The reason why Windows is such a pain in the ass is because Windows was never designed for this.
Never designed for what? Windows has been a multiuser system since NT. Windows 95/98/ME was an evolutionary dead end if you will. Are you talking about an architectural flaw? If so, what exactly are you talking about?
Let's say that I install on Linux. The Linux app can either be installed locally per the user or for everybody. But it is a clear cut case.
Shared libraries?
Windows? WTF... I need to access the registry, the windows system directory, the program files directory, and the local user directory. It is a bleeding mess!
What's stopping you from installing programs on your Desktop, or in your My Documents folder? That's a clear cut case.
I don't think most programs require access to the windows/system directory, and heck, you mention OSX--some of my OSX applications DO require elevated permissions to install things to the system.
Most programs I've run in recent years are perfectly happy installing just to your personal registry area. Think of it as the multitude of dot directories in your ~ directory.
When you complain about the "local user directory" just think of that as your home directory. instead of/usr/home/you you have c:\Documents and Settings\you. Same thing. Instead of/usr/local you have "c:\program files". Same thing. Very clear cut.
It's not nearly as big a difference as you make it seem...
OSX 10.2--the first good version of OSX imho--came out in 2002. It's not new anymore!
By now, I think it's safe to say the majority of Mac users may never have even used OS9. Certainly many do come from a BSD/Linux background (I like FreeBSD personally..) Using sudo and shell scripts is absolutely part of the system skillset rquired to be a OSX poweruser.
I don't really agree with this. There's ALWAYS been crap pulp fiction out there. From Buck Rogers to Asimov's lesser known Lucky Star series etc. S.f.'s origin was not always a lofty highbrow enterprise! Today's pulp fiction stories are every bit as much true s.f. or fantasy as were the pulp fiction of the 1920s.
I would also draw a divide between s.f. and fantasy....but anyway.
The difference between then and now--imho--is that the Asimovs, Heinleins, de Camps, etc etc etc are gone, and they haven't really been replaced. My other opinion is that s.f. was largely a product of the zeitgeist of the what, roughly 50 years that it roughly flourished (1920-1970 or so?). We've got HDTVs, the Internet, Star Trek and Star Wars on TV, rovers on Mars, decoding DNA, etc etc. The sense of wonder in s.f. is largely gone because we take so much for granted that was virtually unimaginable back then.
I pretty much agree with you. I've read a shit load of fantasy and s.f. over the years, but as I've gotten older, I've found much of it less satisfying. The truth of the matter as I see it is that a large portion of fantasy/s.f. is akin to those trashy romance books that my grandmother used to read by the hundred. They're geek porn.
Just to be clear, it's not the the entire genres are bad--it's that a lot of what is popular and people read are popcorn fluff. There's still a lot of really good fantasy and s.f. lit out there, it's just not always readily apparent.
Somewhat unrelated, but a funny story nonetheless...
I got dragged to see The Passion of The Christ after it had in theaters for awhile. Behind us were a couple young guys wearing their pants down to their ankles, bling, etc. Of course they were talking loud as heck before the movie started, messing with their phones, laughing uproariously, etc.
Then the movie starts...a couple minutes later, one of them says (verbatim!) "Ohh MAN, this movie's in ARABIC or some shit!! FUCK this!!" and walk out.
If they add it as an option, I will gladly buy it. Given that they have gradly been REMOVING it as an option across all product lines (imac, Macbook, Macbook pro -- all glossy now except for 17" MBP), I would be surprised to see this... (hey, I'll eat my words if they do!)
I use my laptop at work, and at home. With as many hours as I spend staring at the screen, it better be something that isn't killing my eyes. So yes, it IS that important.
I have no idea what other guy is talking about either... ~shrug~ I linked some old posts of mine, so will be interesting to see if he issues a retraction. Doubt it!
I'm not a photographer or a graphic professional, and I think the glossy sucks...
I'm on my 3rd mac laptop as my primary computer, and because of the glossy, I seriously doubt i will ever buy another one. Too bad, because I love them..
That's an interesting way of looking at it...you honestly believe that Intel deliberately designed a slower architecture (spending billions in the process) just for the hell of it?
The Pentium4 architecture was designed to be able to ramp up to incredibly high GHz ratings. This worked to a degree, but failed to live up to what Intel wanted. We've seen, what, 4GHz Pentium4s? Intel wanted twice that... Everything about the Pentium4--for instance it's deep pipeline--was designed for this kind of scalability. Long story short, it didn't pan out. Performance per-MHz was not as good as expected, and they couldn't ramp up the MHzes fast enough either.
That's a kind of silly response, especially after your first post showed a total misunderstandings of the technology involved...
As I said, individual workers have their own portable disks they take home. The network share that is rsynced is almost ENTIRELY backups from people's personal workstations. Additionally, I take daily snapshots of all databases (mysql,postgresql) and a few other directories and keep historical backups of those things. Our workflow does not need historical backups of everything... If you wanted to modify this scheme to keep more historical backups there are definitely ways of doing that with snapshots, or zfs, or as another helpful poster mentioned--rdiff-delete.
As I said in my post, the point of our backup scheme is not to have a historical backup of every file that ever existed. We don't need that...
TIMTOWTDI, the right tool for the job, and all that good stuff...
If you were replying to me, no, I don't agree with what you said. It does NOT imply or require RAID5 at all.
For instance, maybe those two drives are in a mirroring configuration. Maybe they are in two separate computers. etc.
That's how I run our small business backup. It's by no means perfect, but it fairly well guarantees minimal data loss in case of a catastrophic main server failure, main office burning down etc. It's also not prohibitively expensive...
Main office has a server.
Owner's house has a 24/7 backup server with two drivers in a mirror configuration rsyncing from the main office every night.
Office warehouse has another backup server (no mirror in this one) that also rsyncs every night.
The weakness of this is that if somebody accidentally deletes a file, and wants it back the next day, tough luck. We DO supplement this system with most workers having portable USB drives they take home. Obviously this is not possible or desirable for many offices...
Slashdot Mirror
The reason why Windows is such a pain in the ass is because Windows was never designed for this.
Never designed for what? Windows has been a multiuser system since NT. Windows 95/98/ME was an evolutionary dead end if you will. Are you talking about an architectural flaw? If so, what exactly are you talking about?
Let's say that I install on Linux. The Linux app can either be installed locally per the user or for everybody. But it is a clear cut case.
Shared libraries?
Windows? WTF... I need to access the registry, the windows system directory, the program files directory, and the local user directory. It is a bleeding mess!
What's stopping you from installing programs on your Desktop, or in your My Documents folder? That's a clear cut case.
I don't think most programs require access to the windows/system directory, and heck, you mention OSX--some of my OSX applications DO require elevated permissions to install things to the system.
Most programs I've run in recent years are perfectly happy installing just to your personal registry area. Think of it as the multitude of dot directories in your ~ directory.
When you complain about the "local user directory" just think of that as your home directory. instead of /usr/home/you you have c:\Documents and Settings\you. Same thing. Instead of /usr/local you have "c:\program files". Same thing. Very clear cut.
It's not nearly as big a difference as you make it seem...
OS 9 hasn't been updated in what--9 years?
OSX 10.2--the first good version of OSX imho--came out in 2002. It's not new anymore!
By now, I think it's safe to say the majority of Mac users may never have even used OS9. Certainly many do come from a BSD/Linux background (I like FreeBSD personally..) Using sudo and shell scripts is absolutely part of the system skillset rquired to be a OSX poweruser.
Get used to it :-)
Rich community in Florida? There are far better examples...try Senator Kennedy and Cape Code
http://preview.story.news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20090116/pl_bloomberg/aj2z7l9psmeg
NIMBY fake environmentalism knows no partisanship...
I don't really agree with this. There's ALWAYS been crap pulp fiction out there. From Buck Rogers to Asimov's lesser known Lucky Star series etc. S.f.'s origin was not always a lofty highbrow enterprise! Today's pulp fiction stories are every bit as much true s.f. or fantasy as were the pulp fiction of the 1920s.
I would also draw a divide between s.f. and fantasy....but anyway.
The difference between then and now--imho--is that the Asimovs, Heinleins, de Camps, etc etc etc are gone, and they haven't really been replaced. My other opinion is that s.f. was largely a product of the zeitgeist of the what, roughly 50 years that it roughly flourished (1920-1970 or so?). We've got HDTVs, the Internet, Star Trek and Star Wars on TV, rovers on Mars, decoding DNA, etc etc. The sense of wonder in s.f. is largely gone because we take so much for granted that was virtually unimaginable back then.
I pretty much agree with you. I've read a shit load of fantasy and s.f. over the years, but as I've gotten older, I've found much of it less satisfying. The truth of the matter as I see it is that a large portion of fantasy/s.f. is akin to those trashy romance books that my grandmother used to read by the hundred. They're geek porn.
Just to be clear, it's not the the entire genres are bad--it's that a lot of what is popular and people read are popcorn fluff. There's still a lot of really good fantasy and s.f. lit out there, it's just not always readily apparent.
Somewhat unrelated, but a funny story nonetheless...
I got dragged to see The Passion of The Christ after it had in theaters for awhile. Behind us were a couple young guys wearing their pants down to their ankles, bling, etc. Of course they were talking loud as heck before the movie started, messing with their phones, laughing uproariously, etc.
Then the movie starts...a couple minutes later, one of them says (verbatim!) "Ohh MAN, this movie's in ARABIC or some shit!! FUCK this!!" and walk out.
It was fantastic.
Misread the post, my mistake.
Well, according to the man page..."less - opposite of more" ;)
On what friggen planet does the "less" command take up 3.6 MB?
I have no idea...I think you might have been confused in my first post though.
"ls -i" returns the inode of a file. If two files (in this case, more and less) have the same inode, they are the same file. Hardlink.
From that same computer:
$ du -sh /usr/bin/less /usr/bin/less
114K
$ ls -i /usr/bin/less /usr/bin/less
3603778
$ ls -l /usr/bin/less /usr/bin/less
-r-xr-xr-x 2 root wheel 114884 Jan 17 18:44
If they add it as an option, I will gladly buy it. Given that they have gradly been REMOVING it as an option across all product lines (imac, Macbook, Macbook pro -- all glossy now except for 17" MBP), I would be surprised to see this... (hey, I'll eat my words if they do!)
I use my laptop at work, and at home. With as many hours as I spend staring at the screen, it better be something that isn't killing my eyes. So yes, it IS that important.
The glossy is a make or break issue for me...I really can't stand it. Did you read the article and see the reflections? Awful, imho...
Then again, I'm not a die hard zealot. I like OSX a lot, and I like my MBP a lot. Ultimately though, it's a tool, not a religion.
I have no idea what other guy is talking about either... ~shrug~ I linked some old posts of mine, so will be interesting to see if he issues a retraction. Doubt it!
What the other guy sad...if you REALLY want to google through my post history, you're more than welcome..
Here are a couple posts I found within about 30 seconds of searching:
2004 (shortly after I got my first powerbook as primary system) - http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=113394&cid=9603787
2006 - http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=182379&cid=15078720
No... the only model that you can get matte on still is the 17" macbook pro.
No, the difference is that I travel a lot, and a 17" laptop is bigger than I want. The 17" is also the only model that now has the matte option.
I do like OSX as my primary computing platform, but I have no trouble switching to Linux/BSD.
I also do frequently order refurbed equipment too, though the savings are generally not huge.
I'm not a photographer or a graphic professional, and I think the glossy sucks...
I'm on my 3rd mac laptop as my primary computer, and because of the glossy, I seriously doubt i will ever buy another one. Too bad, because I love them..
I don't understand what you are trying to say...the quickest way to drive their products into immediate obsolescence is to release a superior product!
That's an interesting way of looking at it...you honestly believe that Intel deliberately designed a slower architecture (spending billions in the process) just for the hell of it?
The Pentium4 architecture was designed to be able to ramp up to incredibly high GHz ratings. This worked to a degree, but failed to live up to what Intel wanted. We've seen, what, 4GHz Pentium4s? Intel wanted twice that... Everything about the Pentium4--for instance it's deep pipeline--was designed for this kind of scalability. Long story short, it didn't pan out. Performance per-MHz was not as good as expected, and they couldn't ramp up the MHzes fast enough either.
Am I missing something?
If we're talking about gravity "g" -- 9.8 m/s^2 / meters per second squared. That equals ~32 ft/s^2 / feet per second squared, and not 14 ft/s^2?
From a quick check of systems within easy reach...
They are the same on OSX, FreeBSD, OpenBSD
They're different on Solaris, and more is nonexistent on Centos afaict.
And you're arguing semantics, not actual facts. Ever heard of "gravity, it's not just 14ft/sec^2, it's the law"? Same usage.
Not to be overly pedantic in this thread on semantics, but... 14ft/sec^2??
http://www.google.com/search?q=1+g+to+ft/s%5E2
Even more literally..!
$ ls -i /usr/bin/less /usr/bin/less /usr/bin/more /usr/bin/more
3603778
$ ls -i
3603778
That's a kind of silly response, especially after your first post showed a total misunderstandings of the technology involved...
As I said, individual workers have their own portable disks they take home. The network share that is rsynced is almost ENTIRELY backups from people's personal workstations. Additionally, I take daily snapshots of all databases (mysql,postgresql) and a few other directories and keep historical backups of those things. Our workflow does not need historical backups of everything... If you wanted to modify this scheme to keep more historical backups there are definitely ways of doing that with snapshots, or zfs, or as another helpful poster mentioned--rdiff-delete.
As I said in my post, the point of our backup scheme is not to have a historical backup of every file that ever existed. We don't need that...
TIMTOWTDI, the right tool for the job, and all that good stuff...
I've had worse luck with Seagate...
But given that I'm dealing with small numbers of drives, I don't think there's any statistical significance to my experiences.
If you were replying to me, no, I don't agree with what you said. It does NOT imply or require RAID5 at all.
For instance, maybe those two drives are in a mirroring configuration. Maybe they are in two separate computers. etc.
That's how I run our small business backup. It's by no means perfect, but it fairly well guarantees minimal data loss in case of a catastrophic main server failure, main office burning down etc. It's also not prohibitively expensive...
Main office has a server.
Owner's house has a 24/7 backup server with two drivers in a mirror configuration rsyncing from the main office every night.
Office warehouse has another backup server (no mirror in this one) that also rsyncs every night.
The weakness of this is that if somebody accidentally deletes a file, and wants it back the next day, tough luck. We DO supplement this system with most workers having portable USB drives they take home. Obviously this is not possible or desirable for many offices...