I'm also quite unclear on why mac has this reputation for good usability/interface because in the few times I have used it I have encountered interface inconsistencies even within the base applications such as network settings. (e.g. radio buttons for "on"/"off" in one interface(dhcp) and a drop down box for "enable"/"disable" for another(static))
I have a drop down to select DHCP, DHCP with manual address, bootp, and manual. In fact, I don't see radio buttons anywhere in "Network" system preferences. http://www.rit.edu/its/services/desktop_support/mac/releaserenewipaddress.html Those are old screenshots, and I'm using Leopard.. Still no idea where you are coming from.
Not that there aren't inconsistencies somewhere, but I've got over a decade of experience with Windows from 95 to XP, nearly as much with GTK/GNOME, and a couple years with OS X. It is clear as day why OS X has a good usability reputation. Again, I can find flaws, but how one could not even guess how they earned the reputation, yet understand what usability means is beyond me.
And, of course, inconsistencies between applications, too. Mail settings have cancel/save/apply buttons, but to save network config changes you have to close the window(hit the red x) and then get presented with an option to apply changes.
Where the hell did you find a cancel/save/apply menu on OS X?? Sorry for the language, but you must have got that mixed up with something else. Windows maybe? I can find no apply buttons in Mail. This is consistent with nearly all OS X applications, in that settings are changed, and remembered instantly. In the Network panel, there is something similar to what you describe. There are "Apply" and "Revert" options. You NEED this for network configuration, and many other system wide configuration tasks. Someone should be hung by their balls if fiddling with network settings happened live in a UI. If you don't apply changes and click the red X, you get a prompt: "Don't Apply", "Cancel", "Apply". In case it is not immediately obvious, Apply makes settings take effect, Revert clears changes you haven't applied (clean slate), Don't Apply exits without applying, Cancel closes the dialog without exiting, the dialog's Apply does so and exits. This is the only panel I can find in System Preferences that works like this. The others work like other applications where your change is immediate. Network settings is an appropriate place to skip this consistency.
This is actually a great example of Apple's attention to usability...
Hitting a red x to apply your changes is almost as silly as hitting the start button in windows to stop your pc.:)
You missed the Apply button in Network preferences, or was it not obvious your changes were applied in real time elsewhere?
in the few times I have used it
Between you and me, you need to spend a LITTLE more time with it to talk usability. Put up screenshots at least, maybe you have an older version, and might have had some valid points. Hey, if that was the case, try a newer version and see what was corrected. That would probably be the best demonstration of how Apple earned it's reputation.
If more people were like the GP, in fact, we would have corps raping and pillaging half the world right now, stealing and engaging in all kinds of hypocrisy when they think they won't get caught, offering an insincere "oops, our bad" if they do get caught. He doesn't need to be a developer to take a stand, hell anyone can take a stand, he's doing it, good for him.
You entirely missed the parent's point.
GP:
Nintendo literally hates open source. Guess I'll skip that DSi.
That is not standing up for open source. Nintendo doesn't want ANYTHING to do with open source. Amazingly that is a problem for some people.
BTW anon cow, the GPL is viral, by design.
I suspect you are not much of a open source fan or a BSD zealot or you wouldn't be calling the GPL viral. Get off your high horse, if you would, your snide attitude doesn't help our cause; if you are truly against the GPL, you aren't much of an ally anyway (preferences are fine, the zealotry I'm speaking of is downright destructive).
Your cause? Ally? You need to get laid. Having all new software in the world released under GPL would be a tinkerer's wet dream, and that's about all. Don't buy into the 'all software must be free just because it's software' crap. The parent is right, if you aren't a tinkerer yourself, then seeing this as a 'cause' is bullshit.
is willing to forgo some personal enjoyment for what he sees as right and moral.
You know, bitching about self signed certs is actually a Good Thing. I'd rather my device/client told me that a cert is only self signed, then that gives me an indication of the level of trust (a self signed certificate just says "i'm ok, trust me").
Well, a signed cert just says someone else vouched for their identity. It has nothing to do with trusting the person presenting the certificate. I'm not just nitpicking, that's a really huge difference. There aren't really many "levels" of trust. There's "Hi, you look great *hug*", and there's "I hope Sxball694 is really a chick." What will the "are you sure" dialog accomplish? What would a certificate stating that its name really is Sxball694 mean? With cryptography, it's black and white. Do we have trusted keys or not. At some point in the chain, they had to be physically delivered, or you can't rule out an electronic form of attack. No maybes about it.
How many times have you ever clicked "no" to one of those untrusted cert dialogs anyway? Not a changed cert, but a brand new one from a new connection. If you don't have a strictly enforced trusted cert only policy, then how would you know when a MitM suppressed one and offered a "good enough" looking untrusted one? Do you know in all cases where there SHOULD be a trusted cert? A gut instinct prompt provides no security.
Even signed certs can't always be trusted. The third party trust model only works when ownership is obvious, and you trust all your root CAs to verify that, along with identity. How is a CA supposed verify who owns some internal IP or private DNS record from a corporate intranet? Do you know what a CA trusts? You trust them implicitly so you damned well should! Phone books and public DNS records. That does not generally help one secure a connection to an exchange server. It doesn't matter that the real server has a corporate CA signed cert, unless the client expects and enforces it. How is implicitly accepting untrusted, first time certs any worse than implicitly accepting "trusted" certs for resources not necessarily owned? Little difference, not knowing someone's name vs. not knowing what their face should look like. What would you expect the owner of www.prepaydebit.com to be? Truth is, trusting a signed cert is not enough in that case. If you're not sure who should own it, and you have no reason to believe a CA would... better hope it hits a revocation list fast if little bad guys are operating it, but that's reactive security.
I guess my point is that when making the first impression, an impersonator only needs to make the minimum effort. Also, things that are not well know are almost impossible to protect from impersonation.
Having to pay for even one ssh client is pretty absurd in the first place. Only in the apple ecosystem would anyone contemplate paying for an ssh client.
Why, is a SSH client particularly easy to write? I demand a free SSH client now, who do I speak to?! Will you make a free SSH client for me? Snap to it, it's my right to have a free SSH client on platform ${FOOBAR}, why is everyone so lazy? Can I pay you in pocket lint, because I'm out of dollars.
Back in 2000 Netscape did a despo gamble like this and its implementation of some java classes was bad. It allowed websites to create classes derived from the server side of the browser and access all the info in the hard disk. Google for Netscape and Brown Orifice for more details.
These were Java bugs from 2000, not something Netscape intentionally allowed. A desperate gamble, WTF?
Such a security hole is waiting to happen. It is really a dumb idea from Apple. One of the biggest plus point of MacOS is that, it is safe and it does not have vulnerabilities. To put that reputation at risk by allowing the browser to dish out data to the outside world is really really a dumb idea.
Yes, there are security features. Yes there are things the user must enable for it to work. Despite all this, having server code loaded up in the memory of a browser is stupid.
From Apple? Who is Apple? Opera? Are you lost? It was Apple's idea? WTF?
However I can see why businesses aren't happy: many rely on old custom legacy systems. They have websites setup for IE 6, rely on legacy era (ie DOS) applications for obscure equipment, some Sales admin/entry software that can only work on certain environments, etc. And hardware, they don't just have to worry about workstations but external devices (like scales, sensors, lab equipment, etc) that might only work with a DOS-based program through an old COM port.
Anyone who bought into MS-(DOS/WINDOWS/*) _PCs_ thinking they'd get twenty years of stability on the cheap deserves the stiff cock to the rectum they get when their consumer level gear obsoletes itself every year. At least be honest and run the upgrade treadmill with the rest of us. You can't blame Microsoft for people writing point-of-sale apps in VB 3... It's been pretty damned obvious for long enough that PCs and associated software are not built for longevity.
That's dumb. Blame the game developers. NAT is fine. In fact, I see the lack of NAT as something major that will hold IPv6 back. The inability of outside hosts to either directly perceive and/or address each internal host on my network is amazing.
Wow, it never ends. s/NAT "firewall"/firewall/
"NAT is bad!" Write that on the chalkboard fifty times before going to recess.
The ideology is simply unimportant in the grand scheme of things.
That is false both in this context and in all contexts.
Well, I guess that would depend on your definition of "grand scheme of things" wouldn't it? Your ideology is not important to mine, for example.
I could say a particular religion is unimportant in the grand scheme of things too, and have many supporters. I could even say religion in general is unimportant in the grand scheme of things, and drown in a thousand reasons why hundreds of religions are important to hundreds of different grand schemes, all mutually exclusive.
Ideals are like this, they come and go, existing only in our minds, twisted around an immutable reality.
You wouldn't be 'owning' the laptop users, you'd be gaining access to their private networks. If you logged enough info from the starbucks network, you could probably discover lots of internal sites that people had bookmarked and forgot which network they were on when clicking it.
The root of the problem seems to be caching scripts from sites the browser can't positively identify. Why didn't anyone think of this when XSS vulnerabilities first hit the front pages? You just shouldn't cache dynamic content from sites without trusted certificates, period:\
You don't even need a pad. Since Natal can sense where you are, standing to the left could have you walk left, jumping to the right could have you dodge right, standing closer to the screen makes you go forward, etc. I'm looking forward to this platform!
Wow, you just made my old Power Glove sound awesome. Listen, this control scheme didn't work for Mario Brothers, and it won't work for L4D.
GP said market rejected UNIX, you say it strongly influenced market anyway, and Windows NT in particular.
I think that's pretty funny considering Windows NT is THE evidence of the market's rejection of UNIX. Nobody can argue that NT didn't trounce UNIX, highlighting (again) how important usability is, even in datacenters. Linux demonstrates that 'usable' UNIX's are in demand though.
Well here's the thing. Almost all Macs rely on FireWire and USB for storage beyond the builtin disk.
Good point, but why would Apple ship cheap FireWire/USB controllers that lie to their own software, breaking it? This issue really underscores the importance of Apple's hardware & software integration.
In the link you posted, the admin found three uberblocks (there are supposed to be four). ZFS correctly made multiple uberblocks, per design. It appears that all three were corrupt. Why? Who the hell knows. Could be that the disk was going bad.
I thought this was hilarious, from GP's link:
"I have a ZFS pool that has been corrupted. The pool contains a single device which was actually a file on UFS. The machine was accidentally halted and now the pool is corrupt."
NetApp is the reason we have ZFS. I thought this was pretty obvious, and I'm not real big on reading blogs. Nobody here (that I've read yet) is comparing the two, and it is not surprising they have similar functionalities, given the above. One is a NAS, one is not. This discussion is centered on filesystems (hopefully you understood at least the headline of the fraking page), and RAID was brought up in comparison to software RAID features of some filesystems. WTF direction are you coming from?
ZFS pundits make a big deal about the ``end-to-end"" nature of their checksums, but the storage vendors design aroudn actual observed failures while the ZFS pundits tend to tell anecdotal war stories or defend against hypothetical problems. It's good that ZFS has protection from the failures their competitors have discovered, but the aggressive punditry is dishonest FUD.
Nice strawman, but who are the competitors you're speaking of, and where is the "FUD" directed?? Other filesystems, or NAS/SAN systems? Do you want to show me how to format a local disk with WAFL on a Solaris, OS X, Windows, or Linux host? How is it even in the same arena as local filesystems?
Are you trying to make the argument that SAN & NAS competes with local storage, or that existing filesystems are 'good enough' - as long as they are backed with expensive (see Hitachi/EMC) backends? I cannot understand what corner you think you're in that would make you get all hostile towards ZFS. Is it the "not ZFS" corner? Are you just against advanced filesystem development in general? I hope not, because you can be sure as shit, they will continue to absorb SAN/NAS features.
Local storage is not going away soon (maybe never), and having some of the features of high end SAN and NAS systems for free is a Good Thing(TM). Also, having most of the features of a high end NAS system overlaid on your SAN system is pretty fucking useful too. How bout dem apples, NAS weanie?
8 years military service here. Security was 24/7 plus when I was in uniform. There was no "snapshot" of security, because everyone was trained from day one to understand that a moment in time is meaningless.
For security, sure, but we're talking certifications here. There is no such thing as 24/7 certification, they are issued once a year or so, and you can fuck everything up in between. Think of all the annual training that you (hopefully, mostly) received. Are you likely to forget how to fire a rifle, tread water, or don a gas mask between qualifications? Probably not, but I'll bet you didn't regularly train in those unless you were infantry. Every so often someone will even fail a semi-annual fitness test, and that "skill" is almost universally maintained year round. Businesses don't do security just for the sake of security, that's not what they're in it for, unlike the military.
The problem is that in an RTS, you play as the "almighty all-seeing controller". If the computer AI can make decisions at a lower level, it's: 1) Not emulating playing another human (not ideal) 2) Keeping track of so much more than a human player can
Like when you're playing Starcraft on the hardest difficulty, and the AI could use every unit's special power in the same instant-- I always yelled "cheater!" since a human couldn't possibly activate a half dozen different special powers on twenty different units in a single frame of animation.
Why shouldn't the player's units be able to do the same thing? Most people don't WANT to micromanage RTS units. I'm sick and tired of telling infantry to move out the way of incoming tanks, and use special powers manually on individual units before they blow up seconds into a firefight.
The PS3 supported bluetooth and USB headsets from day one. Where are all these games that don't support them, that would have if Sony released a first party headset earlier? What planet do you live on?
I watched the video (both of them), but how is Natal's more impressive or less of a tech demo than Sony's? I have GOT to be missing something. The one thing I want to know is how much lag? There is plenty of software out there doing basically what Natal is doing, with PC webcams. None that I have seen have low latency, or a high degree of accuracy. I did not get the impression they've improved on that, but we wont know until they give a live demo.
Sony GAVE a live demo, and it had extremely low latency. Why is everyone saying Sony's was more of a tech demo. WTF did I miss? If you have more Natal videos, PLEASE send them my way, I'm really curious what the hell everyone sees in this.
We've got advanced image recognition on one hand, and that is neat, but motion capture on the other. I'd bet on motion capture. Which will be easier to develop for, and integrate into a game? How will the environment affect either solution? We have much, much more reason to be wary of image recognition failing in poor lighting than motion capture.
I had a CRT HDTV too. It did 480p, 720p, 1080i, but the TV itself was 4:3. Dig & analog tuners, tons of inputs. Perfect for GameCube/Wii, 4:3 format DVDs, and very cheap.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm also quite unclear on why mac has this reputation for good usability/interface because in the few times I have used it I have encountered interface inconsistencies even within the base applications such as network settings. (e.g. radio buttons for "on"/"off" in one interface(dhcp) and a drop down box for "enable"/"disable" for another(static))
I have a drop down to select DHCP, DHCP with manual address, bootp, and manual.
In fact, I don't see radio buttons anywhere in "Network" system preferences.
http://www.rit.edu/its/services/desktop_support/mac/releaserenewipaddress.html
Those are old screenshots, and I'm using Leopard.. Still no idea where you are coming from.
Not that there aren't inconsistencies somewhere, but I've got over a decade of experience with Windows from 95 to XP, nearly as much with GTK/GNOME, and a couple years with OS X. It is clear as day why OS X has a good usability reputation. Again, I can find flaws, but how one could not even guess how they earned the reputation, yet understand what usability means is beyond me.
And, of course, inconsistencies between applications, too. Mail settings have cancel/save/apply buttons, but to save network config changes you have to close the window(hit the red x) and then get presented with an option to apply changes.
Where the hell did you find a cancel/save/apply menu on OS X?? Sorry for the language, but you must have got that mixed up with something else. Windows maybe?
I can find no apply buttons in Mail. This is consistent with nearly all OS X applications, in that settings are changed, and remembered instantly.
In the Network panel, there is something similar to what you describe. There are "Apply" and "Revert" options. You NEED this for network configuration, and many other system wide configuration tasks. Someone should be hung by their balls if fiddling with network settings happened live in a UI. If you don't apply changes and click the red X, you get a prompt: "Don't Apply", "Cancel", "Apply". In case it is not immediately obvious, Apply makes settings take effect, Revert clears changes you haven't applied (clean slate), Don't Apply exits without applying, Cancel closes the dialog without exiting, the dialog's Apply does so and exits. This is the only panel I can find in System Preferences that works like this. The others work like other applications where your change is immediate. Network settings is an appropriate place to skip this consistency.
This is actually a great example of Apple's attention to usability...
Hitting a red x to apply your changes is almost as silly as hitting the start button in windows to stop your pc. :)
You missed the Apply button in Network preferences, or was it not obvious your changes were applied in real time elsewhere?
in the few times I have used it
Between you and me, you need to spend a LITTLE more time with it to talk usability. Put up screenshots at least, maybe you have an older version, and might have had some valid points. Hey, if that was the case, try a newer version and see what was corrected. That would probably be the best demonstration of how Apple earned it's reputation.
If more people were like the GP, in fact, we would have corps raping and pillaging half the world right now, stealing and engaging in all kinds of hypocrisy when they think they won't get caught, offering an insincere "oops, our bad" if they do get caught. He doesn't need to be a developer to take a stand, hell anyone can take a stand, he's doing it, good for him.
You entirely missed the parent's point.
GP:
Nintendo literally hates open source. Guess I'll skip that DSi.
That is not standing up for open source. Nintendo doesn't want ANYTHING to do with open source. Amazingly that is a problem for some people.
BTW anon cow, the GPL is viral, by design.
I suspect you are not much of a open source fan or a BSD zealot or you wouldn't be calling the GPL viral. Get off your high horse, if you would, your snide attitude doesn't help our cause; if you are truly against the GPL, you aren't much of an ally anyway (preferences are fine, the zealotry I'm speaking of is downright destructive).
Your cause? Ally? You need to get laid. Having all new software in the world released under GPL would be a tinkerer's wet dream, and that's about all. Don't buy into the 'all software must be free just because it's software' crap. The parent is right, if you aren't a tinkerer yourself, then seeing this as a 'cause' is bullshit.
is willing to forgo some personal enjoyment for what he sees as right and moral.
Moral. Wow. See a shrink.
You know, bitching about self signed certs is actually a Good Thing. I'd rather my device/client told me that a cert is only self signed, then that gives me an indication of the level of trust (a self signed certificate just says "i'm ok, trust me").
Well, a signed cert just says someone else vouched for their identity. It has nothing to do with trusting the person presenting the certificate. I'm not just nitpicking, that's a really huge difference. There aren't really many "levels" of trust. There's "Hi, you look great *hug*", and there's "I hope Sxball694 is really a chick." What will the "are you sure" dialog accomplish? What would a certificate stating that its name really is Sxball694 mean? With cryptography, it's black and white. Do we have trusted keys or not. At some point in the chain, they had to be physically delivered, or you can't rule out an electronic form of attack. No maybes about it.
How many times have you ever clicked "no" to one of those untrusted cert dialogs anyway? Not a changed cert, but a brand new one from a new connection. If you don't have a strictly enforced trusted cert only policy, then how would you know when a MitM suppressed one and offered a "good enough" looking untrusted one? Do you know in all cases where there SHOULD be a trusted cert? A gut instinct prompt provides no security.
Even signed certs can't always be trusted. The third party trust model only works when ownership is obvious, and you trust all your root CAs to verify that, along with identity. How is a CA supposed verify who owns some internal IP or private DNS record from a corporate intranet? Do you know what a CA trusts? You trust them implicitly so you damned well should! Phone books and public DNS records. That does not generally help one secure a connection to an exchange server. It doesn't matter that the real server has a corporate CA signed cert, unless the client expects and enforces it. How is implicitly accepting untrusted, first time certs any worse than implicitly accepting "trusted" certs for resources not necessarily owned? Little difference, not knowing someone's name vs. not knowing what their face should look like. What would you expect the owner of www.prepaydebit.com to be? Truth is, trusting a signed cert is not enough in that case. If you're not sure who should own it, and you have no reason to believe a CA would... better hope it hits a revocation list fast if little bad guys are operating it, but that's reactive security.
I guess my point is that when making the first impression, an impersonator only needs to make the minimum effort. Also, things that are not well know are almost impossible to protect from impersonation.
Having to pay for even one ssh client is pretty absurd in the first place. Only in the apple ecosystem would anyone contemplate paying for an ssh client.
Why, is a SSH client particularly easy to write? I demand a free SSH client now, who do I speak to?! Will you make a free SSH client for me? Snap to it, it's my right to have a free SSH client on platform ${FOOBAR}, why is everyone so lazy? Can I pay you in pocket lint, because I'm out of dollars.
A simple connlimit declaration in IPTables shuts this down fairly easily...
Will that work for anyone using load balancers (read: people with sites worth hitting)?
Back in 2000 Netscape did a despo gamble like this and its implementation of some java classes was bad. It allowed websites to create classes derived from the server side of the browser and access all the info in the hard disk.
Google for Netscape and Brown Orifice for more details.
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/70
These were Java bugs from 2000, not something Netscape intentionally allowed. A desperate gamble, WTF?
Such a security hole is waiting to happen. It is really a dumb idea from Apple. One of the biggest plus point of MacOS is that, it is safe and it does not have vulnerabilities. To put that reputation at risk by allowing the browser to dish out data to the outside world is really really a dumb idea.
Yes, there are security features. Yes there are things the user must enable for it to work. Despite all this, having server code loaded up in the memory of a browser is stupid.
From Apple? Who is Apple? Opera? Are you lost? It was Apple's idea? WTF?
Have /. mods gone completely fucking insane?
However I can see why businesses aren't happy: many rely on old custom legacy systems. They have websites setup for IE 6, rely on legacy era (ie DOS) applications for obscure equipment, some Sales admin/entry software that can only work on certain environments, etc. And hardware, they don't just have to worry about workstations but external devices (like scales, sensors, lab equipment, etc) that might only work with a DOS-based program through an old COM port.
Anyone who bought into MS-(DOS/WINDOWS/*) _PCs_ thinking they'd get twenty years of stability on the cheap deserves the stiff cock to the rectum they get when their consumer level gear obsoletes itself every year. At least be honest and run the upgrade treadmill with the rest of us. You can't blame Microsoft for people writing point-of-sale apps in VB 3... It's been pretty damned obvious for long enough that PCs and associated software are not built for longevity.
That's dumb. Blame the game developers. NAT is fine. In fact, I see the lack of NAT as something major that will hold IPv6 back. The inability of outside hosts to either directly perceive and/or address each internal host on my network is amazing.
Wow, it never ends.
s/NAT "firewall"/firewall/
"NAT is bad!" Write that on the chalkboard fifty times before going to recess.
The ideology is simply unimportant in the grand scheme of things.
That is false both in this context and in all contexts.
Well, I guess that would depend on your definition of "grand scheme of things" wouldn't it?
Your ideology is not important to mine, for example.
I could say a particular religion is unimportant in the grand scheme of things too, and have many supporters.
I could even say religion in general is unimportant in the grand scheme of things, and drown in a thousand reasons why hundreds of religions are important to hundreds of different grand schemes, all mutually exclusive.
Ideals are like this, they come and go, existing only in our minds, twisted around an immutable reality.
You wouldn't be 'owning' the laptop users, you'd be gaining access to their private networks. If you logged enough info from the starbucks network, you could probably discover lots of internal sites that people had bookmarked and forgot which network they were on when clicking it.
The root of the problem seems to be caching scripts from sites the browser can't positively identify. Why didn't anyone think of this when XSS vulnerabilities first hit the front pages? You just shouldn't cache dynamic content from sites without trusted certificates, period :\
Power Glove /facepalm
Believing in yet another Microsoft promise of super cool technology real soon now; Priceless.
You don't even need a pad. Since Natal can sense where you are, standing to the left could have you walk left, jumping to the right could have you dodge right, standing closer to the screen makes you go forward, etc. I'm looking forward to this platform!
Wow, you just made my old Power Glove sound awesome. Listen, this control scheme didn't work for Mario Brothers, and it won't work for L4D.
GP said market rejected UNIX, you say it strongly influenced market anyway, and Windows NT in particular.
I think that's pretty funny considering Windows NT is THE evidence of the market's rejection of UNIX. Nobody can argue that NT didn't trounce UNIX, highlighting (again) how important usability is, even in datacenters. Linux demonstrates that 'usable' UNIX's are in demand though.
Well here's the thing. Almost all Macs rely on FireWire and USB for storage beyond the builtin disk.
Good point, but why would Apple ship cheap FireWire/USB controllers that lie to their own software, breaking it?
This issue really underscores the importance of Apple's hardware & software integration.
In the link you posted, the admin found three uberblocks (there are supposed to be four). ZFS correctly made multiple uberblocks, per design. It appears that all three were corrupt. Why? Who the hell knows. Could be that the disk was going bad.
I thought this was hilarious, from GP's link:
"I have a ZFS pool that has been corrupted. The pool contains a single device which was actually a file on UFS. The machine was accidentally halted and now the pool is corrupt."
NetApp is the reason we have ZFS. I thought this was pretty obvious, and I'm not real big on reading blogs.
Nobody here (that I've read yet) is comparing the two, and it is not surprising they have similar functionalities, given the above. One is a NAS, one is not.
This discussion is centered on filesystems (hopefully you understood at least the headline of the fraking page), and RAID was brought up in comparison to software RAID features of some filesystems. WTF direction are you coming from?
ZFS pundits make a big deal about the ``end-to-end"" nature of their checksums, but the storage vendors design aroudn actual observed failures while the ZFS pundits tend to tell anecdotal war stories or defend against hypothetical problems. It's good that ZFS has protection from the failures their competitors have discovered, but the aggressive punditry is dishonest FUD.
Nice strawman, but who are the competitors you're speaking of, and where is the "FUD" directed?? Other filesystems, or NAS/SAN systems? Do you want to show me how to format a local disk with WAFL on a Solaris, OS X, Windows, or Linux host? How is it even in the same arena as local filesystems?
Are you trying to make the argument that SAN & NAS competes with local storage, or that existing filesystems are 'good enough' - as long as they are backed with expensive (see Hitachi/EMC) backends? I cannot understand what corner you think you're in that would make you get all hostile towards ZFS. Is it the "not ZFS" corner? Are you just against advanced filesystem development in general? I hope not, because you can be sure as shit, they will continue to absorb SAN/NAS features.
Local storage is not going away soon (maybe never), and having some of the features of high end SAN and NAS systems for free is a Good Thing(TM).
Also, having most of the features of a high end NAS system overlaid on your SAN system is pretty fucking useful too. How bout dem apples, NAS weanie?
You can easily import/export ZFS snapshots with zfs send|receive.
zfs send snapshot | ssh other zfs receive pool
Or send to a regular file...
8 years military service here. Security was 24/7 plus when I was in uniform. There was no "snapshot" of security, because everyone was trained from day one to understand that a moment in time is meaningless.
For security, sure, but we're talking certifications here. There is no such thing as 24/7 certification, they are issued once a year or so, and you can fuck everything up in between.
Think of all the annual training that you (hopefully, mostly) received. Are you likely to forget how to fire a rifle, tread water, or don a gas mask between qualifications? Probably not, but I'll bet you didn't regularly train in those unless you were infantry. Every so often someone will even fail a semi-annual fitness test, and that "skill" is almost universally maintained year round. Businesses don't do security just for the sake of security, that's not what they're in it for, unlike the military.
The problem is that in an RTS, you play as the "almighty all-seeing controller". If the computer AI can make decisions at a lower level, it's:
1) Not emulating playing another human (not ideal)
2) Keeping track of so much more than a human player can
Like when you're playing Starcraft on the hardest difficulty, and the AI could use every unit's special power in the same instant-- I always yelled "cheater!" since a human couldn't possibly activate a half dozen different special powers on twenty different units in a single frame of animation.
Why shouldn't the player's units be able to do the same thing? Most people don't WANT to micromanage RTS units.
I'm sick and tired of telling infantry to move out the way of incoming tanks, and use special powers manually on individual units before they blow up seconds into a firefight.
The PS3 supported bluetooth and USB headsets from day one. Where are all these games that don't support them, that would have if Sony released a first party headset earlier?
What planet do you live on?
I watched the video (both of them), but how is Natal's more impressive or less of a tech demo than Sony's? I have GOT to be missing something.
The one thing I want to know is how much lag? There is plenty of software out there doing basically what Natal is doing, with PC webcams. None that I have seen have low latency, or a high degree of accuracy. I did not get the impression they've improved on that, but we wont know until they give a live demo.
Sony GAVE a live demo, and it had extremely low latency. Why is everyone saying Sony's was more of a tech demo. WTF did I miss? If you have more Natal videos, PLEASE send them my way, I'm really curious what the hell everyone sees in this.
We've got advanced image recognition on one hand, and that is neat, but motion capture on the other. I'd bet on motion capture. Which will be easier to develop for, and integrate into a game? How will the environment affect either solution? We have much, much more reason to be wary of image recognition failing in poor lighting than motion capture.
I'm just leaving a note here so I can Google (or Bing) this next year and get an even bigger laugh out of it than just now.
rofl_yolotd
You must mean Larry Ellison, and I think you understated it.
I had a CRT HDTV too. It did 480p, 720p, 1080i, but the TV itself was 4:3. Dig & analog tuners, tons of inputs. Perfect for GameCube/Wii, 4:3 format DVDs, and very cheap.
It's very easy to program on Linux machines. Just follow the POSIX standard.
ROFLMAO
Thanks, that felt good.
Now if what you want to do is write the kind of GUI only program that Windows is known for
I just fell out of my chair!