Or are you thinking the software world for Linux should contain exactly one software for each purpose?
It's only value is that it includes a comprehensive point&click interface, but even though it's stuffed with features, it can't beat the existing, free tools.
OK, there you gave reason #1 (good GUI) and #2 (feature set) to use it on Linux, yourself. And being "Free" (libra) doesn't matter to all Linux users at all, believe it or not. And being "free" (gratis), well, see below...
Unless you're a Windows user who wants a program he's familiar with, there is no reason to even look at it.
Exactly! And there you gave reason #3 (familiarity).
Plus, it's not even free-as-beer, as you need to pay for a full, registered version of Nero for Windows.
Yeah, and Linux isn't free because you need to pay the hardware first. The point is that Nero is among the most commonly used burning apps on Windows there is, so existing licenses shouldn't be too uncommon. But yes, of course if you're building a Linux box from scratch, with no prior license for Nero, you should carefully consider the advantages and disadvantages for all apps. Fortunately, you have a choice here.;-)
"Many are successful white-collar business people by day, and DrinkOrDie members by night."
Pirates don't want any laws related to the Internet: (what, so they aren't just not respecting copyrights?)
"They seek an Internet devoid of rules or law."
Profits through piracy may be a secondary motive, via website subscriptions: (wtf? web sites? what happened to Usenet, FTP and IRC?)
"Profit does not appear to be a prime motive, although members operate websites that allow users and other members to download pirated software for a monthly subscription fee."
Afraid that Google will turn into a place with many varying services?
Well if they hold the same quality as so far, I'm all for it.
As much as I'm all for Yahoo introducing any useful services.
What's this deal with "they offer too much useful services" thing so they're now evil on Slashdot? That's two separate things to me, something of all companies that Google has shown most in modern times.
Hm, I see Spotlight also has "Smart Folders" which may work sort of like Libraries, although it may or may not work similar to in WinFS. Where Apple says Smart Folders are filtering matches by search criterias, I'm not sure if that's the intention with WinFS Libraries.
The goal seem to be similar in both system though -- to help the user work with his/her files on a more abstract level than having to navigate through large folder hierarchies where half of the folders are made by the user for organization, but the other half seen is simply due to the OS organizing stuff.
Spotlight is like a desktop search engine, allowing searching for metadata in addition to "regular" actual file data, right?
In that case, that's about half of what WinFS is supposed to be. It will make greater use of metadata, probably through the already existing NTFS streams in e.g. Windows 2000 and Windows XP. Yes, you can already store and search true file system-level metadata in those operating systems, an almost as little known fact as that you can mount devices in Windows XP to "folders", similar to how it works in Linux. I can for example mount my DVD-ROM at E: to C:\Devices\DVD. Anyway, that combined with the WinFS service running on top of NTFS helping out with indexing to allow instant database-style searches, should offer something similar to Spotlight functionality, if I understand Spotlight right.:-)
However, there's more to it than fast database searches in WinFS. It also aims to change how we look on stored files altogether, taking away system-related concepts like "hard drives" and physical "folders" when navigating your stored data. Instead, your data will be organized into more abstract libraries of data. You'd for example store your games in your Game library, whose contents wouldn't be tied to one folder on one hard drive. You'd go to your Game library, and double-click on Doom III, instead of going to C:\Games\Doom III. Actually, C: wouldn't even be a concept seen by the user anymore.
It's even supposed to seamlessly work through network shares, however last thing I heard is that won't be in the initial release of WinFS.
So it's a new data model, and a new way to look at how you store data altogether.
All this is how it may look to the user. However, to Windows, it's a storage engine running as a service on top of NTFS.
Very early stages of WinFS could be found in the already released/leaked Longhorn alpha versions. Although you couldn't really say it was anything near functioning, you could see the concepts, and that was likely the intention at this early alpha stage.
Here are some quotes from Paul Thurrot's site:
"Microsoft is trying to make it easier for you to find your data on our ever-increasing hard drives. By adding relational database capabilities to the file system, it will take less time to find documents, email, and other data. After all, as one Microsoft executive asked me recently, "Why can we find anything we want on the Internet in seconds, but it takes so long to find our own data on our own PCs?" In addition to the underlying WinFS technology, Microsoft is also adding a new file system concept called Libraries, which will organize like collections of data in Longhorn, regardless of where they are physically stored in the system. For example, a Photos & Movies Library would collect links to every digital photo and digital video on your system.
"I should not care about location when I save," says Microsoft VP Chris Jones. "Why can't I just click on my computer and it shows me my documents? It is a computer. It should know what a document is, what I have edited and annotated, what I have searched for before, and what other places I have looked for documents. It is not just documents on my computer I am looking for. It is documents I care about."
------------
"NTFS will be the only supported file system in Longhorn, from a setup and deployment standpoint, though the OS will, of course, continue to support legacy file systems like FAT and FAT32 for dual-boot and upgrade purposes. The oft-misunderstood Windows Future Storage (WinFS), which will include technology from the "Yukon" release of SQL Server, is not a file system, Mark Myers told me. Instead, WinFS is a service that runs on top of--and requires--NTFS. "WinFS sits on top of NTFS," he said. "It sits on top of the file system. NTFS will be a requirement."
Interestingly, when WinFS is enabled, file letters are hidden from the end user, though t
A decent analogy for Linux users between NTFS and WinFS might be ext2 vs ext3. There's very little difference between the two, WinFS mostly using better use of NTFS streams, and possibly with some extensions. It's the same thing under the hood, and should certainly be easier to support than transitioning from FAT32 to NTFS.
It's said that if you change the line containing prom_bootmethod in the CherryOS configuration file from "auto" to "select", you're supposed to clearly see that it's PearPC. I haven't tried this out myself though, as I already believe in that it's the same thing. There's also word in a Neowin thread that CherryOS has simply upped the screen refresh rate to make it look faster.
I downloaded the fairly recent Unreal Tournament patch yesterday from 3D Gamers here and their "World" download is a.torrent. When download sites like these start using BitTorrent, I really think it has become a mainstream technology.
I also downloaded the Linux version of the same patch.
Needless to say, the Windows version downloaded at 200+ KB / sec, and the Linux version was restricted by their slightly loaded server at ~80 KB / sec.
I wonder if he never fixed that one to let users download in parallel. In the beta, it downloaded those in sequence. How about a big "doh" for that one.:-(
I learned to make folders and file my files appropriate a long time ago, and as a result, I never have to search for anything.
But you still have to navigate your tidy folder hierarchies right? The whole point of a desktop searcher is to instantly get to the file you were looking for, skipping most navigation steps.
The rate Google is making strides to take over and redefine people's www interaction is quite alarming.
Take over how?
Don't install a lot of stuff from Google.com and set your start page to yahoo.com. No more Google "taking over" your browsing experience. When I use phrases like "taking over" in combination of "redefining", I come to think of spyware that forces stuff onto you, but Google force nothing on you, besides the ads on sites that have chosen to use them if you're counting those, which leads me to...
I see Google ads all over the place.
We won't magically rid the world of ads besides by using ad blockers, so all we can hope for are ads that aren't annoying. And Google's aren't in my opinion, so why complain? I definitely take Google text ads more than flashing DoubleClick ads with Gonzo buddies.
I load the Google toolbar into IE to get an easier search and now I have intrusive "nannyware" that watches over my shoulder like Clippy does: "I see you've done xxxx a few times, do you want to create a shortcut?
Don't install the Google Toolbar. It's not required for any of their services, or in any other way. There are alternative options for whatever you're trying to do, such as installing the Firefox Googlebar extension instead. Again, why complain? Lots of companies make software I don't like for one reason or another -- I still don't make a webpage complaining about these dozens of companies. I just don't use the products I don't prefer. The issue with e.g. Microsoft is that they've worked themselves into the OEM's and employ horrible business tactics in some cases to push their products onto the market. Installing a Googlebar is entirely up to you, and should of course only be done if you like the software. Google probably implemented the "do you want to create a shortcut" thing since their research told it should be convenient for their users. It's not like they force you to google.com when you type in msn.com or anything. It's nothing evil in that sense. What's annoying to you doesn't mean the intent is an evil one, or even that it's annoying to everyone.
If you manage to sucker enough people to get your mac mini, you'll be happy to find out that Spotlight, which will be in the next version of OS X, does all this stuff except better.
How can you tell when Microsoft has basically not released any details yet?
Besides their new Avalon-based UI called Aero, I was wondering the same thing. I was given this link, which has some assorted information about it. I'm not sure it's complete from what they're able to reveal officially though, and I'm generally lacking a good technical summary of currently planned changes that Microsoft maintains.
Also, you probably need PowerPoint to view most content there.:-/
Slashdot Mirror
Now, tell me, what exactly would I want Nero for?
;-)
???
The same thing as any other burning application?
Or are you thinking the software world for Linux should contain exactly one software for each purpose?
It's only value is that it includes a comprehensive point&click interface, but even though it's stuffed with features, it can't beat the existing, free tools.
OK, there you gave reason #1 (good GUI) and #2 (feature set) to use it on Linux, yourself. And being "Free" (libra) doesn't matter to all Linux users at all, believe it or not. And being "free" (gratis), well, see below...
Unless you're a Windows user who wants a program he's familiar with, there is no reason to even look at it.
Exactly! And there you gave reason #3 (familiarity).
Plus, it's not even free-as-beer, as you need to pay for a full, registered version of Nero for Windows.
Yeah, and Linux isn't free because you need to pay the hardware first. The point is that Nero is among the most commonly used burning apps on Windows there is, so existing licenses shouldn't be too uncommon. But yes, of course if you're building a Linux box from scratch, with no prior license for Nero, you should carefully consider the advantages and disadvantages for all apps. Fortunately, you have a choice here.
Pirates often operate at night:
"Many are successful white-collar business people by day, and DrinkOrDie members by night."
Pirates don't want any laws related to the Internet: (what, so they aren't just not respecting copyrights?)
"They seek an Internet devoid of rules or law."
Profits through piracy may be a secondary motive, via website subscriptions: (wtf? web sites? what happened to Usenet, FTP and IRC?)
"Profit does not appear to be a prime motive, although members operate websites that allow users and other members to download pirated software for a monthly subscription fee."
What does "turning into Yahoo" mean?
Afraid that Google will turn into a place with many varying services?
Well if they hold the same quality as so far, I'm all for it.
As much as I'm all for Yahoo introducing any useful services.
What's this deal with "they offer too much useful services" thing so they're now evil on Slashdot? That's two separate things to me, something of all companies that Google has shown most in modern times.
1) Quality. Sorry, but DivX doesn't come close to quality.
;-)
I have 10 Mbps connection. Sorry, but downloading a DVD image takes an evening for me.
2) Ease. Buy a player. Rent a DVD. Put it in. Play.
1. Connect your video out from your media PC.
2. Download a movie.
3. Run.
4. Watch.
Is it really that common to use P2P to backup your disks? :-)
Seriously, that's my point -- I prefer a physical medium to backup data on. Broadband isn't the Solution for Everything to me.
Hm, I see Spotlight also has "Smart Folders" which may work sort of like Libraries, although it may or may not work similar to in WinFS. Where Apple says Smart Folders are filtering matches by search criterias, I'm not sure if that's the intention with WinFS Libraries.
The goal seem to be similar in both system though -- to help the user work with his/her files on a more abstract level than having to navigate through large folder hierarchies where half of the folders are made by the user for organization, but the other half seen is simply due to the OS organizing stuff.
In that case, that's about half of what WinFS is supposed to be. It will make greater use of metadata, probably through the already existing NTFS streams in e.g. Windows 2000 and Windows XP. Yes, you can already store and search true file system-level metadata in those operating systems, an almost as little known fact as that you can mount devices in Windows XP to "folders", similar to how it works in Linux. I can for example mount my DVD-ROM at E: to C:\Devices\DVD. Anyway, that combined with the WinFS service running on top of NTFS helping out with indexing to allow instant database-style searches, should offer something similar to Spotlight functionality, if I understand Spotlight right.
However, there's more to it than fast database searches in WinFS. It also aims to change how we look on stored files altogether, taking away system-related concepts like "hard drives" and physical "folders" when navigating your stored data. Instead, your data will be organized into more abstract libraries of data. You'd for example store your games in your Game library, whose contents wouldn't be tied to one folder on one hard drive. You'd go to your Game library, and double-click on Doom III, instead of going to C:\Games\Doom III. Actually, C: wouldn't even be a concept seen by the user anymore.
It's even supposed to seamlessly work through network shares, however last thing I heard is that won't be in the initial release of WinFS.
So it's a new data model, and a new way to look at how you store data altogether.
All this is how it may look to the user. However, to Windows, it's a storage engine running as a service on top of NTFS.
Very early stages of WinFS could be found in the already released/leaked Longhorn alpha versions. Although you couldn't really say it was anything near functioning, you could see the concepts, and that was likely the intention at this early alpha stage.
Here are some quotes from Paul Thurrot's site:
------------
What facts? The shit don't exist yet . . .
;-)
Yes, it does, at least if one by "the shit" mean the official information about it.
I'd spend time looking it up on msdn.microsoft.com, but I'll just spend as little time as researching as you did.
A decent analogy for Linux users between NTFS and WinFS might be ext2 vs ext3. There's very little difference between the two, WinFS mostly using better use of NTFS streams, and possibly with some extensions. It's the same thing under the hood, and should certainly be easier to support than transitioning from FAT32 to NTFS.
It's said that if you change the line containing prom_bootmethod in the CherryOS configuration file from "auto" to "select", you're supposed to clearly see that it's PearPC. I haven't tried this out myself though, as I already believe in that it's the same thing. There's also word in a Neowin thread that CherryOS has simply upped the screen refresh rate to make it look faster.
I do not recommend a CD-RW simply because it isn't necessary.
But does it work?
"Not necessary"? Well, it will fill up.
Is that really a completely neglible fact?
This but for a DVD-RW sounds cool.
This, one also with her, was funny. :-/
What a contrast to the semi-anorectic girl to the right.
Oh, wait. Physically attacking a software company? Where's the fun in that?
Indeed!
I, for one, welcome our new mind flayer overlords.
we KNOW that the second we stop filtering BT traffic, our bandwidth usage is gonna go up.
;-)
Put differently: "we KNOW that the second we stop filtering BT traffic, people will use our network less".
It's a tough world we're living in huh?
Or you could have waited for a rerun I guess?
:-/
Which more often than not, even the TV company that will eventually broadcast it, don't actually know when they'll do it.
I downloaded the fairly recent Unreal Tournament patch yesterday from 3D Gamers here and their "World" download is a .torrent. When download sites like these start using BitTorrent, I really think it has become a mainstream technology.
I also downloaded the Linux version of the same patch.
Needless to say, the Windows version downloaded at 200+ KB / sec, and the Linux version was restricted by their slightly loaded server at ~80 KB / sec.
All new queue-based user interface
:-(
I wonder if he never fixed that one to let users download in parallel. In the beta, it downloaded those in sequence. How about a big "doh" for that one.
I learned to make folders and file my files appropriate a long time ago, and as a result, I never have to search for anything.
But you still have to navigate your tidy folder hierarchies right? The whole point of a desktop searcher is to instantly get to the file you were looking for, skipping most navigation steps.
I payed for, and/or created all of the content on my PC.
Besides the products, services, and web searches you use on it of course (excluding any software you may have developed).
The rate Google is making strides to take over and redefine people's www interaction is quite alarming.
Take over how?
Don't install a lot of stuff from Google.com and set your start page to yahoo.com. No more Google "taking over" your browsing experience. When I use phrases like "taking over" in combination of "redefining", I come to think of spyware that forces stuff onto you, but Google force nothing on you, besides the ads on sites that have chosen to use them if you're counting those, which leads me to...
I see Google ads all over the place.
We won't magically rid the world of ads besides by using ad blockers, so all we can hope for are ads that aren't annoying. And Google's aren't in my opinion, so why complain? I definitely take Google text ads more than flashing DoubleClick ads with Gonzo buddies.
I load the Google toolbar into IE to get an easier search and now I have intrusive "nannyware" that watches over my shoulder like Clippy does: "I see you've done xxxx a few times, do you want to create a shortcut?
Don't install the Google Toolbar. It's not required for any of their services, or in any other way. There are alternative options for whatever you're trying to do, such as installing the Firefox Googlebar extension instead. Again, why complain? Lots of companies make software I don't like for one reason or another -- I still don't make a webpage complaining about these dozens of companies. I just don't use the products I don't prefer. The issue with e.g. Microsoft is that they've worked themselves into the OEM's and employ horrible business tactics in some cases to push their products onto the market. Installing a Googlebar is entirely up to you, and should of course only be done if you like the software. Google probably implemented the "do you want to create a shortcut" thing since their research told it should be convenient for their users. It's not like they force you to google.com when you type in msn.com or anything. It's nothing evil in that sense. What's annoying to you doesn't mean the intent is an evil one, or even that it's annoying to everyone.
Then stop complaining and instead give at least one example of a search engine that sets no cookies and is better than Google.
Sure, you've got to spend time shell-scripting to unleash its full power but that's half the fun of it.
To the UNIX user yes, but this OS isn't aimed for that group.
I thought that was general knowledge after all these years.
If you manage to sucker enough people to get your mac mini, you'll be happy to find out that Spotlight, which will be in the next version of OS X, does all this stuff except better.
How can you tell when Microsoft has basically not released any details yet?
Besides their new Avalon-based UI called Aero, I was wondering the same thing. I was given this link, which has some assorted information about it. I'm not sure it's complete from what they're able to reveal officially though, and I'm generally lacking a good technical summary of currently planned changes that Microsoft maintains.
:-/
Also, you probably need PowerPoint to view most content there.