add your own directories in the root of the main drive without feeling as if you're doing something "bad." Unless you share the workstation with others. In which case you HAVE done something bad. Your files go in %windir%\profiles\username on NT. In linux they go in ~username. Only castrated systems that don't support multiple users make it easy to pollute the top level directory.
To me, this layout makes sense. In Windows you are free to customize the directory structure as much as you want, to create a machine that is easiest for you to work with.
If you ever work on a shared system, you'll lose this freedom in a hurry.
In Linux, everyone always tells you "this must go here" "that must go there" "keep all user files here." Bollocks, it makes no sense for me personally to have a root filesystem that isn't optimal for my personal configuration.
No one has ever cracked my linux box and criticized my filesystem layout. I doubt it's happened to you. You can fuck with the filesystem all you want as long as you're using it as a single user box.
And what the Hell is up with
So what's in \WINNT\Driver Cache and how does it differ from \WINNT\System32\DLLCache and how does this differ from \WINNT\System32\Cache? It seems that the details are always a bit fuzzy. And how do I know if a dll is in \Program Files\Common or \Program Files\Office?
I think the fundamental difference here is that the Linux directory structure makes a lot of sense for command-line users, because everything is in short hierarchical directory names that you can type to quickly if you know where they are supposed to be. But Windows directory structure is better for GUI users, because the names are longer and more descriptive and the structure can be easily put into custom configurations perfect for point-and-click quickness.
I think the real difference is that you don't really grasp that Win98 is a single user system and Linux is a multi-user (timesharing) system and that tradeoffs need to be made to keep one user from mucking with anothers files. NT makes a lot of those tradeoffs too.
--Shoeboy
>> I've come across several folks who are relatively new Linux users ... but consider themselves "Linux Gods".
> Is there some environment where they are most common?
It's called slashdot.org
--Shoeboy
Perl can construct programs "on the fly". So can TCL, and so can (I believe?) Python. Probably not exactly with the same ease, since you must do it in ascii strings form (as in, you can't manipulate the syntax tree directly).
Um, yeah, practically any language can output code. You don't even have to use a turing complete language -- here's a T-SQL quine:
CREATE PROCEDURE print_me
AS exec(sp_helptext 'print_me')
As long as you have something like exec(), eval() or even system() you can generate and execute code on the fly.
--Shoeboy
Those who code well are our gods.
Nice.
I'm just pissed because Jim Gray and Bruce Lindsay are my gods and none of you gamer geeks even recognize the names.
--Shoeboy
John Carmack will make the X box a great platform!!
John Carmack has officially sold out!!! OpenGL is dead!!!
Get a fucking grip. Carmack is just a developer. He's the best at what he does and he's got a lot of expertise, but he's hardly capable of making or breaking a console platform. Additionally, nobody has said anything about DirectX vs. OpenGL wrt this deal - which is just a rumor anyway.
You guys sound like JeffK -- John Carmaeke is SMARtey ProraEMIng WiZARD MaN!!!!!
--Shoeboy
I still have no idea what's going on with osm. /.
Let me help you out. osm sits at his computer composing stories about Natalie Portman. He puts these up on his website and posts them on
Now you know all there is to know about what's going on with osm.
--Shoeboy
Why not simply modify his Ebay account so that all bids start at -1? They could call it something clever like the bitchslap. I wonder why CmdrTaco hasn't thought of something like this.
--Shoeboy
CobolScript which is "a COBOL based interpreter that allows Web development"
It's official - there is no god. Next thing you know, someone will release a version of INTERCAL that produces Java bytecode.
If you really want to deal with COBOL on Linux, I suggest the 'rm' utility.
--Shoeboy
I used to support Linux and thought it was really cool; a rebel, upstart, underdog OS that really might give us a chance at something new and different!
I find myself yearning for a new "Unsung Hero" OS.
I totally groove with this. As soon as you find a new OS that's worthy, it'll just become mainstream like Linux is. Anything cool eventually gets picked up by the uncool and then urban hipsters like you and me find the whole scene ruined. Remember when we shopped thrift stores back in 96 for old atari shirts and crap? Now everyone is doing it. It's SOOOOOO cliche and bourgeois. What we need to do is find a trend they won't imitate and coopt. I say we resurect COBOL on the PRIME MiniComputer. That'll rock. We can say things to the Linux guys like 'PrimeOS never needs to worry about new hardware compatibility' and 'Linux won't succeed in the market due to all you "C" hackers refusing to support the COmmon Business Oriented Language.'
--Shoeboy
90 pics on a server in Germany? Not only that, but based on the response time, it's a 386 server, fronted by a z-80 powered firewall.
The only possible explanation is that Hemos is cackling with diabolical laughter and telling his new bride "Look honey, I just threw 400,000 DSL connected geeks at a box that's connected to the net with tin cans and string." I bet she gets off on that. I would.
--Shoeboy
There are many other flavors of poppies you can obtain that do not produce opium.
Yes yes, but decorative flowergarden type poppies are Papaver Giganteum - which is simply a large sized strain of Papaver Somniforum. It's rumored to contain reduced quantites of morphine, but I've found it to be adequate.
California poppies really look nothing at all like a poppy. It's an extremely small plant with a rather different looking bulb and flower.
--Shoeboy
But opium can be distilled from the garden variety poppies found in flowerbeds accross the country. Breeds of poppy differ in strength, but all contain morphine. To harvest, take a pin or a razor blade and make thin cuts around the bulb of the poppy. Do not cut all the way through, just scratch the surface so that sap begins to ooze out. The sap will be milky white. Now wait for 12-24 hours. The sap will have become thick and gooey and black. Scrape the sap off with a spoon or razor blade. This is raw opium. You can extract the morphine out of this, and refine it into heroin if you have the know how, but I just do the raw opium. The safest way to do this is by smoking it. Another good method is to drop the opium into strong lemonade, stir and gulp. Warning, opium is very bitter tasting. Don't do this with a large quantity however, since you may OD. The opium high can best be described as a general sense of well being. Pain, fatigue, appetite and sexual desire are suppressed. Concentration is much easier. You can code like the devil himself.
Some people combine the opium with hash when smoking it. I think this is a mistake as the opium high is far superior to being stoned and should be enjoyed as much as possible.
Have fun and try not to get caught.
--Shoeboy
Then I can register hostname.domain.tld
Yeah, I know it isn't funny. Go away.
--Shoeboy
"hates and fears" you for being different
...
It's a parallel for all of them, plus the geeks, nerds, wiccans, Arab-Americans, you name it -- not one or two specific groups.
Wiccans? Sweet Jesus, nobody hates and fears wiccans. We may laugh at them, but it's the good natured laugh we use for special olympics contestants.
--Shoeboy
Sitting in a corner office with an executive level salary getting paid to not spy on people. This is sweet. If there's one thing I'm good at it's not doing stuff.
--Shoeboy
I'll show you how I got triple digit karma, baby.
--Shoeboy
Winna iz da 1st person ta flik their opponinets balls with their tongue
First prize is being deep throated by the loser.
Warning, I WILL play to lose.
--Shoeboy
You are a stupid fuck.
Ouch.
In realworld applications, Rambus does perform better.
Where is your fucking PROOF asshole? Is Bryce 4 not a 'real world application'? How about CorelDraw 9? Naturally Speaking? Quake III? Netscape Communicator? Paradox 9.0? Photoshop 5.5? Powerpoint 2000? Windows Media encoder 4.0? Word 2000?
I think all of these are 'real world applications' and guess what, the 440bx at 133 smacks the i820 all over the fucking place. The only real world app where I saw Rambus with an advantage was excel 2000.
--Shoeboy
I wouldn't be suprised if some tech-head came and showed me RDRAM spanking the benchmarks for big server apps, but why do I care?
Really? It would shock the hell out of me. RDRAM latency degenerates rapidly as you add chips. Get a Quad Proc system with 4GB of RDRAM and you'll see some truly abysimal benchmarks. That's why intel was trying to position RDRAM as a desktop/workstation tech for Williamette (the P4) while pushing SDRAM for Foster (the P4 Xeon).
--Shoeboy
Sweet Troll man. Two biters with the +1 bonus already and neither of them have any suspiscion. God, you'd think at least one of them would have bothered to read your fucking post. ;)
The simple truth is that in most real-world applications, Rambus handily outperforms PC133 DIMMs, and is worth the extra expense.
Yeah, that's a well supported assertion
--Shoeboy
I also ought to point out that the i840 was beaten by the 440Bx Oc'd to 133 in a fair number of tests and that while i840 was competitive, it didn't have any kind of edge. This based on the Tom's Hardware benchmark the original poster mentioned.
--Shoeboy
Intel's high-end RDRAM motherboard beat the hell out of SDRAM systems. It had two interleaved RIMM slots, doubling effective bandwidth.
Wrong.
The PIII has a 64 bit memory bus operating at 133Mhz. That's 1.06GB/s. Adding a second channel of PC-800 RDRAM -- theoretical max bandwith of 1.6GB/s -- does not give you 3.2GB/s of effective bandwith, you're still limited by the CPU. A PIII can't handle any more bandwith than PC-133 delivers. The reason the i840 outpowers the i820 is that it reduces latency. RDRAM latency gets worse the more sticks you add. So a system with 2 Rimms on two channels will have lower latency than a system with 2 Rimms on 1 channel.
--Shoeboy
AMD is doing what Intel should have done. The problem with unlocked chips is that they get remarked. The rips off customers, pisses of resellers and makes the manufacturer look bad. So how do you fix it? One solution is to multiplier lock the chip so it can't be overclocked without OC'ing the FSB. This sucks. Increasing the FSB also overclocks the PCI and AGP ports. This can fuck a lot of older cards. The other approach is to allow easy identification of the processors rated speed. This stops the remarking and doesn't cost you the enthusiast market. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that this is the solution the market will reward. (all other things being equal - which they never are.)
Back in the days of the P5, when remarking was at its height, Intel refused to release software (which it had developed) to identify the rated speed of a proc. Once this strategy started hitting them in the pocketbook (like I said, remarking is bad for everyone) they decided to stop overclocking (and thus remarking) by locking the CPU.
Why? Because Intel is a heavy handed company that doesn't give a shit about the end user. This is why they're forcing Rambus down our throats. This is why they haven't produced a chipset that even approaches the 440bx. This is why they refused to admit that the i820 with MTH was flawed for months after they released the buggy thing. That's why the Celeron still runs at 66mhz fsb.
Go AMD. Down with Intel.
--Shoeboy
Ok, you have a fowl sense of humor and can improvise as well as I can. I'm impressed. I'm going home now. Goodnight.
--Shoeboy
I don't get it.
5, 17, 23
Think about it.
Do you get it now?
If not, you need to think harder.
--Shoeboy