Exactly - FAT16 had exactly this limit (4 Gb), but NTFS obviously hasn't. Windows NT 4 had a maximum "practical" partition limit of 7.88 Gb for bootable volumes, but this was (needless to say, really) removed in Windows 2000. It obviously hasn't any problems with 200 Gb drives since these are the largest ones currently. Any restrictions that you might face are usually BIOS restrictions, and you almost never face actual file system restrictions. That would be real bad and more or less block the hard drive development.
So I guess most modern file systems like the Windows 2000/XP version of NTFS, Linux's ext3, ReiserFS, etc all allow "relatively large" volumes, the question is how large. My guess would be something like one or two terabytes, and that's why I think the author of that article really doesn't have an idea of what he's talking about.
Sure, it's probably true that WinFS will support Tb-large volumes, but I think NTFS does as well.
The BFS used in BeOS uses 64 bit addressing (18 exabytes) and has been working for over 5 years...
Yeah, and IIRC the NTFS also use such addressing. So NTFS support really really large volumes in theory, but right now the limitation lies in how the partition tables are built.
But I don't really understand what Microsoft is saying here since NTFS should at least support a Terabyte. And even if it wouldn't, it's certainly not "extraordinarilty difficult task" to do.
Not sure if there's something similar going on with the BFS file system since I can guarantee no one have used a 18 Eb volume in over 5 years.:-)
Oops, sorry, I seem to had got it all backwards. heh
Don't know why I babbled about Linux when this is a FreeBSD topic.:-) I guess it was because they played Warcraft through Windows through WineX through Linux through FreeBSD.:-P
Aagh... I should've kept quiet instead of making my poor brain hurt.
What's a "linuxulator"?? Hmm.. Sounds kinda like my nick.
Anyway, can't they just call it an "emulator"? Or is an emulator running under Windows a "winulator"? *sigh*
Sorry if I'm picky, but it's just adds unecessary confusion. Or *is* actually a "linuxulator" something different than an emulator running under Linux, so there's actually a reason for this word?
If the/. editors can refrain from duplicating this story tomorrow then nobody will remember the link... including the editors, so when they stumble upon the news tomorrow or so they'll think "wow, we haven't linked to *that* before; I'll just post the news myself". If they won't stumble upon it, a Slashdot reader that forgot about the yesterday news will.
So my theory is that regardless what will happen, there *will* be a dupe.;-)
Isn't there a limit to what you can claim as infringement? If they were making their own BIOS chips and calling them "Phoenix", I could understand. But AFAIK, Phoenix Technologies doesn't make web browsers.
What's the relation between this browser and the products of that company? How can they force the name change?
I think Phoenix Technologies are most know for their Phoenix BIOS, but they also develop Phoenix FirstView Connect. After reading the product description, it takes no genius to see they're related in functionality:
"Phoenix FirstView Connect 3.0 is a powerful, complete software platform that enables digital device OEMs to introduce robust, interactive Internet functionality- as a primary or secondary function- into their consumer electronics devices quickly and affordably. Providing industry-leading, standards-based support such as HTML 4.0, CSS 2.0, DOM 2,0, Javascript 1.4 and Flash 4 with a small code size, FirstView Connect was designed specifically for the emerging Information Appliance market and is ideally-suited for adding new value to both traditional and next-generation digital devices. Having delivered value at the core of digital devices for the past 20+ years, Phoenix provides a flexible and extensible software solution that you can depend on now and in the future."
And when you don't like it you just delete the directory and it's gone. Really gone.
Except for the profiles it saves somewhere deep inside the "Documents and Settings" folder in Windows. Kinda annoying, but I guess it's all considered as much "Windows Standard" as saving programs in the Program Files folder.
Yeah, I think the time has come for some laws protecting from non copyright holders sueing others for violating laws and gaining the profit themselves. About as bad as the piracy itself IMHO.
Exactly.. I'm 99% sure the artists won't get a dime from these bills. They mention Star Wars Ep 2 as one of the movies shared, but I don't think the APG will pay Mr Lucas anything personally. They're essentially living off the value of copyrighted material, and there should really be some law prohibiting this.
I would surely understand this case better if the copyright holder sued.
Ok, I can't speak for the danish people, but in swedish law, ISP's don't give away customer information regardless of how long listings an organization have with illegal p2p transactions.
Sure, they might be allowed to go to court with me, sue me and whatever, but how were they allowed to know how I was in the first case?
Yeah, we've all been screaming for random organizations being able to force ISP's to do what only the police use to have the power to - make them publicize their customer information. Yes, "force", since this is never done willingly by the ISP's since it gives them very bad PR when the average user find out that they tend to give away their customer info like that.
My problem is that I don't see how they suddenly got this power without having the police involved.
Also, as The Register mentions, this can surely backfire:
"Also, the labels, movie studios and video game makers have increasingly distributed bogus files on P2P networks that resemble the genuine article, down to file size and title, to frustrate would-be downloaders."
From the antipiracy bureaus, I hope for their own sake that they brought CRC checksums of each file with them and that they can connect those to the actual transfer of the p2p user.
I don't really know how Windows mounts *work*, and if there's a neat sysinternals.com-style utility for this. I mean.. if it's just the stupid UI that's limited and Windows *can* actually map any paths, including network paths, to a folder. Perhaps there are more info about this on Google / Google Groups or someting.:-/
Well, as long as there are alternative sites they'll obviously get a visit from *me* instead of those just showing a message that I'm blocked.
And if those alternative sites use ads in a more pleasant way (hint: *not* popups) and you enjoy the site, they'll get the money if you click their ads once in a while.
Ironically, this will only hit hard against the pop-up sites the protection is supposed to assist, since you'll definitely not be able to help those anymore if you don't like pop-ups.
Hey, I see you could add HTML code to that link while their server actually run the code and show the page. Let's link to some mp3's and sue them, then watch the outcome.:-)
Windows Explorer is probably the worst thing in XP, horribly slow and unresponsive, doing strange things like parsing (in entirety) all HTML files in the current directory, even if thumbnails etc are all disabled. Scroll up over a directory filled with.URL files and the whole thing just *stops* for five or ten seconds before continuing.
lol, I agree about this;-) I'd suggest you try Windows Commander.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly - FAT16 had exactly this limit (4 Gb), but NTFS obviously hasn't. Windows NT 4 had a maximum "practical" partition limit of 7.88 Gb for bootable volumes, but this was (needless to say, really) removed in Windows 2000. It obviously hasn't any problems with 200 Gb drives since these are the largest ones currently. Any restrictions that you might face are usually BIOS restrictions, and you almost never face actual file system restrictions. That would be real bad and more or less block the hard drive development.
So I guess most modern file systems like the Windows 2000/XP version of NTFS, Linux's ext3, ReiserFS, etc all allow "relatively large" volumes, the question is how large. My guess would be something like one or two terabytes, and that's why I think the author of that article really doesn't have an idea of what he's talking about.
Sure, it's probably true that WinFS will support Tb-large volumes, but I think NTFS does as well.
The BFS used in BeOS uses 64 bit addressing (18 exabytes) and has been working for over 5 years...
:-)
Yeah, and IIRC the NTFS also use such addressing. So NTFS support really really large volumes in theory, but right now the limitation lies in how the partition tables are built.
But I don't really understand what Microsoft is saying here since NTFS should at least support a Terabyte. And even if it wouldn't, it's certainly not "extraordinarilty difficult task" to do.
Not sure if there's something similar going on with the BFS file system since I can guarantee no one have used a 18 Eb volume in over 5 years.
Oops, I did it again... ;-)
:-D
Should've been: "... Warcraft through Windows through WineX through FreeBSD's linuxulator."
Oops, sorry, I seem to had got it all backwards. heh
:-) I guess it was because they played Warcraft through Windows through WineX through Linux through FreeBSD. :-P
Don't know why I babbled about Linux when this is a FreeBSD topic.
Aagh... I should've kept quiet instead of making my poor brain hurt.
What's a "linuxulator"?? Hmm.. Sounds kinda like my nick.
Anyway, can't they just call it an "emulator"? Or is an emulator running under Windows a "winulator"? *sigh*
Sorry if I'm picky, but it's just adds unecessary confusion. Or *is* actually a "linuxulator" something different than an emulator running under Linux, so there's actually a reason for this word?
Gaah! Hmm... But what was the actual, "real", error then?
If the /. editors can refrain from duplicating this story tomorrow then nobody will remember the link. .. including the editors, so when they stumble upon the news tomorrow or so they'll think "wow, we haven't linked to *that* before; I'll just post the news myself". If they won't stumble upon it, a Slashdot reader that forgot about the yesterday news will.
;-)
So my theory is that regardless what will happen, there *will* be a dupe.
I know another mythological creature...
:-)
Gazebo!
Isn't there a limit to what you can claim as infringement? If they were making their own BIOS chips and calling them "Phoenix", I could understand. But AFAIK, Phoenix Technologies doesn't make web browsers.
Yes, they do.
What's the relation between this browser and the products of that company? How can they force the name change?
:-P
I think Phoenix Technologies are most know for their Phoenix BIOS, but they also develop Phoenix FirstView Connect. After reading the product description, it takes no genius to see they're related in functionality:
"Phoenix FirstView Connect 3.0 is a powerful, complete software platform that enables digital device OEMs to introduce robust, interactive Internet functionality- as a primary or secondary function- into their consumer electronics devices quickly and affordably. Providing industry-leading, standards-based support such as HTML 4.0, CSS 2.0, DOM 2,0, Javascript 1.4 and Flash 4 with a small code size, FirstView Connect was designed specifically for the emerging Information Appliance market and is ideally-suited for adding new value to both traditional and next-generation digital devices. Having delivered value at the core of digital devices for the past 20+ years, Phoenix provides a flexible and extensible software solution that you can depend on now and in the future."
So you could say they also have a browser.
Well, I dunno. Perhaps you should ask the woman who wrote the article.
Damn Microsoft zealots changing their skin to the Luna Style. They have to be members of this network. :-P
And when you don't like it you just delete the directory and it's gone. Really gone.
Except for the profiles it saves somewhere deep inside the "Documents and Settings" folder in Windows. Kinda annoying, but I guess it's all considered as much "Windows Standard" as saving programs in the Program Files folder.
Yeah, I think the time has come for some laws protecting from non copyright holders sueing others for violating laws and gaining the profit themselves. About as bad as the piracy itself IMHO.
Exactly.. I'm 99% sure the artists won't get a dime from these bills. They mention Star Wars Ep 2 as one of the movies shared, but I don't think the APG will pay Mr Lucas anything personally. They're essentially living off the value of copyrighted material, and there should really be some law prohibiting this.
I would surely understand this case better if the copyright holder sued.
Oops.. Should be "...but in swedish law, ISP's don't give away customer information to a random organization ..."
Ok, I can't speak for the danish people, but in swedish law, ISP's don't give away customer information regardless of how long listings an organization have with illegal p2p transactions.
Sure, they might be allowed to go to court with me, sue me and whatever, but how were they allowed to know how I was in the first case?
Yeah, we've all been screaming for random organizations being able to force ISP's to do what only the police use to have the power to - make them publicize their customer information. Yes, "force", since this is never done willingly by the ISP's since it gives them very bad PR when the average user find out that they tend to give away their customer info like that.
My problem is that I don't see how they suddenly got this power without having the police involved.
Also, as The Register mentions, this can surely backfire:
"Also, the labels, movie studios and video game makers have increasingly distributed bogus files on P2P networks that resemble the genuine article, down to file size and title, to frustrate would-be downloaders."
From the antipiracy bureaus, I hope for their own sake that they brought CRC checksums of each file with them and that they can connect those to the actual transfer of the p2p user.
But then you've got a perhaps larger problem than IE itself - Windows 98/ME. Eeek! :-o
Look at this, especially that huge packet loss spike at 11/24...
Seems suspicious, although that site hasn't put up any news about it like they did with the major DNS attack a copule of weeks ago.
Smallest Possible ELF Executable?
The answer was 45 bytes, but probably don't fulfill the criterias set in this challenge.
Ah.. :-P
:-/
I don't really know how Windows mounts *work*, and if there's a neat sysinternals.com-style utility for this. I mean.. if it's just the stupid UI that's limited and Windows *can* actually map any paths, including network paths, to a folder. Perhaps there are more info about this on Google / Google Groups or someting.
Well, as long as there are alternative sites they'll obviously get a visit from *me* instead of those just showing a message that I'm blocked.
And if those alternative sites use ads in a more pleasant way (hint: *not* popups) and you enjoy the site, they'll get the money if you click their ads once in a while.
Ironically, this will only hit hard against the pop-up sites the protection is supposed to assist, since you'll definitely not be able to help those anymore if you don't like pop-ups.
Hey, I see you could add HTML code to that link while their server actually run the code and show the page. Let's link to some mp3's and sue them, then watch the outcome. :-)
Windows Explorer is probably the worst thing in XP, horribly slow and unresponsive, doing strange things like parsing (in entirety) all HTML files in the current directory, even if thumbnails etc are all disabled. Scroll up over a directory filled with .URL files and the whole thing just *stops* for five or ten seconds before continuing.
;-)
lol, I agree about this
I'd suggest you try Windows Commander.