heh, yeah, we were just lamenting the loss of good beep codes in programs the other day. there's an unofficial Linux patch that adds a pc speaker driver with full OSS compatibility. I was thinking it'd be cool to remap ASCII 7 over to some wav like "D'oh" or something.:)
not at all unlike, oh, I don't know, maybe Mozilla, where the browser itself is just a big document that ties together a bunch of components through XML...
I had the same thought, but first I thought "Evolution + MIME + bonobo" because I like to view gpg signature verification, images, Abiword docs, etc. inline. (hot damn I can't wait for the bonobo-ized vim component. talk about completing my existence!)
I kind of like the evolved hybrid approach that seems to be popular where you have viewers for common doc types so you can see them inline, but if you want to edit them you open them in your preferred application. Perhaps appropriate viewers could be extended to have a few minor edit features (I'm thinking of the Guppi toolbar in Gnumeric), but that's about as OpenDoc-like as I'd like to see.
The point of distributed archives is replication. It's fundamental to the design. It assumes you live in an often disconnected world and you can sit there with your laptop in the middle of nowhere doing merges and whatnot independent of some remote archive.
Anyway, that's the point of it. If it doesn't fit your environment, you shouldn't use it.:)
using your enumeration:
[1]. The problem is he doesn't define "fast". When I think "slow", I'm thinking being on the slow end of a pserver/webdav connection in a large project with a lot of concurrent branches in need of merging. Still, I agree, if you can afford the server and all the clients have a decent connection.
[2]. Well, server-based solutions are expensive on the Linus Torvalds level. Have you seen the merges that guy does? Scary.
[3]. You're right, except that there are no arch servers (by server, I'm guessing the guy means "main ftp archive" or something). But sometimes it's better to have a smart client. I definitely don't want Apache trying to render web pages for me... sending an image to a dumb browser, no matter how annoying IE vs Mozilla incompatibility gets!:) But yeah, in a highly centralized, probably corporate-style, environment, arch is probably not as good a fit as Subversion.
[4] & [5] follow from being decentralized because the distributed trees all maintain the history. It obviates the need to specifically keep mirrors of the main archive around since each local archive is already a mirror. At least, that's my understanding of it.
As far as the author is concerned, I'm guessing he's just trying to advertise his wares. He may have failed due to his poor writing, but I'm guessing his goal was marketing. You might contact him about it... you know: download arch, get a copy of his tree, write up a patch, and publish the archive. hehehehe
The point is that having a local archive of all the versions allows you, for example, to grep through the source for that old snippet of code in some version that you need but aren't sure what version it's in. Sure, you can checkout all the Subversion versions locally, but arch does it implicitly. I think that's pretty sweet.
dig around in here to get an idea of what the file tree looks like:
I haven't used ClearCase, but I'm wondering if something like arch or BitKeeper with native support for distributed trees wouldn't help some of these central-server merging problems?
The Fed may be anti-democratic in nature, but thank god for that, or we would have collapsed into something resembling the Weimar Republic in the 80's
well, let's not put the cart before the horse. Who's to say the policy of the Feds didn't in fact lead to the SnL scandals? convince Reagan that grotesque military spending was good?
I'm just skeptical of it.
Besides, there's a reason why USG hasn't sold off Fort Knox. The partial reserve system is borrowing against Fate, cosigned by Providence. It's only a matter of time... Scare people enough and they will run the banks and that will be the end of the Fed, lock, stock, and barrel.
The irony is that it's our laws that create the Corporate Capitalist hegemonies. In thanks, these hegemonies lobby the government for special treatment. The feedback loop is obvious. The solution isn't. I support killing that too sweet collusion between business and government by severely scaling back patents and copyrights, having more enforcement of the corporate death penalty, eliminating corporate income tax and instituting a corporate flat tax, removing perpetrators of victimless crimes from prison to make room for corporate criminals in "federal ass-pounding prison", destroying the laws that make corporations "public persons", eliminating corporate campaign contributions.
Greenspan sits atop one of the highest apexes of unelected power in the world, a tool and author of vast economic policy. He's a hard core monetarist. Whatever lip service he pays to the free market, his main job is micromanaging the money supply at the official behest of the US government.
Is this sort of meddling in the market really what a n "acolyte of Rand" would do? I don't think so.
-l
p.s., none of this has to do with whether I agree with the meddling, just taking issue with your accusation.
hrm, so what would "true freedom" be, exactly? Freedom from Freedom[tm]'s hypocrisy? is it that the Bill of Rights doesn't have enough rights listed in it or that they aren't consistently enforced/supported?
well... More's Utopia is an exercise in irony, somewhat akin to Swift's Modest Proposal. Don't go into it thinking it's a genuine vision of his idea of the most perfect world. That's all.:)
I'm not sure your claim makes much sense though... once you go far enough left or right, the result is the same. My take on the extreme positions:
Left: Eventually, all property and planning is coalesced into one central government run by a few powerful individuals.
Right: Eventually, all property and planning is coalesced into one central monopoly run by a few powerful individuals.
Since the problem is the concentration of power under a few individuals, it doesn't matter what the label for it is. This is why I view my relatively libertarian (lowercase L) position as a moderate one: I reject all gross concentrations of unelected power, left or right, governmental or corporate.
Fantasies and epic stories should be about mortals becoming heroes and defeating impossible odds--not about "how they don't build them like this anymore" or "God steps in and saves the day."
I'm glad you're here to tell us what should be in the genre.
Slashdot Mirror
heh, yeah, we were just lamenting the loss of good beep codes in programs the other day. there's an unofficial Linux patch that adds a pc speaker driver with full OSS compatibility. I was thinking it'd be cool to remap ASCII 7 over to some wav like "D'oh" or something. :)
-l
My dream is for Alamo Drafthouse to work out a deal with IMAX to show Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas with complimentary LSD.
We can't stop here. This is bat country!
-l
Can I talk you into buying me a hard drive or two? Maybe a small RAID array? :)
-l
My roommate's Apex has really bad color decoding. Suspiria is almost unwatchable in places. Also, it has trouble with layer changes on a lot of DVDs.
Caveat Emptor
-l
11 110 101
:)
3 6 5
-l
not at all unlike, oh, I don't know, maybe Mozilla, where the browser itself is just a big document that ties together a bunch of components through XML...
I had the same thought, but first I thought "Evolution + MIME + bonobo" because I like to view gpg signature verification, images, Abiword docs, etc. inline. (hot damn I can't wait for the bonobo-ized vim component. talk about completing my existence!)
I kind of like the evolved hybrid approach that seems to be popular where you have viewers for common doc types so you can see them inline, but if you want to edit them you open them in your preferred application. Perhaps appropriate viewers could be extended to have a few minor edit features (I'm thinking of the Guppi toolbar in Gnumeric), but that's about as OpenDoc-like as I'd like to see.
$0.02USD,
-l
The point of distributed archives is replication. It's fundamental to the design. It assumes you live in an often disconnected world and you can sit there with your laptop in the middle of nowhere doing merges and whatnot independent of some remote archive.
Anyway, that's the point of it. If it doesn't fit your environment, you shouldn't use it. :)
using your enumeration:
[1]. The problem is he doesn't define "fast". When I think "slow", I'm thinking being on the slow end of a pserver/webdav connection in a large project with a lot of concurrent branches in need of merging. Still, I agree, if you can afford the server and all the clients have a decent connection.
[2]. Well, server-based solutions are expensive on the Linus Torvalds level. Have you seen the merges that guy does? Scary.
[3]. You're right, except that there are no arch servers (by server, I'm guessing the guy means "main ftp archive" or something). But sometimes it's better to have a smart client. I definitely don't want Apache trying to render web pages for me... sending an image to a dumb browser, no matter how annoying IE vs Mozilla incompatibility gets! :) But yeah, in a highly centralized, probably corporate-style, environment, arch is probably not as good a fit as Subversion.
[4] & [5] follow from being decentralized because the distributed trees all maintain the history. It obviates the need to specifically keep mirrors of the main archive around since each local archive is already a mirror. At least, that's my understanding of it.
As far as the author is concerned, I'm guessing he's just trying to advertise his wares. He may have failed due to his poor writing, but I'm guessing his goal was marketing. You might contact him about it... you know: download arch, get a copy of his tree, write up a patch, and publish the archive. hehehehe
-l
right, which was the point of my original post:
Here is short comparison of why you might want to use arch over Subversion, depending on your project's needs
-l
I was simply pointing out why arch's "ordinary files" are more managable, from a code perspective, than databases.
-l
The point is that having a local archive of all the versions allows you, for example, to grep through the source for that old snippet of code in some version that you need but aren't sure what version it's in. Sure, you can checkout all the Subversion versions locally, but arch does it implicitly. I think that's pretty sweet.
dig around in here to get an idea of what the file tree looks like:
http://regexps.com/src/src/arch/%7barch%7d/
-l
1) I'm not bashing Subversion. Reread what I said.
2) The author isn't bashing Subversion. His point is he thinks arch has some better features, particularly for open source-style development.
3) bash and awk both run on Windows and Mac. The author says (in another document on the website) there's also a Perl version in the works.
4) ftp is not an issue since ssh can masquerade ftp well enough.
-l
Here is short comparison of why you might want to use arch over Subversion, depending on your project's needs:
http://regexps.com/src/src/arch/=FAQS/subversion
-l
I haven't used ClearCase, but I'm wondering if something like arch or BitKeeper with native support for distributed trees wouldn't help some of these central-server merging problems?
curious,
-l
well, let's not put the cart before the horse. Who's to say the policy of the Feds didn't in fact lead to the SnL scandals? convince Reagan that grotesque military spending was good?
I'm just skeptical of it.
Besides, there's a reason why USG hasn't sold off Fort Knox. The partial reserve system is borrowing against Fate, cosigned by Providence. It's only a matter of time... Scare people enough and they will run the banks and that will be the end of the Fed, lock, stock, and barrel.
-l
The irony is that it's our laws that create the Corporate Capitalist hegemonies. In thanks, these hegemonies lobby the government for special treatment. The feedback loop is obvious. The solution isn't. I support killing that too sweet collusion between business and government by severely scaling back patents and copyrights, having more enforcement of the corporate death penalty, eliminating corporate income tax and instituting a corporate flat tax, removing perpetrators of victimless crimes from prison to make room for corporate criminals in "federal ass-pounding prison", destroying the laws that make corporations "public persons", eliminating corporate campaign contributions.
That sort of thing.
-l
Greenspan sits atop one of the highest apexes of unelected power in the world, a tool and author of vast economic policy. He's a hard core monetarist. Whatever lip service he pays to the free market, his main job is micromanaging the money supply at the official behest of the US government.
Is this sort of meddling in the market really what a n "acolyte of Rand" would do? I don't think so.
-l
p.s., none of this has to do with whether I agree with the meddling, just taking issue with your accusation.
hrm, so what would "true freedom" be, exactly? Freedom from Freedom[tm]'s hypocrisy? is it that the Bill of Rights doesn't have enough rights listed in it or that they aren't consistently enforced/supported?
-l
-l
-l
I'm not sure your claim makes much sense though... once you go far enough left or right, the result is the same. My take on the extreme positions:
Left: Eventually, all property and planning is coalesced into one central government run by a few powerful individuals.
Right: Eventually, all property and planning is coalesced into one central monopoly run by a few powerful individuals.
Since the problem is the concentration of power under a few individuals, it doesn't matter what the label for it is. This is why I view my relatively libertarian (lowercase L) position as a moderate one: I reject all gross concentrations of unelected power, left or right, governmental or corporate.
-l
That's a good idea. That way, only MBAs will ever hold office. ;)
-l
You didn't state it as an opinion, but as an obligation.
-l
So.... you're saying our drunk driving laws are off-target?
hehehehe
-l
Just like the Ring itself has power over the bearer. Fortunately, Jackson didn't cut that out.
-l
I'm glad you're here to tell us what should be in the genre.
-l