None of the Windows based ones, but I know OS X and I think Linux defrag on the fly.
That's no solution to defragmentation, it's just taking care of the problem silently when it happens. You just said that OS X and Linux file systems may get fragmented, and the computer have to defrag all the time as files are accessed so it won't become a mess. And is the defrag operations without any access time cost? Of course not.
If he says a beta runs just as fast as XP, that is a positive thing, because it'll most likely not be optimized for production quality, and contain a lot of debug builds in it.
So what is the point of getting IT Certifications? To have a piece of paper?
A piece of paper is still considered better than telling them you're great.
But I agree a certification shouldn't be worth too much if you have some really great work left behind you to show up. But with that competition for a guy with just a certification, doesn't employers pick the guy with some real work they can see and judge anyway? At least from my own experiences I've got that impression.
What if Apple has peaked?
on
Has Google Peaked?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
He believes Microsoft's greatest threat may come from Apple, in that case I believe he may be living in the past, thinking companies of the past may pose the largest threats. What if people like him are wrong, and Google's mission and their web services is the model for many future IT companies, and the actual hardware you buy will start playing less of a role than it once used to? Even today, I notice myself buying brand new computer systems far less than before. Not even the games (and yes, it's modern games) require a new computer as often as they used to. More often than not, it's just about a new graphics card if anything at all, not about upgrading your 8 MB ram to 16 MB like you used to. You can often keep running with the 512 MB you bought four years ago.
And when it's about web services, it's their hardware that matters, not Apple's. It seems like the author is putting an awful lot of trust in that hardware markets will decide everything, in an age when web services become more and more complex.
Security in Java is multi layered and complex, you cannot possibly cover all its faces.
That's what they mention as a problem with Java security.
".Net" managed code is very rare and all.NET applications I know of (that are real applications) use native code thus removing any sense of security.
A problem for the developers then, not for.NET? What the article is speaking of is.NET security, not sloppy-.NET-mixed-with-native-code security.
Java has had years of full source code visibility (not open source) and had several holes plugged by the community,.NET has no such thing.
This is true, however, that's a statement not necessarily related to a higher security in Java. It sure works in their favor though, yes. But is the end result that?
Its like saying Windows is more secure than Linux since its newer than UNIX and Linux is based on UNIX.
*rolls eyes* OK, you at least made it clear how much you read the article.
"it has been stated that a "Vista Ready" system will have 512 megabytes or more of RAM, a dedicated graphics card with DirectX 9.0 support, and a will be "modern" Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon-based PC. An older system or one with integrated graphics will be able to run Vista but will probably have to do so in more of a legacy mode, without full use of the new Aero graphics package."
Something to keep in mind though is that if Linux distros work and look like today, they're comparable to Windows Vista will be in this legacy mode with lower requirements. The legacy mode we're talking about is a theming system similar to that of Windows XP, KDE 3.x, etc, i.e. simple 2D theming and possibly very basic transparency. The Aero mode is 3D accelerated with 3D effects, etc.
It seems like the article doesn't take this into consideration at all. A user can of course also willingly and manually disable Aero if that's their wishes and opinions about 3D effects in an operating system.
I also find it surprising that an article comparings Windows Vista with Linux distros in general doesn't try to compare Linux with Vista side-by-side by bringing up Vista's feature set. Mentioning cut backs is interesting as a curiousity, but what matters is what Vista will have in 2006/7 and what Linux distros will have in 2006/7, no?
This article outlines the current features of Vista as we know them today, at least.
- Voice chat is used in FPS games. - Voice chat is used in e.g. Skype (my example) for conferencing and dating. - Some people even use voice chat in FPS games for business conferences. (wtf?) - There exist services for phone Internet interaction. - Google Talk has been released. - A managing director think Internet phoning will become important. - A couple got engaged after they were able to talk more via voice chat than they could have been on phones. - 20% of 20 million gamers use voice chat, +10% from last year, according to Vonex.
Hmm, a strange potpurri of voice related buzz anyway... Most, if not all, of which any respectable nerd should have realized before reading the article.
Not only is Shania Twain posting on Slashdot, but she's (yes, the mythological female sex, guys!) also posting references to Marvin the Paranoid Android?!
Now the world has gone to bed Darkness won't engulf my head I can see by infra-red How I hate the night
Now I lay me down to sleep Try to count electric sheep Sweet dream wishes you can keep How I hate the night
Not only these interesting developments, they support open source as well. I find them quite unique in their advancements and unification with Information Technology... unfortunately... Much like the Google of TV channels.
Every woman on earth believes that men should be able to read minds. Every man knows this is impossible. Ergo, we are more intelligent.
Or, just maybe it's because women are generally better at "reading" people from expressions than males, and assume they're just as skilled on it. I doubt they're expecting paranormal mind reading, but reading a person without conversation nevertheless.
Yes, we need something like Jabber, and we need it to be universal. With Googles help, it might become that.
IMO, for that to be anywhere remotely close of happening, they have to make it incredibly much better than their competitors. Right now it's even inferior in many cases, lacking in its feature set, and then there are free and easy to use competitors already. Maybe if they'd give away a free 10 MB storage per person and persons could join into groups to form e.g. a free 500 MB unified storage for their IM community, or something like that. They'd need to crush their opponents like how Google Search did to Altavista.
Jabber was the prime candidate, but it was rather minor when compared to MSN, AIM and the like. Not anymore. Google is about to increase the number of people using Jabber by order of magnitude!... why? My brother and his buddies is a circle of maybe 10 friends using MSN, that even has basic file transfer that's useful for people who don't want to setup FTP servers or (heaven forbid!) use e-mail accounts. There are already a ton of IM's for all practical purposes I can imagine (single-protocol and multi-protocol alike) that are all free with slight differences in features. There are a whole lot of IM's that are easy to use as well.
Why would they switch to Jabber? Because it's using an open protocol? Most don't even know what it means, and how that would possibly improve their user experience.
I doubt they go to Google to starve... Sure, you're exaggerating to prove your point, but if we stop exaggerating a bit, your point isn't a big issue anymore. Sort of trading off a nice new car for a more fun work enviroment; the place where you spend about half of your concious life. I can't really see that too far fetched.
Slashdot Mirror
I think I'm going to join their IRC party with Chatzilla. :-)
I mean, seriously... if the BBC is posting about it, do you think the over-priced greedy hawk lawyers of the RIAA/MPAA are going to ignore it?
They have actually busted a lot of edonkey users in the past, and even popular web sites like ShareReactor.com
Sorry for the very borked links...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kad_network and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kademlia respectively.
That sounds if nobody ever heard of the ed2k network - now known as eMule / Kademlia.
eMule is a popular client supporting the eDonkey network.
eDonkey2000 is the official eDonkey client.
eMule also supports the decentralized Kad network, which is a Kademlia implementation.
The official BT client also use a Kademlia algorithm for its trackerless torrents, along with Azureus. No implementations are necessarily compatible.
Hell, it has been an idea since 1991.
You said it; the idea isn't, but the product is.
You need to make distinctions between these things, or you'll quickly become horribly confused by IT companies.
None of the Windows based ones, but I know OS X and I think Linux defrag on the fly.
That's no solution to defragmentation, it's just taking care of the problem silently when it happens. You just said that OS X and Linux file systems may get fragmented, and the computer have to defrag all the time as files are accessed so it won't become a mess. And is the defrag operations without any access time cost? Of course not.
If he says a beta runs just as fast as XP, that is a positive thing, because it'll most likely not be optimized for production quality, and contain a lot of debug builds in it.
So what is the point of getting IT Certifications? To have a piece of paper?
A piece of paper is still considered better than telling them you're great.
But I agree a certification shouldn't be worth too much if you have some really great work left behind you to show up. But with that competition for a guy with just a certification, doesn't employers pick the guy with some real work they can see and judge anyway? At least from my own experiences I've got that impression.
I can't really see the problem here...
It's an old trick proven to be working to get karma though. ;-)
I'm not familiar with the current Office, but back in '97
Back in '97, MS was also just gearing up to release Windows 98.
I think this is what the article means.
Then it's nuttier than I at first believed.
Maybe when XP starts using truely open document format specifications, then I might support them....
i ew.mspx
Office 2003 XML is an open and royalty-free format. That's just one of the reasons comparing to Office 2003 would've made more sense too.
http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/fileoverv
He believes Microsoft's greatest threat may come from Apple, in that case I believe he may be living in the past, thinking companies of the past may pose the largest threats. What if people like him are wrong, and Google's mission and their web services is the model for many future IT companies, and the actual hardware you buy will start playing less of a role than it once used to? Even today, I notice myself buying brand new computer systems far less than before. Not even the games (and yes, it's modern games) require a new computer as often as they used to. More often than not, it's just about a new graphics card if anything at all, not about upgrading your 8 MB ram to 16 MB like you used to. You can often keep running with the 512 MB you bought four years ago.
And when it's about web services, it's their hardware that matters, not Apple's. It seems like the author is putting an awful lot of trust in that hardware markets will decide everything, in an age when web services become more and more complex.
Security in Java is multi layered and complex, you cannot possibly cover all its faces.
.NET applications I know of (that are real applications) use native code thus removing any sense of security.
.NET? What the article is speaking of is .NET security, not sloppy-.NET-mixed-with-native-code security.
.NET has no such thing.
That's what they mention as a problem with Java security.
".Net" managed code is very rare and all
A problem for the developers then, not for
Java has had years of full source code visibility (not open source) and had several holes plugged by the community,
This is true, however, that's a statement not necessarily related to a higher security in Java. It sure works in their favor though, yes. But is the end result that?
Its like saying Windows is more secure than Linux since its newer than UNIX and Linux is based on UNIX.
*rolls eyes* OK, you at least made it clear how much you read the article.
"it has been stated that a "Vista Ready" system will have 512 megabytes or more of RAM, a dedicated graphics card with DirectX 9.0 support, and a will be "modern" Intel Pentium or AMD Athlon-based PC. An older system or one with integrated graphics will be able to run Vista but will probably have to do so in more of a legacy mode, without full use of the new Aero graphics package."
Something to keep in mind though is that if Linux distros work and look like today, they're comparable to Windows Vista will be in this legacy mode with lower requirements. The legacy mode we're talking about is a theming system similar to that of Windows XP, KDE 3.x, etc, i.e. simple 2D theming and possibly very basic transparency. The Aero mode is 3D accelerated with 3D effects, etc.
It seems like the article doesn't take this into consideration at all. A user can of course also willingly and manually disable Aero if that's their wishes and opinions about 3D effects in an operating system.
I also find it surprising that an article comparings Windows Vista with Linux distros in general doesn't try to compare Linux with Vista side-by-side by bringing up Vista's feature set. Mentioning cut backs is interesting as a curiousity, but what matters is what Vista will have in 2006/7 and what Linux distros will have in 2006/7, no?
This article outlines the current features of Vista as we know them today, at least.
- Voice chat is used in FPS games.
- Voice chat is used in e.g. Skype (my example) for conferencing and dating.
- Some people even use voice chat in FPS games for business conferences. (wtf?)
- There exist services for phone Internet interaction.
- Google Talk has been released.
- A managing director think Internet phoning will become important.
- A couple got engaged after they were able to talk more via voice chat than they could have been on phones.
- 20% of 20 million gamers use voice chat, +10% from last year, according to Vonex.
Hmm, a strange potpurri of voice related buzz anyway... Most, if not all, of which any respectable nerd should have realized before reading the article.
Not only is Shania Twain posting on Slashdot, but she's (yes, the mythological female sex, guys!) also posting references to Marvin the Paranoid Android?!
Now the world has gone to bed
Darkness won't engulf my head
I can see by infra-red
How I hate the night
Now I lay me down to sleep
Try to count electric sheep
Sweet dream wishes you can keep
How I hate the night
Excuse me while I set up my Shania Twain shrine!
Not only these interesting developments, they support open source as well. I find them quite unique in their advancements and unification with Information Technology... unfortunately... Much like the Google of TV channels.
calm down there. You're basically advocating /. censor anything remotely controvertial.
No, no, you misunderstand (or choose to misunderstand).
What he's saying, and what I also agree with, is that it's OK to post controversial topics, if they're newsworthy enough.
Eh, it's not marked as questionable, it's marked as having biased opinions somewhere in the article.
And I personally doubt e.g. Beethoven's works can be explained by a pure logical intelligence.
Every woman on earth believes that men should be able to read minds. Every man knows this is impossible. Ergo, we are more intelligent.
Or, just maybe it's because women are generally better at "reading" people from expressions than males, and assume they're just as skilled on it. I doubt they're expecting paranormal mind reading, but reading a person without conversation nevertheless.
Intelligence isn't a well defined concept...
;-) ) talking about any particular of these intelligences for example?
Is he ( what a funny coincidence it's a "he" btw
Yes, we need something like Jabber, and we need it to be universal. With Googles help, it might become that.
IMO, for that to be anywhere remotely close of happening, they have to make it incredibly much better than their competitors. Right now it's even inferior in many cases, lacking in its feature set, and then there are free and easy to use competitors already. Maybe if they'd give away a free 10 MB storage per person and persons could join into groups to form e.g. a free 500 MB unified storage for their IM community, or something like that. They'd need to crush their opponents like how Google Search did to Altavista.
I'm not trying to flame, but...
... why? My brother and his buddies is a circle of maybe 10 friends using MSN, that even has basic file transfer that's useful for people who don't want to setup FTP servers or (heaven forbid!) use e-mail accounts. There are already a ton of IM's for all practical purposes I can imagine (single-protocol and multi-protocol alike) that are all free with slight differences in features. There are a whole lot of IM's that are easy to use as well.
Jabber was the prime candidate, but it was rather minor when compared to MSN, AIM and the like. Not anymore. Google is about to increase the number of people using Jabber by order of magnitude!
Why would they switch to Jabber? Because it's using an open protocol? Most don't even know what it means, and how that would possibly improve their user experience.
I doubt they go to Google to starve... Sure, you're exaggerating to prove your point, but if we stop exaggerating a bit, your point isn't a big issue anymore. Sort of trading off a nice new car for a more fun work enviroment; the place where you spend about half of your concious life. I can't really see that too far fetched.
Especially when Google releases well-received products that are "free".
...?
1. Compete with Google by releasing free products.
2. Receieve financial support by joining the Google AdWords program.
3.
4. Profit!