Actually, the grandparent of my comment stated exactly that. The parent was criticizing the number of steps to use the GUI-mode configuration, which is extremely similar in function to the method in Red Hat's GUI that you describe. I merely provided a three-step, albiet low-level, way to do the same in Windows. The closest thing Windows has to command line service control is "net start" and "net stop", neither of which actually disables the service.
Steps to stop and disable a service running on WinXP: 9
Will you Linux zealots ever realize there's more than one way to do things?
Let's do it Linux-style! (Manually editing low-level config options)
Open regedit
Browse to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Servic es\Messenger
Change the value of "Start" to 4.
Of course, you have to be an admin to do such a thing (or use run as...), but you never included the su command either.
I could easily make a.reg file that changes it in one double-click operation. I hate when people compare the graphical, slow way to do something in Windows with Linux command-line wizardry.
Furthermore, Google searches are case-insensitive, which makes it even more ambiguous. Now, I would like if I could do a case-sensitive search on request, especially for individual terms. "iTMS" is not "ITMS" when I'm looking for the former.
WINDOWS has a text based install...at least the first half of it...
That's only if you start the install from the bootable CD. Most people I've worked with (as a home/small-business computing consultant) start their installs from Windows.
It's a simple question of weight ratios...
on
CNet on WinFS
·
· Score: 1
Well, it isn't, but the overhead of such an inplementation has to be balanced with performance. NTFS is already fairly high overhead. I would rather see a small NTFS OS loader partition that initializes a main database partition. That way, there wouldn't be the overhead of NTFS on the main partition. I would hate to have my media library stored fully in NTFS and described by a database. It would be no different than using a modern media player.
Of course documentation is more important than one's word, but the filing for the patent is an awfully belated form of documentation. Ideally, one should document one's ideas at their inception. And no, the first filer doesn't automatically get the patent. The person who proves they had the earliest conception of the idea gets it.
If you run windows, that probably means running windows 95 or 3.1.
Actually, no. I'm not sure about Windows 95, but Windows 3.1x does not idle the processor, ever. This mean the processor is occupied 100%, even if barely anything is running. There is a warning in VMWare's documentation about this, since running Windows 3.1x in VMWare will max out your processor, whatever speed it is.
One of the references is to "New sites aim to personalize web navigation", Information & Interactive Services Report, BRP Publications, vol. 17, Issue 31, 9/96". The patent was filed in 12/96. So by definition, anything that was in that report can not be a claim of this patent.
The patent filing date is not the same as "who thought of it first." I could think of an idea today and document it. You could think of it tomorrow and document it. I could still file for a patent on Monday. My filing is not an admission that that date is when I first thought of it. In fact, it's ridiculous to think filing dates coincide with the inception of ideas.
I have nothing of truly insightful value to say, except that the whole A.C.E.S. fourth floor project (where they're putting the cluster) is kind of mysterious. It's still under real construction, as in glass, metal, drywall, and more. I'm not surprised they're putting the cluster in A.C.E.S., though. It's a nearly brand-new building with an easily upgradable communications infrastructure.
On a completely unrelated note, go tsunami! (UT's nearly campus-wide 802.11b WLAN)
You have actually figured out all this license nonsense, you are starting to sound like a PHB.
That's a nice comma splice, but I'll take the bait anyway. I don't word at a company, though I do some independant consulting work. At the time, I was the editor of my high school newspaper and set up a native Windows 2000 network. It took me about an hour to understand the licensing with the help of a CDW-G representative, but I could have just as easily learned it from Microsoft's site. We had one server running IDE RAID with a total of about 15 clients. Total cost for licensing (actually for 25 clients): $700.
Use AFS, then come back and say that the proprietary Netware system is the one to beat.:-)
Please explain what this could possibly have to do with finding a superior implementation of CIFS/SMB? Novell's implementation, to my knowledge, is SAMBA, and NetWare still runs much better (performance-wise) with the client, which defeats the entire purpose of finding an implementation that doesn't require special client software (at least for Windows).
Also, considering the large base of Linux users here and Novell's lack of a supported, Novell-developed Linux client, NetWare makes a poor choice, whether you're looking for high-performance, low configuration access (on the client side) or good Linux support.
Given the assumed items of importance in this article, Windows would seem a better answer than NetWare if you want ACLs and low-configuration on the Windows client side.
A frequent rule in the Windows business is to split systems up over many machines. Which is great for Microsoft because essentially, you pay per client connection. With Linux/Samba, you pay according to the support that you want.
If you license properly, Microsoft gains little with additional servers. The client access licences (CALs) apply to any Windows server, so CAL costs only scale with the number of clients, not servers. The marginal cost of adding another server, once CALs are in place, is only the cost of the basic Windows license for that server with no CALs. Unless you mean splitting systems up over many clients, which is not what Microsoft says in any way, the cost of splitting systems over many servers is quite minimal.
If, however, you mean licensing each server by connections, not CALs, with several servers that tend to not have their own exclusive clients, you are using non-optimal licensing, and you need to research your criticism further.
Alas, new DMCAish legal restrictions in the United Kingdom will force the Dan Jackson Software site to shut off the Convert Lit downloading later this month.
Slashdot may take care of that before they need to.
Lusers seem to really love the way it hogs monitor real-estate
What kind of resolution are you using? My laptop's 1400x1050 and my desktop LCD is 1600x1200. You can also get these resolutions with even a mid-range CRT. Most importantly, it makes me feel pretty.
I also seriously have to question the objectivity of your claims. Slashdot users (lusers?) gush over Apple's "lickable" colors and turn right around to criticize Microsoft's, even though Apple's is not easily changeable back to neutral-grays and Microsoft's is.
Slashdot Mirror
That's interesting. I wasn't aware of that tool.
Actually, the grandparent of my comment stated exactly that. The parent was criticizing the number of steps to use the GUI-mode configuration, which is extremely similar in function to the method in Red Hat's GUI that you describe. I merely provided a three-step, albiet low-level, way to do the same in Windows. The closest thing Windows has to command line service control is "net start" and "net stop", neither of which actually disables the service.
Will you Linux zealots ever realize there's more than one way to do things?
Let's do it Linux-style! (Manually editing low-level config options)
Of course, you have to be an admin to do such a thing (or use run as...), but you never included the su command either.
I could easily make a .reg file that changes it in one double-click operation. I hate when people compare the graphical, slow way to do something in Windows with Linux command-line wizardry.
Firebird's works just like IE's.
Furthermore, Google searches are case-insensitive, which makes it even more ambiguous. Now, I would like if I could do a case-sensitive search on request, especially for individual terms. "iTMS" is not "ITMS" when I'm looking for the former.
Agreed.
I feel sorry for the short person who earns $-24,211.
That's only if you start the install from the bootable CD. Most people I've worked with (as a home/small-business computing consultant) start their installs from Windows.
Well, it isn't, but the overhead of such an inplementation has to be balanced with performance. NTFS is already fairly high overhead. I would rather see a small NTFS OS loader partition that initializes a main database partition. That way, there wouldn't be the overhead of NTFS on the main partition. I would hate to have my media library stored fully in NTFS and described by a database. It would be no different than using a modern media player.
From the original post: his laptops and phones
You would seem much more credible if you could get over making ignorant assumptions.
No. Exchange 2003 runs fine on Windows 2000 Server. It's Exchange 2000 that won't run on Windows Server 2003 (in any supported configuration).
But you admit that massive advantage is not the same as something absolute.
Of course documentation is more important than one's word, but the filing for the patent is an awfully belated form of documentation. Ideally, one should document one's ideas at their inception. And no, the first filer doesn't automatically get the patent. The person who proves they had the earliest conception of the idea gets it.
Wow. I had no idea that people knew my secret method of opening the "about" box. Here's another secret: XP is build 2600!
The new G5 is actually quite a power hog.
I've actually never heard of such programs. Could you give me a link?
Actually, no. I'm not sure about Windows 95, but Windows 3.1x does not idle the processor, ever. This mean the processor is occupied 100%, even if barely anything is running. There is a warning in VMWare's documentation about this, since running Windows 3.1x in VMWare will max out your processor, whatever speed it is.
The patent filing date is not the same as "who thought of it first." I could think of an idea today and document it. You could think of it tomorrow and document it. I could still file for a patent on Monday. My filing is not an admission that that date is when I first thought of it. In fact, it's ridiculous to think filing dates coincide with the inception of ideas.
On a completely unrelated note, go tsunami! (UT's nearly campus-wide 802.11b WLAN)
Most new laptops I've seen come with 5400 RPM drives. Mine has a 7200 RPM. Your figures are a bit out of date.
That's a nice comma splice, but I'll take the bait anyway. I don't word at a company, though I do some independant consulting work. At the time, I was the editor of my high school newspaper and set up a native Windows 2000 network. It took me about an hour to understand the licensing with the help of a CDW-G representative, but I could have just as easily learned it from Microsoft's site. We had one server running IDE RAID with a total of about 15 clients. Total cost for licensing (actually for 25 clients): $700.
Please explain what this could possibly have to do with finding a superior implementation of CIFS/SMB? Novell's implementation, to my knowledge, is SAMBA, and NetWare still runs much better (performance-wise) with the client, which defeats the entire purpose of finding an implementation that doesn't require special client software (at least for Windows).
Also, considering the large base of Linux users here and Novell's lack of a supported, Novell-developed Linux client, NetWare makes a poor choice, whether you're looking for high-performance, low configuration access (on the client side) or good Linux support.
Given the assumed items of importance in this article, Windows would seem a better answer than NetWare if you want ACLs and low-configuration on the Windows client side.
If you license properly, Microsoft gains little with additional servers. The client access licences (CALs) apply to any Windows server, so CAL costs only scale with the number of clients, not servers. The marginal cost of adding another server, once CALs are in place, is only the cost of the basic Windows license for that server with no CALs. Unless you mean splitting systems up over many clients, which is not what Microsoft says in any way, the cost of splitting systems over many servers is quite minimal.
If, however, you mean licensing each server by connections, not CALs, with several servers that tend to not have their own exclusive clients, you are using non-optimal licensing, and you need to research your criticism further.
Slashdot may take care of that before they need to.
What kind of resolution are you using? My laptop's 1400x1050 and my desktop LCD is 1600x1200. You can also get these resolutions with even a mid-range CRT. Most importantly, it makes me feel pretty.
I also seriously have to question the objectivity of your claims. Slashdot users (lusers?) gush over Apple's "lickable" colors and turn right around to criticize Microsoft's, even though Apple's is not easily changeable back to neutral-grays and Microsoft's is.