ext3 journals both data and metadata. Part of the current effort is being directed into allowing it to journal metadata only. Metadata-only journalling is useful in situations where good write performance is required, since journaled filesystems by definition write everything twice, once to the journal and then finally to the location on disk where the data belongs.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
If you are targeting PalmOS devices and you're not concered with controlling copying, you could consider using Plucker. I have successfully used to it to place the HTML edition of O'Reilly's DocBook reference on my Palm, as well as Engines of Creation and some programming manuals.
The snapshot of Plucker I am using supports multiple databases, images (I haven't tested this) and most of the HTML tags you'll need. The width of the Palm screen can cause problems with things such as tables, however.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
You can think of this as being totally in keeping with the java way, what is passed is the thing that the program uses.
But you're not. You think you're passing in the object, but you are in fact passing a pointer (or reference, if you prefer), which is a different thing entirely.
By contrast, in C++, if you specify the argument type as Object, you get an Object, and if you specify an Object&, you get a reference to an Object
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
Beside, any language that relies on pointers should be shot immediatly
Leaving aside for a moment the question of exactly how one would shoot a language, I must point out that pointers are not bad. What is is bad is the unthinking use of random pointer arithmetic.
It's worth noting that every language that is any use at all uses pointers: Lisp, Pascal, Java and of course C and C++. They differ in how exposed to the programmer the pointers are. Java, for example, has an annoying impedance mismatch where objects are passed by reference but things like ints and chars are passed by value.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
However, your comments overall seem to suggest that you believe illegality equates to immorality. Have I misunderstood you, or do you truly believe that people should obey laws, no matter how unjust those laws might be?
No. What I believe is going on here is that a bunch of whiny kids who were getting something for nothing are trying to turn their petty theft into some kind of big moral issue. It's not. They're thieves, and deserve to have their means of theft taken away from them. Doing this is easy in this case, as their means of theft, Napster Inc., aided and abetted in said theft through their inaction.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
"It doesn't work right because it's 'policy'" sounds an aweful like "It doesn't work right because it fukin br0ken." to most users.
This is a problem of education. Certainly there are many users who simply want to get work done, but understanding the mechanism versus policy issue would help many proto-geeks to gain a better understanding of why X is the way it is.
A Linux distribution is a good place to start with policy enforcement.
GNOME and KDE are certainly good places to have policy.
The X Window System is not; if you warp X so that it enforces policy, you will have an X that many current users will not or cannot use.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
You should be shut down for siding with a bunch of losers like the RIAA.
I'm not siding with anyone. I'm stating an opinion I hold that has nothing to do with anything the RIAA has said or done.
Beleive or not, there are some folk who use Napster not because they are theives
Use of Napster to download copyrighted works makes you a thief; whether or not you were one in the first place is irrelevant.
but because they are tired of being reamed by the record companies and greedy rat-bastard musicians who care nothing about satisfying their fans needs, but care more about satisfying their own drug habbits!
Musicians make music, for the most part, because thay have something to express. The needs of the people who choose to listen to their music have nothing to do with it.
I for one am gald Napster exists and look forward to seeing more technoligal innovations that allow common people to have access to luxuries that they would not have otherwise.
If something is free, it cannot be a luxury. For a large section of the population, water is a luxury, and it shouldn't be.
You want, you want, you want but you sure as hell don't need what you are using Napster to steal.
So next time you voice your opinion, make sure it has merit and value. Otherwise you are wasting everyones time you low-life loser!
Oh! Was that an insult?
I guess I should go cry then.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
If you accept that there even are "natural rights", which I do not, you still don't support your position with anything but repetition of the same flawed statement.
The fact that we as a society decided is was a reasonable limitation inasmuch as it would encourage the creation and distribution of original works does not negate the fact that we have a natural right to freedom of speech.
Copyright has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Freedom of speech applies to your own thoughts, beliefs and original works. Not being allowed to copy others peoples' works without their permission is not in any way an infringement on your so-called "natural right" to free speech.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
Okay, you pretty much lost all credibility. There's no global empire. Since it doesn't exist, it's unfair to describe it as evil. Also, I doubt a global evil empire would have a constitution.
I didn't say that there was any such empire. The rest of the above paragraph is crap.
What the hell are you talking about?
It's called irony. You prat.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
Which constitution do you speak of? We are not all subjects of a global evil empire.
My personal opinion is that copyright has outlived it's usefullness, and that We the People should nullify this incursion on one of our natural rights.
Being able to do something does not make it a natural right.
Copyright does not preclude copying; the copyright holder is free to grant permission for unlimited copying should the see fit to do so.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
I am enjoined by the government(not the copyright holder) from copying it except for non-commercial use) see Sony et. al.
Since my.mp3.com made money from the banner ads you viewed while using the service, this counts as commercial use. The copying of the music and use of said copy enabled my.mp3.com to make money.
Bzzt!
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
I really wonder if they will fix all the little things that don't work well in X, things like the wheel mouse, TAB stops, consistant hot heys, even window focus - much bigger issues too, like an consistant way to install programs.
None of those things have anything to do with X Window System. To say that they do implies a misunderstanding of what X is.
Simply put, X provides the mechanism, not the policy. X is plumbing and electrics. X is not your interior decorator.
Wheel mouse:
X handles wheel mice perfectly. Buttons 4 and 5 are mapped to up and down. Making those buttons actually do something is up to the toolkit or the application. X's responsibility ends once the ButtonPress and ButtonRelease events have been delivered.
Tab stops:
Nothing to do with X at all, unless the Tab key has been remapped at the X level. If tabs are messed up in your xterm, it's likely that either your application or your termcap is broken.
consistant [sic] hot keys:
X provides the mechanism: delivery of KeyPress and KeyRelease events. What happens when a key sequence is entered is a toolkit, application or desktop environment issue; in other words, policy.
window focus:
Window focus is handled by the window manager. It's policy.
consistant [sic] way to install programs:
Again, nothing to do with X. Since many programs don't use X at all, solving this problem at the X level does not make any sense.
and most of all SPEED Gnome makes me think my computer is a year older then it is.
I don't know what version of GNOME you last used, but GNOME 1.2 runs like greased shit on my Pentium II box.
hell i can't even play Quake III on it without crying.
Quake has nothing to do with GNOME. Frankly, if you're running a game on anything but a bare X server, you're already on a loser.
Truth be told, I'm not going to use and *nix for a desktop until i get a decent browser. Mozzila seems to be coming around nicely. maybe in a year of so. So for now i'm sticking to Win2k.
I'm using nightly Mozilla builds as my main browser and have been for three months. Your estimate of a year is unduly pessimistic.
If you find that Windows 2000 does everything you want out of a desktop OS, then by all means keep using it. You won'e be struck down by a bolt of lightning if you do.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
If you have a domain called 'slashdot.org' then OUs under this domain will NOT be 'sales.slashdot.org' and 'geeks.slashdot.org'. These would be child domains and then you COULD have two rmaldas.
According to this book, Windows 2000 Server Architecture and Planning, "OUs are container objects than can be used to organize objects within a domain into logical groups".
I've been using the incorrect syntaxes. The two user objects I refer to would have the DNs CN=rmalda/OU=sales/DC=slashdot/DC=org and CN=rmalda/OU=geeks/DC=slashdot/DC=org; however, because of the flat nature of the domain database, they would both map to a UPN of rmalda@slashdot.org, which is where we get into trouble.
Now, I believe it is possible to have objects with the DNs I have given, but to set things up so that they have different UPNs, but that would cause headaches of its own.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
Slashdot Mirror
ext3 journals both data and metadata. Part of the current effort is being directed into allowing it to journal metadata only. Metadata-only journalling is useful in situations where good write performance is required, since journaled filesystems by definition write everything twice, once to the journal and then finally to the location on disk where the data belongs.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
If you are targeting PalmOS devices and you're not concered with controlling copying, you could consider using Plucker. I have successfully used to it to place the HTML edition of O'Reilly's DocBook reference on my Palm, as well as Engines of Creation and some programming manuals.
The snapshot of Plucker I am using supports multiple databases, images (I haven't tested this) and most of the HTML tags you'll need. The width of the Palm screen can cause problems with things such as tables, however.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
But you're not. You think you're passing in the object, but you are in fact passing a pointer (or reference, if you prefer), which is a different thing entirely.
By contrast, in C++, if you specify the argument type as Object, you get an Object, and if you specify an Object&, you get a reference to an Object
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
Leaving aside for a moment the question of exactly how one would shoot a language, I must point out that pointers are not bad. What is is bad is the unthinking use of random pointer arithmetic.
It's worth noting that every language that is any use at all uses pointers: Lisp, Pascal, Java and of course C and C++. They differ in how exposed to the programmer the pointers are. Java, for example, has an annoying impedance mismatch where objects are passed by reference but things like ints and chars are passed by value.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
All I wanted was for it to be fixed. I can't stop people moderating my comments.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
Both of the A elements in this story are missing the trailing double quote from the HREF attribute. Please fix this.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
No. What I believe is going on here is that a bunch of whiny kids who were getting something for nothing are trying to turn their petty theft into some kind of big moral issue. It's not. They're thieves, and deserve to have their means of theft taken away from them. Doing this is easy in this case, as their means of theft, Napster Inc., aided and abetted in said theft through their inaction.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
This is a problem of education. Certainly there are many users who simply want to get work done, but understanding the mechanism versus policy issue would help many proto-geeks to gain a better understanding of why X is the way it is.
GNOME and KDE are certainly good places to have policy.
The X Window System is not; if you warp X so that it enforces policy, you will have an X that many current users will not or cannot use.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
I'm not siding with anyone. I'm stating an opinion I hold that has nothing to do with anything the RIAA has said or done.
Use of Napster to download copyrighted works makes you a thief; whether or not you were one in the first place is irrelevant.
Musicians make music, for the most part, because thay have something to express. The needs of the people who choose to listen to their music have nothing to do with it.
If something is free, it cannot be a luxury. For a large section of the population, water is a luxury, and it shouldn't be.
You want, you want, you want but you sure as hell don't need what you are using Napster to steal.
Oh! Was that an insult?
I guess I should go cry then.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
If you accept that there even are "natural rights", which I do not, you still don't support your position with anything but repetition of the same flawed statement.
Copyright has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Freedom of speech applies to your own thoughts, beliefs and original works. Not being allowed to copy others peoples' works without their permission is not in any way an infringement on your so-called "natural right" to free speech.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
I didn't say that there was any such empire. The rest of the above paragraph is crap.
It's called irony. You prat.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
Do you honestly believe that your average DVD-buying jerky-chewing consumer knows what copyright is and would give a flying fuck about it if he did?
Man, you are naive. Consumers are stupid. They buy things.
People are a different matter entirely.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
Which constitution do you speak of? We are not all subjects of a global evil empire.
Being able to do something does not make it a natural right.
Copyright does not preclude copying; the copyright holder is free to grant permission for unlimited copying should the see fit to do so.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
Because the license applies only if you use that CD for playback.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
You can moderate the truth down, but you cannot make it stop being true.
It's time moderators recognised that someone stating facts that do not support their view of reality is not flame bait.
Napster users are thieves. Napster the company runs a service that they know enables theft. Shut it down.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
If he/she had bought the music, he/she would then have copyright over the music in question.
This is clearly not the case.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
There is no spin.
Don't talk to me; talk to your elected representatives. Work to get the law changed.
In the meantime, don't be a thief.
You never bought it in the first place. You just don't get it, do you?
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
I left out this vital point in my initial post, thus leaving the thought incomplete.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
That'd be pretty fucking dumb, now wouldn't it?
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
Microsoft purchased the rights to QDOS free and clear. There was no theft involved.
Anyone with an elementary understanding of the nature of copyright will realise that this argument is bullshit.
You don't pay to listen to the music. You're paying for a license to have a copy of copyrighted material.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
None of those things have anything to do with X Window System. To say that they do implies a misunderstanding of what X is.
Simply put, X provides the mechanism, not the policy. X is plumbing and electrics. X is not your interior decorator.
I don't know what version of GNOME you last used, but GNOME 1.2 runs like greased shit on my Pentium II box.
Quake has nothing to do with GNOME. Frankly, if you're running a game on anything but a bare X server, you're already on a loser.
I'm using nightly Mozilla builds as my main browser and have been for three months. Your estimate of a year is unduly pessimistic.
If you find that Windows 2000 does everything you want out of a desktop OS, then by all means keep using it. You won'e be struck down by a bolt of lightning if you do.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
The headline should read "3dfx's Voodoo5 6000 Still Alive".
Assuming, of course, that it is.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
Actually, trusts in AD are transitive by default. It's the NT4-style one-way non-transitive trusts that would need to be implemented manually.
It's been done; NDS 8 can already use Linux as a server platform. I have no idea what Linux client support Novell offers or intends to offer.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
According to this book, Windows 2000 Server Architecture and Planning, "OUs are container objects than can be used to organize objects within a domain into logical groups".
I've been using the incorrect syntaxes. The two user objects I refer to would have the DNs CN=rmalda/OU=sales/DC=slashdot/DC=org and CN=rmalda/OU=geeks/DC=slashdot/DC=org; however, because of the flat nature of the domain database, they would both map to a UPN of rmalda@slashdot.org, which is where we get into trouble.
Now, I believe it is possible to have objects with the DNs I have given, but to set things up so that they have different UPNs, but that would cause headaches of its own.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"