Ho ho hum.... I'm currently planning ahome-server that would hold my music-collection. I would propably keep it in mp3-formet (for playback in as many devices as possible), and I would propably have them in FLAC as well. FLAC compresses the audio by about 50%. Combine that with the mp3's and various other files that would be on the server (documents, video etc. etc.) and I can easily see the need for huge hard-drives. Now I just have to figure out a way to back up all that data....
""Continue" should obviously be called "Delete", especially since it's a pretty destructive operation."
Why should that option be available at all since (and I quote) "You dont currently have permission to delete this file."? If I click on "Continue" would it delete the file even though I don't have the permissions to do so? Will it just display the dialog-box again? WHy have that option in there at all?
The real issue here is that American's view other constructs of justice and social laws as being backwards and wrong. Who is to say that guilty until proven innocent is anymore right or wrong than innocent until proven innocent. I don't agree with the European method, but I am an American.
In Europe, person is also considered innocent until proven quilty. I really fail to see where this notion that in Europe you are quilty until proven innocent comes from. Fox News?
Each system has it's drawbacks. To us in Europe, the US legal-system doesn't seem that great either. It seems that anyone can sue anyone for some bogus reasons, and the one with better lawyers wins. And even though the lawsuit is totally bogus, it just keep on going. SCO vs. IBM has been going on for THREE YEARS. And to this date, SCO has not presented one shred of evidence to back up their claims. And the case is still going strong. What's wrong with this picture?
For some reason I'm reminded by this piece of dialogue from Office Space:
Tom Smykowski: It's a "Jump to Conclusions mat". You see, you have this mat, with different CONCLUSIONS written on it that you could JUMP TO. Michael Bolton: That's the worst idea I've ever heard in my life, Tom. Samir: Yes, this is horrible, this idea.
"The point is that IIS came from 0% to 25% in 5 years, and is still growing."
Uh, apart from this blib in the radar, IIS has been pretty stable at around 20% since october 2003 (and before that date, IIS's share was DROPPING). And if you look at stats at Netcraft, you will see that IIS made an entry to the list back in 1996. So it's 10 years, not 5. In about 18 months, IIS rose to about 20% and now, over EIGHT years later, it's STILL at that 20%!
Besides the second core, you need to replace that "media center" OS with XP Pro (add $149), increase the HD (closest one is the 120GB HD (add $35), add Bluetooth (+$59). By doing that, we have a computer that costs $2142, and it STILL doesn't have the nice touches of the Mac.
And that means that compared to the Mac, the vid-card on that Dell is CRAP. I actually went to dell.com and customized a E1505 to match that of a MacBook. I made these changes:
- Replaced the default-CPU with 2GHZ core-duo - Replaced the Media-center OS with XP Pro - Replaced the default screen with SXGA+-screen - Increased the HD to 100GB - Replaced the optical-drive with DVD-burner - Added Bluetooth - Replaced the crappy integrated vid-card with Ati X1400 (X1600 is not available)
With those specs, it closely matches the more expensive MacBook that costs $2499. How much does the Dell cost now? $2300. So it's about $200 less. But for that $200 you get OS X, backlit-keyboard, slot-loading optical-drive, all-aluminium construction, better vid-card and magnetic power-cord.
I can't call the Mac expensive when compared to the Dell. I just can't.
Another area where people like to call Mac overpriced is the PowerMac-range. But I dare ANYONE so show me a dual-dual x86-machine with lower price and comparable specs as the hi-end PowerMac has.
And before anyone calls me a Mac-fanboy, I'm not. In fact, I'm in the process of selling my Mac.
many times, using an external mouse with a laptop is a pain in the ass. Which is why I can't understand why Apple doesn't move the Mighty Mouse button-tech in to iBook/PowerBook
Yep, I know that the names I listed (apart from F-spot) are actual words, as is GIMP. But they should still reconsider the names. Just because it means "something" in some weird (more or less) language, does not mean that it's a good name for generam use. And GIMP is just plain BAD. What on EARTH were they thinking?!?
How about apps like F-spot (where does that name come from? A joke on G-spot? Yeah, very funny. In junior high), Sabayon, Ekiga and the like. Yes, those are all GNOME-apps. For some reason, GNOME-guys seem to be hell-bent on giving their apps the weirdest names possible.
Finland has similar system as Belgium does. And the are NOT sent to third-world countries, but they are recycled. Well, in Finland, they are not sent to the manufacturer, but to recycling-plants (for free). There they get recycled. Refrigerators have their freon collected and processed in controlled fashion before they are recycled. All the useful elements and material are extracted and reused. This system hasn't been in use for long, but it has caused the amount of stuff being sent to recycling to increase by a lot. And there's a lot less stuff being thrown to the forests etc., since it's easy to dispose it properly. In the past, disposing large appliances and electronics was a pain in the ass.
The downside of this system is that prices of electronics and appliances have this "recycling-tax" in 'em. But the price-increase is few euros for a large appliance, so it's more than reasonable.
Their customers wanted 64-bit, and they vastly preferred an x86 chip to do it. "Why can't we have a 64-bit x86 chip?" they were saying, either directly to Dell or indirectly by buying Opteron-based servers.
And that begs the question: If Dell is not "Intels lapdog" why couldn't they start selling those Opterons? Apparently their customers wanted them, but instead of selling Opterons, they pushed Intel in to adding 64bit capability to Pentiums and Xeons.
"Just because it's what's happening with other OSs, does not mean it's a good thing."
Of course we all want the system to consume as little RAM as possible. But since it actually DOES more, it usually consumes more resources as well. Of course, you can scale back on the features to reduce the resource-consumption. And are you talking about the kernel or the entire system here? The post I replied to talked about the _distribution_. If you feel the distro is too bloated, feel free to reduce eye-candy and start-up services for example. And you can even scale back on kernel-features. I would say that the system/kernel is increasing in size SLOWER than the hardware is increasing in capabilities. So things are getting better.
"Yes, as more technologies emerge, they will need to be integrated into the kernel, but presumably some old stuff should be taken out too"
Go right ahead and do that. But just because there's some "stuff" you don't use, does not mean that there's no-one using those features. But if you do find them useless, feel free to rip them out.
Uh, this turned from discussion about Linux'es mem-consumption in to "Linux sucks! I rather use Windows XP!". What does that exactly have to do with Linux'es memory-footprint? Is Windows XP better in that area? I doubt it.
"What I was trying to prove was that the memory footprint for a modern Linux distribution, running a modern Linux kernel, is larger than a more older distro/kernel."
In related news: Windows XP consumes more RAM than Windows 3.11 does. OS X consumes more RAM than MacOS 8 does. More shocking revelations to follow!
"The book talks about brushes with both Jobs and Woz as well - in fact it's significantly less than flattering to Apple and isn't exactly shining about Woz's ability as an engineer. I'm an Apple fan and have a number of their machines, but I've read enough positive things over the years to find it quite refreshing to read a negative view as well."
Well, if you compare the Amiga with the Mac, you will see that the Amiga is clearly superior of the two, so there might be some truth in their comments about Woz. Well, I don't think that Woz was a _bad_ engineer, far, far from it. It's just that Jay Miner and other Amiga-engineers were _better_.
Simple, those are stand-alone operating systems that can be fully functional without any GNU software packages.
And Linux CAN be fully functional without any GNU-packages as well. And before you say "But you need GCC to compile the kernel!". So what? Like I already said elsewhere, OS X is compiled with GCC as well, and we are not calling it GNU/Mac, now are we? Why should Linux be treated differently?
Without GNU or other third party software, there would be no boot loader
LILO?
no C libraries
*BSD-libraries?
no compiler
ICC, Pathscale...
no userland or shell
There are plenty of shells to choose from. And there are plenty of userland tools to choose from.
Why is it such a big deal to simply give credit where is due?
Because GNU/Linux sounds dumb? Because GNU is not included in to names of other systems that use GNU, but somehow it _must_ be added in front of Linux? That's irrational.
"If KDE, X, etc were created using GNU tools (not really sure, just an example), I'd say GNU would have more of leg to claim GNU in the title. Without the GNU foundations, nothing could be built."
To me as an user, that's all irrelevant. When I see the tools and apps in front of me, I don't care one bit what they were built with. And OS X is built with GNU-tools as well, yet no-one is demanding that it should be called "GNU/Mac OS".
Slashdot Mirror
I just prefer this:
10 PRINT "Look mom, I'm a programmer!"
20 GOTO 10
Ho ho hum.... I'm currently planning ahome-server that would hold my music-collection. I would propably keep it in mp3-formet (for playback in as many devices as possible), and I would propably have them in FLAC as well. FLAC compresses the audio by about 50%. Combine that with the mp3's and various other files that would be on the server (documents, video etc. etc.) and I can easily see the need for huge hard-drives. Now I just have to figure out a way to back up all that data....
""Continue" should obviously be called "Delete", especially since it's a pretty destructive operation."
Why should that option be available at all since (and I quote) "You dont currently have permission to delete this file."? If I click on "Continue" would it delete the file even though I don't have the permissions to do so? Will it just display the dialog-box again? WHy have that option in there at all?
In Europe, person is also considered innocent until proven quilty. I really fail to see where this notion that in Europe you are quilty until proven innocent comes from. Fox News?
Each system has it's drawbacks. To us in Europe, the US legal-system doesn't seem that great either. It seems that anyone can sue anyone for some bogus reasons, and the one with better lawyers wins. And even though the lawsuit is totally bogus, it just keep on going. SCO vs. IBM has been going on for THREE YEARS. And to this date, SCO has not presented one shred of evidence to back up their claims. And the case is still going strong. What's wrong with this picture?
For some reason I'm reminded by this piece of dialogue from Office Space:
Tom Smykowski: It's a "Jump to Conclusions mat". You see, you have this mat, with different CONCLUSIONS written on it that you could JUMP TO.
Michael Bolton: That's the worst idea I've ever heard in my life, Tom.
Samir: Yes, this is horrible, this idea.
"The point is that IIS came from 0% to 25% in 5 years, and is still growing."
Uh, apart from this blib in the radar, IIS has been pretty stable at around 20% since october 2003 (and before that date, IIS's share was DROPPING). And if you look at stats at Netcraft, you will see that IIS made an entry to the list back in 1996. So it's 10 years, not 5. In about 18 months, IIS rose to about 20% and now, over EIGHT years later, it's STILL at that 20%!
Oh, be still my beating heart!
And since Apache has around 70% market-share, I guess it's safe to say that Windows/IIS is doomed?
Well, Tarantella is not the same SCO as the one who we know and love.
No it's not. It's basically a replacement for XP Home.
Besides the second core, you need to replace that "media center" OS with XP Pro (add $149), increase the HD (closest one is the 120GB HD (add $35), add Bluetooth (+$59). By doing that, we have a computer that costs $2142, and it STILL doesn't have the nice touches of the Mac.
And that means that compared to the Mac, the vid-card on that Dell is CRAP. I actually went to dell.com and customized a E1505 to match that of a MacBook. I made these changes:
- Replaced the default-CPU with 2GHZ core-duo
- Replaced the Media-center OS with XP Pro
- Replaced the default screen with SXGA+-screen
- Increased the HD to 100GB
- Replaced the optical-drive with DVD-burner
- Added Bluetooth
- Replaced the crappy integrated vid-card with Ati X1400 (X1600 is not available)
With those specs, it closely matches the more expensive MacBook that costs $2499. How much does the Dell cost now? $2300. So it's about $200 less. But for that $200 you get OS X, backlit-keyboard, slot-loading optical-drive, all-aluminium construction, better vid-card and magnetic power-cord.
I can't call the Mac expensive when compared to the Dell. I just can't.
Another area where people like to call Mac overpriced is the PowerMac-range. But I dare ANYONE so show me a dual-dual x86-machine with lower price and comparable specs as the hi-end PowerMac has.
And before anyone calls me a Mac-fanboy, I'm not. In fact, I'm in the process of selling my Mac.
many times, using an external mouse with a laptop is a pain in the ass. Which is why I can't understand why Apple doesn't move the Mighty Mouse button-tech in to iBook/PowerBook
Yep, I know that the names I listed (apart from F-spot) are actual words, as is GIMP. But they should still reconsider the names. Just because it means "something" in some weird (more or less) language, does not mean that it's a good name for generam use. And GIMP is just plain BAD. What on EARTH were they thinking?!?
How about apps like F-spot (where does that name come from? A joke on G-spot? Yeah, very funny. In junior high), Sabayon, Ekiga and the like. Yes, those are all GNOME-apps. For some reason, GNOME-guys seem to be hell-bent on giving their apps the weirdest names possible.
"An "anaesthetic" is something you take before you have surgery to numb the body parts that would feel pain."
Sometimes I feel that anaesthetics is exactly what is needed when using OpenOffice....
Finland has similar system as Belgium does. And the are NOT sent to third-world countries, but they are recycled. Well, in Finland, they are not sent to the manufacturer, but to recycling-plants (for free). There they get recycled. Refrigerators have their freon collected and processed in controlled fashion before they are recycled. All the useful elements and material are extracted and reused. This system hasn't been in use for long, but it has caused the amount of stuff being sent to recycling to increase by a lot. And there's a lot less stuff being thrown to the forests etc., since it's easy to dispose it properly. In the past, disposing large appliances and electronics was a pain in the ass.
The downside of this system is that prices of electronics and appliances have this "recycling-tax" in 'em. But the price-increase is few euros for a large appliance, so it's more than reasonable.
And that begs the question: If Dell is not "Intels lapdog" why couldn't they start selling those Opterons? Apparently their customers wanted them, but instead of selling Opterons, they pushed Intel in to adding 64bit capability to Pentiums and Xeons.
"Just because it's what's happening with other OSs, does not mean it's a good thing."
Of course we all want the system to consume as little RAM as possible. But since it actually DOES more, it usually consumes more resources as well. Of course, you can scale back on the features to reduce the resource-consumption. And are you talking about the kernel or the entire system here? The post I replied to talked about the _distribution_. If you feel the distro is too bloated, feel free to reduce eye-candy and start-up services for example. And you can even scale back on kernel-features. I would say that the system/kernel is increasing in size SLOWER than the hardware is increasing in capabilities. So things are getting better.
"Yes, as more technologies emerge, they will need to be integrated into the kernel, but presumably some old stuff should be taken out too"
Go right ahead and do that. But just because there's some "stuff" you don't use, does not mean that there's no-one using those features. But if you do find them useless, feel free to rip them out.
770 Internet Tablet uses some GNOME-stuff but it's NOT GNOME. Not by a long shot
Uh, this turned from discussion about Linux'es mem-consumption in to "Linux sucks! I rather use Windows XP!". What does that exactly have to do with Linux'es memory-footprint? Is Windows XP better in that area? I doubt it.
"What I was trying to prove was that the memory footprint for a modern Linux distribution, running a modern Linux kernel, is larger than a more older distro/kernel."
In related news: Windows XP consumes more RAM than Windows 3.11 does. OS X consumes more RAM than MacOS 8 does. More shocking revelations to follow!
"The book talks about brushes with both Jobs and Woz as well - in fact it's significantly less than flattering to Apple and isn't exactly shining about Woz's ability as an engineer. I'm an Apple fan and have a number of their machines, but I've read enough positive things over the years to find it quite refreshing to read a negative view as well."
Well, if you compare the Amiga with the Mac, you will see that the Amiga is clearly superior of the two, so there might be some truth in their comments about Woz. Well, I don't think that Woz was a _bad_ engineer, far, far from it. It's just that Jay Miner and other Amiga-engineers were _better_.
Oh Amiga, how I miss thee....
And Linux CAN be fully functional without any GNU-packages as well. And before you say "But you need GCC to compile the kernel!". So what? Like I already said elsewhere, OS X is compiled with GCC as well, and we are not calling it GNU/Mac, now are we? Why should Linux be treated differently?
LILO?
*BSD-libraries?
ICC, Pathscale...
There are plenty of shells to choose from. And there are plenty of userland tools to choose from.
Because GNU/Linux sounds dumb? Because GNU is not included in to names of other systems that use GNU, but somehow it _must_ be added in front of Linux? That's irrational.
"If KDE, X, etc were created using GNU tools (not really sure, just an example), I'd say GNU would have more of leg to claim GNU in the title. Without the GNU foundations, nothing could be built."
To me as an user, that's all irrelevant. When I see the tools and apps in front of me, I don't care one bit what they were built with. And OS X is built with GNU-tools as well, yet no-one is demanding that it should be called "GNU/Mac OS".
So, if the system is compiled with GCC, it must be called GNU/Something? So why don't we have GNU/MacOS then? Why is Linux the exception?
No, GCC alone is not enough to rename the system.