These guys knew full well that SCO's attorneys and expert witnesses were perjuring themselves, and should have come forward then.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever these guys read or even knew the content of the expert witness' testimony?
Attorneys rarely make testimony in cases they are involved with; it is unlikely any attorneys perjured themselves.
That's all well and good, but all this would prove is that SCO knew that one guy they contracted couldn't find a basis for their claims, not that they knew the lawsuit was baseless.
I think the point is the guy they contracted found evidence that there was no correlation between contents of SCO and Linux source trees.
It's not a matter of him not finding anything; it's a matter of him finding something; that is, evidence that would have been beneficial to their adversary in court, that they did not provide to the court.
In other words, legal misconduct. When you are subpoena'd for evidence, you have to make all evidence available, not just evidence that favors your viewpoint; if you had intentionally destroyed records/evidence because they don't favor your viewpoint, then that's misconduct that could increase their liability.
"I've done it -- it keeps me fully alert, too!" Uh huh. This is every bit as believable as the drunk who insists they're not too smashed to drive. You feel fully alert. Good for you. Now pull over, take a piss, and then take a nap, resume driving when you actually are fully alert and don't require any tricks to stay awake.
Dont' think of doing it unless it's really an emergency. Pulling over to take a nap is a good way to wind up in jail, because in most areas it is illegal, particularly on a limited access highway/interstate/freeway; the shoulder is for emergency only,
you can be cited, ticketed, and the officer will probably be giving you a sobriety test;
if you happen to be drunk taking a nap, you're going to jail.
That said.... getting ticketed is a lot better than killing someone, if you can't stay awake for a few minutes.
If you feel the least bit sleepy you should immediately find a place to rest.
Do it LONG before you are at the point where you cannot stay awake for 10 minutes.
Do not pull over the side of the road to take a nap; find a gas station, rest area, or parking lot at least.
This may be unsafe, but at least you won't be hit by accident by another vehicle at high speed.
Better to find a cheap Motel. Cars pulled on the side of the road get hit all the time, and it's
possible another driver will see you on the side of the road, and dial 911, because they believe
something is wrong when they see a car on the side of the road with driver out cold.
That could pose some annoying complications for you.
and, if you keep it too much, the urine in your bladder may even get pushed back into your bloodstream and outright poison you.
That's not even the tip of the iceberg of bad things that could happen.... (1) your bladder could explode, or
(2) [worse], you could wind up accidentally urinating involuntarily all over yourself, with your clothing still on.
and children from 8-13 are different from "bots" how exactly? When they see it on a kids show or a kids website (at least sites that know they have large kid demographics) they basically are no different than bots...
Either way, the purchase is unauthorized by any person with any legal authority to enter into the sale/contract for that purchase, and therefore the action does and should not constitute any sale/purchase/action that the account holder is legally responsible for. It doesn't matter whether it's unauthorized because it happened automatically due to an infection, bug in their software, or hiding of the charge in the fine print (the human had no control, no meeting of minds), because of fraudulent criminal actions (hacked account, stolen phone, cloned SIM), OR
because of a child or friend who acted inappropriately or did not understand charges would be incurred
The phone company says otherwise because it is more profitable for them.
I am saying their view should be banned by the law.
I am saying, if a CSR tells a consumer they cannot reverse a charges due to actions performed by their kid, that should be a crime, and the telco should have some serious financial liability for each incident where they did not immediately reverse a supplementary charge reported unauthorized immediately. Phone calls, Texts, international roaming, air time, data usage or any other type of usage, and any other account holder actions that can create excessive or accidental charges should be included in this.
And reasonable measures must be taken to ensure charges are not accidental.
For example: if the customer is billed for air time, reasonable measures must be implemented to ensure they cannot accidentally dial their phone and consume airtime without knowing about it -- within ordinary use of the device. For example, if it is common for customers to put their phone in their pocket and sit on it, the service provider must take reasonable measures to ensure there is no accidental way they will incur charges if a number of random buttons are inadvertently pressed or held.
I am saying, in all those cases, the law should say the phone company is not only liable, but they should automatically be fined and penalized if they delay or refuse to reverse any charge the consumer claims unauthorized.
The only alternative should be for the phone company to implement a robust non-repudiation system of their choice that proves an authorized account holder is in possession of the phone, and approves of the transaction, providing they give the account holder an opportunity to cancel/reverse the transaction in writing or by calling them (at consumer's option) for at least 15 days after issuance of customer's next bill/account statement.
except a lot of SSDs come in USB key form and Winderz deletes files off those immediately.
Er... Ok... what idiot would put their term paper on a USB key (except as a backup)?
Seeing how easily USB keys are lost, accidentally dropped, or crushed, and how prone to failure the $5 electronics in them are.
Putting the only copy of your termpaper on one is asking for trouble.
When Mindy the undergrad accidentally deletes her term paper and would be really REALLY grateful for a super smart and kinda cute geek to go in and recover the file with Backtrack... then you'll see the downside.
the trouble is that C is rarely the case. Getting locks on all the various ways you can be charged is difficult at best. Every time you make a plan change the telco tries to take away the locks...
Well, I am saying... this (C) situation is the state that protects consumers the most from exploitation, but that telcos want the least.
Therefore, the government should pass laws to impose (C). And then once that happens it's up to the Telco to stay profitable.
My favorite is still the online "quiz" that wants to text you the answer... so the kid types in dad's text number and when they get the reply they just rang up $9.99.
Um... an online quiz that 'texts' random phone numbers the answer?
So... say you're evil... what stops you from deploying an army of bots to submit various people's cell numbers as a prank to that online quiz?
Seems like a pretty flawwed concept.
'ActiveX content may prevent you from having a good experience viewing a Web site'"
Since I define a good experience as having at least 3 unknown, untrusted executables run in the background,
doing god knows what, with only routine prompting.... I am highly skeptical about the improvement.
Now my users are going to have to go to the tried and true old fashioned way of getting their computers' infected.
Clicking the executable, and then hitting the 'Run' button, or Saving first....
And Windows 7 was being touted as 'user firendly'...feh.:(
A. Make it impossible to install or execute "rogue" apps on a computer system.
B. Make it impossible to do anything on a phone which will cost money unless the phone owner has authorized it ahead of time with the phone's service provider, and set an upper limit of how much you're willing to pay for it per month (like $5 to spend on texts, apps, etc). Anything above that, the service provider should refuse to do.
How about (C) A zero-liability law requiring that service providers hold consumers harmless for any fraudulent use of services made from their account; that is, any use of for-pay services that the owner of the device did explicitly approve of, AND require the consumer to be compensated fairly for any time, labor, energy, or legal services required on their behalf to rectify any provider billing error or to have unauthorized charges removed, at a minimum amount of $25 per hour of the consumers' time (and twice that for any time spent on the telephone with the provider, with the provider's IVR, on hold waiting to speak to a customer service representative, or time off the phone spent awaiting a callback to their message sent during standard business hours).
Then the problem will take care of itself -- service providers won't want to lose money to premium services due to fraudulent texts, so they'll come up with a better policy.
governments will finally acknowledge that you simply cannot stop the dispersal of information.
Is that before or after Qaddafi deploys his Backhoe corps to plow across the country severing all the underground fiber lines
while increasing power to his WiFi jammers?
"What was the message?"
"I don't know, I just clicked OK."
The OK button is one of the dummest GUI elements ever invented.
The button should say "DESTROY This file permanently with no chance of restoring", not 'OK'.
And it should require a double click, not a single click.
Whereas cancel should be a single click.
Very apt, considering the effort would very quickly be not worth the gain... (like in somebody jumping on top of real trash)
Except for users who never empty the recycling bin.
I've seen reports of some users who keep their most important documents in the recycling bin.
User got pissed off when a technician emptied their recycling bin, because they were called in to repair an issue caused by "computer out of disk space".
Apparently the company policy that all important documents are to be stored solely on the server's shared drive so they will be backed up, and never in local 'My Documents' or local computer's desktop, was not clear to them, and they decided the "Recycle bin" was an attic for putting things you might need later.
Because that would cause deletions that now run in O(1) to run in O(n) (at least); a deleted file (maybe an 80 gig video file) would have to be copied to the deletion FS before the deletion operation was complete.
Perhaps that would give the user more time to decide they really wanted to purge this. You can background the physical move task, so the user doesn't need to worry about it, and maintain a link in the recycle bin and space reservation until the move is completed.
If you're deleting an 80gb file, that doesn't need to go to the recycle bin.
Users delete things to free up disk space -- if they just deleted a massive 80gb file intentionally, chances are they will soon be emptying the recycle bin anyways.
they might be resources on a WebDAV server, or references to files on an FTP or SMB.
Windows recycle bin does not extend to WebDAV, FTP, or SMB. You delete a file on those, it's gone for good. Also, Windows XP has always had a horribly non-compliant Webdav implementation; doesn't even support SSL last I checked, you have all sorts of issues if you try to XP's webdav client with a standards compliant webdav server.
And your rules for dealing with all the exceptional cases basically would make it impossible for a casual user to know if his file was even going to stay in the trash, or if they'd even be able to go in the trash at all
Maybe this will cause them to be more careful with the delete command?
The OS can heuristically score each file based on the likelihood that it is valuable to the user.
For example... small files that don't appear to contain anything meaningful would have a lower score. Small files with some text would be considered higher priority.
Files that the user had accessed a lot, would have a higher score, unless there was a 'newer copy'.
The user would know if it was going to the trash or not, because The computer would tell them
What's next, are you going to force "Details View" on all your users? Give me a break.
Ack! No! Information leak... security alert... Force thumbnail view on all non-admin users. And disable
'right click properties' on any file name/icon.
I disagree. In the workplace, you're not the owner of your machine. I've never worked in an office that allowed me to do whatever I wanted with a computer.
I am forced to agree with the OP. Removing tools from users' desktops based on admins' personal opinion about how they should delete things is autocratic and out of line.
While it's true in the workplace you're not the owner of the machine, neither is the "admin", you have a job to do, and a computer is assigned to you for you to do your job, that job involves the computer, and you generally have certain rights granted by your employer to decide how you accomplish your job.
An admin also has a certain job to do, and they also have a certain amount of discretion. An admin is called autocratic when they preemptively take measures that interfere with employees' discretion in how they choose to accomplish their job; specifically, the measures are unreasonable.
When the admin exceeds the discretion, they are out of line.
Just as when an employee exceeds their discretion and decides to do something against understood company policy to their computer, such as installing software, they are out of line; in the exact same way, the admin is out of line, if they take it upon themselves to constrain employees in significant ways that management has not approved of.
Maybe certain websites were blocked, maybe I couldn't install stuff. Maybe something I would have liked on the Desktop wasn't there.
Generally if websites are blocked, this will mean management has called for the admin to act; which would generally mean it needs to be done to meet a legal requirement or to curtail actual abuse. If an admin choose to start blocking certain websites on their own, they would be considered an autocratic unreasonable admin, if management had not called for blocking those sites -- possible exception, if workers were unintentionally accessing the sites, the sites were malicious in nature, and if the admin had been tasked by management to stop recreational use of computers and the website had no possible business purpose, or if the workers' were workers managed / their jobs supervised by the same person who happened to be admin.
Of course there's such as a concept as 'autocratic management' (and micro-management) as well.
Or maybe, as a UI bonus, it can be used as a FIFO for disk space: when it's full, it deletes the oldest file first. Except that would fragment the file system to hell.
Why not make the recycle bin a separate filesystem?
Allocate a block of disk of pre-defined size for the recycle bin.
When a file is deleted, compress and copy the data to the recycle bin reserved disk area,
and then zero out the sectors the file used to reside in.
Who cares if the contents inside that block of pre-defined disk sectors are fragmented or not?
The fragmentation will drop to zero every time someone empties the recycle bin.
If the pre-defined area runs out of space, there are different possible policies, depending on the admin preference.
Expand the recycle bin holding area to accomadate new files (possibly up to a pre-defined limit); Expansion could work either by allocating additional sectors somewhere else, OR by creating a whole new pre-defined block on the disk and migrating the old recycle bin to the new block -- requirement is just an amount of contiguous disk space sufficient to hold the recycle bin storage volume
Bypass the recycle bin if the file is too large to fit in the recycle bin. Possibly requiring admin intervention or some special manual / less-convenient action, so the user can guarantee the deletion is not errant.
Age out old recycle bin contents. Delete the oldest items, possibly with a configurable number of days the item must have been deleted for, before it is eligible for aging out.
Or... Refuse to delete more stuff, when the recycle bin runs out of space, display an error message, indicating the user should empty their recycle bin. Don't prompt to do so for them Force the user to find the recycle bin and open it, in order to purge items.
Or... Apply stronger compression to items in the recycle bin to free up space.
An example, might be finding 50mb JPEGs in the recycle bin and re-encoding them to a lower quality value.
Or compressing the item in the recycle bin using 7-zip / LZMA compression, instead of faster pkzip.
After 30 days, discover previously unknown hidden countdown timer/activation requirement having made software useless after 30 days requiring exhorbitant charge to clear
Slashdot Mirror
These guys knew full well that SCO's attorneys and expert witnesses were perjuring themselves, and should have come forward then.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever these guys read or even knew the content of the expert witness' testimony? Attorneys rarely make testimony in cases they are involved with; it is unlikely any attorneys perjured themselves.
That's all well and good, but all this would prove is that SCO knew that one guy they contracted couldn't find a basis for their claims, not that they knew the lawsuit was baseless.
I think the point is the guy they contracted found evidence that there was no correlation between contents of SCO and Linux source trees.
It's not a matter of him not finding anything; it's a matter of him finding something; that is, evidence that would have been beneficial to their adversary in court, that they did not provide to the court.
In other words, legal misconduct. When you are subpoena'd for evidence, you have to make all evidence available, not just evidence that favors your viewpoint; if you had intentionally destroyed records/evidence because they don't favor your viewpoint, then that's misconduct that could increase their liability.
"I've done it -- it keeps me fully alert, too!" Uh huh. This is every bit as believable as the drunk who insists they're not too smashed to drive. You feel fully alert. Good for you. Now pull over, take a piss, and then take a nap, resume driving when you actually are fully alert and don't require any tricks to stay awake.
Dont' think of doing it unless it's really an emergency. Pulling over to take a nap is a good way to wind up in jail, because in most areas it is illegal, particularly on a limited access highway/interstate/freeway; the shoulder is for emergency only, you can be cited, ticketed, and the officer will probably be giving you a sobriety test; if you happen to be drunk taking a nap, you're going to jail.
That said.... getting ticketed is a lot better than killing someone, if you can't stay awake for a few minutes. If you feel the least bit sleepy you should immediately find a place to rest. Do it LONG before you are at the point where you cannot stay awake for 10 minutes.
Do not pull over the side of the road to take a nap; find a gas station, rest area, or parking lot at least. This may be unsafe, but at least you won't be hit by accident by another vehicle at high speed. Better to find a cheap Motel. Cars pulled on the side of the road get hit all the time, and it's possible another driver will see you on the side of the road, and dial 911, because they believe something is wrong when they see a car on the side of the road with driver out cold.
That could pose some annoying complications for you.
and, if you keep it too much, the urine in your bladder may even get pushed back into your bloodstream and outright poison you.
That's not even the tip of the iceberg of bad things that could happen.... (1) your bladder could explode, or (2) [worse], you could wind up accidentally urinating involuntarily all over yourself, with your clothing still on.
I'll take Javascript over flash any day.
At least Javascript is cross-browser.... [when it doesn't improperly use IE-specific extensions]
and children from 8-13 are different from "bots" how exactly? When they see it on a kids show or a kids website (at least sites that know they have large kid demographics) they basically are no different than bots...
Either way, the purchase is unauthorized by any person with any legal authority to enter into the sale/contract for that purchase, and therefore the action does and should not constitute any sale/purchase/action that the account holder is legally responsible for. It doesn't matter whether it's unauthorized because it happened automatically due to an infection, bug in their software, or hiding of the charge in the fine print (the human had no control, no meeting of minds), because of fraudulent criminal actions (hacked account, stolen phone, cloned SIM), OR because of a child or friend who acted inappropriately or did not understand charges would be incurred
The phone company says otherwise because it is more profitable for them. I am saying their view should be banned by the law. I am saying, if a CSR tells a consumer they cannot reverse a charges due to actions performed by their kid, that should be a crime, and the telco should have some serious financial liability for each incident where they did not immediately reverse a supplementary charge reported unauthorized immediately. Phone calls, Texts, international roaming, air time, data usage or any other type of usage, and any other account holder actions that can create excessive or accidental charges should be included in this.
And reasonable measures must be taken to ensure charges are not accidental. For example: if the customer is billed for air time, reasonable measures must be implemented to ensure they cannot accidentally dial their phone and consume airtime without knowing about it -- within ordinary use of the device. For example, if it is common for customers to put their phone in their pocket and sit on it, the service provider must take reasonable measures to ensure there is no accidental way they will incur charges if a number of random buttons are inadvertently pressed or held.
I am saying, in all those cases, the law should say the phone company is not only liable, but they should automatically be fined and penalized if they delay or refuse to reverse any charge the consumer claims unauthorized.
The only alternative should be for the phone company to implement a robust non-repudiation system of their choice that proves an authorized account holder is in possession of the phone, and approves of the transaction, providing they give the account holder an opportunity to cancel/reverse the transaction in writing or by calling them (at consumer's option) for at least 15 days after issuance of customer's next bill/account statement.
Freedom = anti-competitive
Ubiquitous Vendor Lock-in = Competitive
Exorbitant Software License Fees = Lower e-government costs
except a lot of SSDs come in USB key form and Winderz deletes files off those immediately.
Er... Ok... what idiot would put their term paper on a USB key (except as a backup)?
Seeing how easily USB keys are lost, accidentally dropped, or crushed, and how prone to failure the $5 electronics in them are. Putting the only copy of your termpaper on one is asking for trouble.
When Mindy the undergrad accidentally deletes her term paper and would be really REALLY grateful for a super smart and kinda cute geek to go in and recover the file with Backtrack... then you'll see the downside.
That's where da recycle bin comes in.
the trouble is that C is rarely the case. Getting locks on all the various ways you can be charged is difficult at best. Every time you make a plan change the telco tries to take away the locks...
Well, I am saying... this (C) situation is the state that protects consumers the most from exploitation, but that telcos want the least. Therefore, the government should pass laws to impose (C). And then once that happens it's up to the Telco to stay profitable.
My favorite is still the online "quiz" that wants to text you the answer... so the kid types in dad's text number and when they get the reply they just rang up $9.99.
Um... an online quiz that 'texts' random phone numbers the answer?
So... say you're evil... what stops you from deploying an army of bots to submit various people's cell numbers as a prank to that online quiz? Seems like a pretty flawwed concept.
'ActiveX content may prevent you from having a good experience viewing a Web site'"
Since I define a good experience as having at least 3 unknown, untrusted executables run in the background, doing god knows what, with only routine prompting.... I am highly skeptical about the improvement.
Now my users are going to have to go to the tried and true old fashioned way of getting their computers' infected. Clicking the executable, and then hitting the 'Run' button, or Saving first.... And Windows 7 was being touted as 'user firendly'...feh. :(
<eg>
How about (C) A zero-liability law requiring that service providers hold consumers harmless for any fraudulent use of services made from their account; that is, any use of for-pay services that the owner of the device did explicitly approve of, AND require the consumer to be compensated fairly for any time, labor, energy, or legal services required on their behalf to rectify any provider billing error or to have unauthorized charges removed, at a minimum amount of $25 per hour of the consumers' time (and twice that for any time spent on the telephone with the provider, with the provider's IVR, on hold waiting to speak to a customer service representative, or time off the phone spent awaiting a callback to their message sent during standard business hours).
Then the problem will take care of itself -- service providers won't want to lose money to premium services due to fraudulent texts, so they'll come up with a better policy.
This week would be an excellent time to put your PS3 up for sale on EBay!
Hm... or for non-europeans... perhaps it would be an excellent time to buy a PS3?
If you're a European PS3 owner, this might present a selling opportunity via eBay.
Or if you're a non-European PS3 owner who is smart enough to label at as something other than a PS3? ...
An Xbox perhaps?
governments will finally acknowledge that you simply cannot stop the dispersal of information.
Is that before or after Qaddafi deploys his Backhoe corps to plow across the country severing all the underground fiber lines while increasing power to his WiFi jammers?
"What was the message?"
"I don't know, I just clicked OK."
The OK button is one of the dummest GUI elements ever invented.
The button should say "DESTROY This file permanently with no chance of restoring", not 'OK'.
And it should require a double click, not a single click.
Whereas cancel should be a single click.
Very apt, considering the effort would very quickly be not worth the gain... (like in somebody jumping on top of real trash)
Except for users who never empty the recycling bin.
I've seen reports of some users who keep their most important documents in the recycling bin. User got pissed off when a technician emptied their recycling bin, because they were called in to repair an issue caused by "computer out of disk space".
Apparently the company policy that all important documents are to be stored solely on the server's shared drive so they will be backed up, and never in local 'My Documents' or local computer's desktop, was not clear to them, and they decided the "Recycle bin" was an attic for putting things you might need later.
The Federal Reserve has been asking for a bubble-based UI.
I hate to burst their bubble, but the bubble UI seems like vaporware, despite 20 years of research...
20 years to come up with vaporware.... oh well.
Because that would cause deletions that now run in O(1) to run in O(n) (at least); a deleted file (maybe an 80 gig video file) would have to be copied to the deletion FS before the deletion operation was complete.
Perhaps that would give the user more time to decide they really wanted to purge this. You can background the physical move task, so the user doesn't need to worry about it, and maintain a link in the recycle bin and space reservation until the move is completed. If you're deleting an 80gb file, that doesn't need to go to the recycle bin. Users delete things to free up disk space -- if they just deleted a massive 80gb file intentionally, chances are they will soon be emptying the recycle bin anyways.
they might be resources on a WebDAV server, or references to files on an FTP or SMB.
Windows recycle bin does not extend to WebDAV, FTP, or SMB. You delete a file on those, it's gone for good. Also, Windows XP has always had a horribly non-compliant Webdav implementation; doesn't even support SSL last I checked, you have all sorts of issues if you try to XP's webdav client with a standards compliant webdav server.
And your rules for dealing with all the exceptional cases basically would make it impossible for a casual user to know if his file was even going to stay in the trash, or if they'd even be able to go in the trash at all
Maybe this will cause them to be more careful with the delete command?
The OS can heuristically score each file based on the likelihood that it is valuable to the user.
For example... small files that don't appear to contain anything meaningful would have a lower score. Small files with some text would be considered higher priority. Files that the user had accessed a lot, would have a higher score, unless there was a 'newer copy'.
The user would know if it was going to the trash or not, because The computer would tell them
There, fixed it for you.
What's next, are you going to force "Details View" on all your users? Give me a break.
Ack! No! Information leak... security alert... Force thumbnail view on all non-admin users. And disable 'right click properties' on any file name/icon.
I disagree. In the workplace, you're not the owner of your machine. I've never worked in an office that allowed me to do whatever I wanted with a computer.
I am forced to agree with the OP. Removing tools from users' desktops based on admins' personal opinion about how they should delete things is autocratic and out of line.
While it's true in the workplace you're not the owner of the machine, neither is the "admin", you have a job to do, and a computer is assigned to you for you to do your job, that job involves the computer, and you generally have certain rights granted by your employer to decide how you accomplish your job.
An admin also has a certain job to do, and they also have a certain amount of discretion. An admin is called autocratic when they preemptively take measures that interfere with employees' discretion in how they choose to accomplish their job; specifically, the measures are unreasonable.
When the admin exceeds the discretion, they are out of line. Just as when an employee exceeds their discretion and decides to do something against understood company policy to their computer, such as installing software, they are out of line; in the exact same way, the admin is out of line, if they take it upon themselves to constrain employees in significant ways that management has not approved of.
Maybe certain websites were blocked, maybe I couldn't install stuff. Maybe something I would have liked on the Desktop wasn't there.
Generally if websites are blocked, this will mean management has called for the admin to act; which would generally mean it needs to be done to meet a legal requirement or to curtail actual abuse. If an admin choose to start blocking certain websites on their own, they would be considered an autocratic unreasonable admin, if management had not called for blocking those sites -- possible exception, if workers were unintentionally accessing the sites, the sites were malicious in nature, and if the admin had been tasked by management to stop recreational use of computers and the website had no possible business purpose, or if the workers' were workers managed / their jobs supervised by the same person who happened to be admin.
Of course there's such as a concept as 'autocratic management' (and micro-management) as well.
Or maybe, as a UI bonus, it can be used as a FIFO for disk space: when it's full, it deletes the oldest file first. Except that would fragment the file system to hell.
Why not make the recycle bin a separate filesystem? Allocate a block of disk of pre-defined size for the recycle bin. When a file is deleted, compress and copy the data to the recycle bin reserved disk area, and then zero out the sectors the file used to reside in.
Who cares if the contents inside that block of pre-defined disk sectors are fragmented or not? The fragmentation will drop to zero every time someone empties the recycle bin.
If the pre-defined area runs out of space, there are different possible policies, depending on the admin preference.
If it's no problem, why are you talking in generalities and not about an example
Because you are talking in generalities in referring to so called "dedicated terrestrial links"