Why would Microsoft implement this? Did Microsoft implement Quake under Windows? I don't think so. So if Microsoft isn't going to implement it under Windows that means... wait for it... SOMEONE ELSE IS! Woah! Concept!
I think all @home ISP's have this clause. I think a good 99.9% of all @home subscribers run at least 2 servers, too. It just seems odd that they would all of a sudden follow through with their idle threats (not that there's anything wrong with it).
You're just plain wrong. Did we need http2:// when cookies were introduced? Persistent connections? Did we need ftp2:// when on-the-fly-tar was introduced? It would take all of ten seconds and ten braincells to design a streaming TV protocol that would be sufficiently extensible. And to think that your reasoning behind this is increased bandwidth?? Oof.
Sound has been for quite a while (probably for a few billion years, anyway), so finding a pre-sonal computer would be rather difficult. If they really are targetting this stuff at pre-sonal computers, I think they're making a big mistake, since they'll alienate a considerable amount of post-sonal computer owners.
FWIW, I can move 1TB of zeros from/dev/zero to/dev/null in 39.771 seconds on my computer. That works out to 25.747 GB/s. So even if we did nothing but send zeros back and forth, the computer would need to be faster to reach the full potential of the network.
For more useful applications, like watching pr0n, you would need an extremely quick bus (and video card). Although you wouldn't need to compress it (MPEG decompression is a bit costly), so you would gain there.
Ya why does Microsoft still think it's a software-only company. I watched the BG interview on Larry King and BG said that Microsoft would never enter the hardware market (or something to that effect), but at that very moment there were Microsoft keyboards and mice on store shelves? Do they have a different definition of "hardware"?
Ya my point was that WNT wasn't POSIX.2, which makes it a bit awkward to use. BTW Linux spouts out an "POSIX conformance testing by UNIFIX" at boot-up, but I'm not sure what that's all about exactly.
IIRC, Windows NT only complies with POSIX.1, and it doesn't do a great job at that. POSIX.1 is a very very small part of POSIX. I would not consider POSIX.1 itself to be enough to warrant something to be "POSIX compliant", but I'm not associated with POSIX, so my opinion wouldn't really count much. Oddly enough, though, Windows NT is probably closer to POSIX.4 than Linux is (though this may have changed somewhat with RT-Linux).
Unix would fall apart if it weren't for source compatibility (since there's no such thing as binary compatibility). Therefore you'd need at least ISO 9899 (which I think is similar to POSIX.16?), POSIX.1 and POSIX.2. It really depends on what perspective you're coming from. If you're a developer, then if a platform is compliant enough to those standards that everything's source compatible, then it's effectively Unix to you. But from a user's point of view, there seems to be more to Unix than just that.
I say fine. It means better software for Windows users (and there are a lot of Windows users), so it sounds all right to me. Although I'm not exactly a huge fan of copyrights, so, you know, you'd better get some salt. The actual copyright holder of Linux' ip-mask may have a different opinion, though:).
Assuming these tests are supposed to be some sort of test of your use in the real world. If I had to solve a problem for a company, and then handed in my report and said "well it's done, but I regret to inform you that I had to ask some of the leading experts in the field for their opinions", that's not exactly a negative thing. What's important is how well I actually perform.
Personally, if I'm running some sort of company that makes use in organic chemistry, I'm not going to care about any of my employess organic chemistry skill or knowledge, but rather their organic chemistry problem solving skill or knowledge. If they have to ask someone else for help, who cares, as long as they get good results in the end (and they don't get me into trouble)? Like it or not, if you're in a university class, you're not doing it for acadaemic purposes anymore. Literally you'd find technical schools to be better for acadaemia than universities, so I think all that should matter in university classes is the ability to solve the problems in question, no matter the method of solving them.
SuSE requires around 4GB for the full installation. Of course no sane person go for the full installation, but the same can be said for any Microsoft products.
Personally I don't see this increase in data usage that people keep complaining about, or at least not to any great extent. I find it difficult to fill up any more than around 500MB (though an extra 500MB is nice to have when you're keeping the source around to gcc, glibc, XFree86, etc.), and I'd be at a loss as to what to do with a drive bigger than 2GB.
I keep reading in retarded computer magazines that people should be getting drives of "at least" 5GB with their new computers: what on earth for?! We're not all pornographers, you know.
He did, and they weren't very interesting. Up until about a year ago, there were running stats on the browsers and operating systems that Slashdot users were using. Well over 80% were using Windows if I remember right. A whole 5% or something were using Linux. Then mysteriously the stats disappeared. Oh the horror.
Hm. I figure it would take over 4 days to back it up on a 100Mbit link (which was actually going 100Mbit). Even gigabit links would only do that 3 or 4 times faster probably. I'd say a network back-up isn't very practical.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's also appropriate to give a link to Project Gutenberg, which houses a lot of the "classics":
Project Gutenberg
Why would Microsoft implement this? Did Microsoft implement Quake under Windows? I don't think so. So if Microsoft isn't going to implement it under Windows that means ... wait for it ... SOMEONE ELSE IS! Woah! Concept!
I think all @home ISP's have this clause. I think a good 99.9% of all @home subscribers run at least 2 servers, too. It just seems odd that they would all of a sudden follow through with their idle threats (not that there's anything wrong with it).
I'd be interested in hearing your definition of 'real' native apps.
Using the Win32 API effectively isn't any different from using the GTK+ API except that there isn't a very good free Win32 API implementation yet.
apparently they're not.
ahha yea everyone knows someone like that. it never works, either. such is the life of a pansy, i guess.
You're just plain wrong. Did we need http2:// when cookies were introduced? Persistent connections? Did we need ftp2:// when on-the-fly-tar was introduced? It would take all of ten seconds and ten braincells to design a streaming TV protocol that would be sufficiently extensible. And to think that your reasoning behind this is increased bandwidth?? Oof.
The difference is that you're lying: Microsoft never says that. Cite evidence.
Sound has been for quite a while (probably for a few billion years, anyway), so finding a pre-sonal computer would be rather difficult. If they really are targetting this stuff at pre-sonal computers, I think they're making a big mistake, since they'll alienate a considerable amount of post-sonal computer owners.
FWIW, I can move 1TB of zeros from /dev/zero to /dev/null in 39.771 seconds on my computer. That works out to 25.747 GB/s. So even if we did nothing but send zeros back and forth, the computer would need to be faster to reach the full potential of the network.
For more useful applications, like watching pr0n, you would need an extremely quick bus (and video card). Although you wouldn't need to compress it (MPEG decompression is a bit costly), so you would gain there.
Yah, she's cool, but stuff like this is kinda tragic. I mean, from Oscars to video games? Bit of a drop.
Really? I'd consider it somewhat of an improvement.
I think the fsck example was just wrong. What kind of distro are you running that won't fsck an uncleanly unmounted drive on boot-up?
Ya why does Microsoft still think it's a software-only company. I watched the BG interview on Larry King and BG said that Microsoft would never enter the hardware market (or something to that effect), but at that very moment there were Microsoft keyboards and mice on store shelves? Do they have a different definition of "hardware"?
Yes it does. It is illegal to link to GPL code anything that is not GPL compliant. If this were not the case, we wouldn't have need for the LGPL.
Ya my point was that WNT wasn't POSIX.2, which makes it a bit awkward to use. BTW Linux spouts out an "POSIX conformance testing by UNIFIX" at boot-up, but I'm not sure what that's all about exactly.
IIRC, Windows NT only complies with POSIX.1, and it doesn't do a great job at that. POSIX.1 is a very very small part of POSIX. I would not consider POSIX.1 itself to be enough to warrant something to be "POSIX compliant", but I'm not associated with POSIX, so my opinion wouldn't really count much. Oddly enough, though, Windows NT is probably closer to POSIX.4 than Linux is (though this may have changed somewhat with RT-Linux).
Unix would fall apart if it weren't for source compatibility (since there's no such thing as binary compatibility). Therefore you'd need at least ISO 9899 (which I think is similar to POSIX.16?), POSIX.1 and POSIX.2. It really depends on what perspective you're coming from. If you're a developer, then if a platform is compliant enough to those standards that everything's source compatible, then it's effectively Unix to you. But from a user's point of view, there seems to be more to Unix than just that.
I say fine. It means better software for Windows users (and there are a lot of Windows users), so it sounds all right to me. Although I'm not exactly a huge fan of copyrights, so, you know, you'd better get some salt. The actual copyright holder of Linux' ip-mask may have a different opinion, though :).
Probably because Internic doesn't have anything to do with .ch domains.
Assuming these tests are supposed to be some sort of test of your use in the real world. If I had to solve a problem for a company, and then handed in my report and said "well it's done, but I regret to inform you that I had to ask some of the leading experts in the field for their opinions", that's not exactly a negative thing. What's important is how well I actually perform.
Personally, if I'm running some sort of company that makes use in organic chemistry, I'm not going to care about any of my employess organic chemistry skill or knowledge, but rather their organic chemistry problem solving skill or knowledge. If they have to ask someone else for help, who cares, as long as they get good results in the end (and they don't get me into trouble)? Like it or not, if you're in a university class, you're not doing it for acadaemic purposes anymore. Literally you'd find technical schools to be better for acadaemia than universities, so I think all that should matter in university classes is the ability to solve the problems in question, no matter the method of solving them.
SuSE requires around 4GB for the full installation. Of course no sane person go for the full installation, but the same can be said for any Microsoft products.
Personally I don't see this increase in data usage that people keep complaining about, or at least not to any great extent. I find it difficult to fill up any more than around 500MB (though an extra 500MB is nice to have when you're keeping the source around to gcc, glibc, XFree86, etc.), and I'd be at a loss as to what to do with a drive bigger than 2GB.
I keep reading in retarded computer magazines that people should be getting drives of "at least" 5GB with their new computers: what on earth for?! We're not all pornographers, you know.
He did, and they weren't very interesting. Up until about a year ago, there were running stats on the browsers and operating systems that Slashdot users were using. Well over 80% were using Windows if I remember right. A whole 5% or something were using Linux. Then mysteriously the stats disappeared.
Oh the horror.
They may have meant MPEG I Layer 3.
I'm on glue. It would only take like 2 hours.
Hm. I figure it would take over 4 days to back it up on a 100Mbit link (which was actually going 100Mbit). Even gigabit links would only do that 3 or 4 times faster probably. I'd say a network back-up isn't very practical.