"When installing Windows, I make a partition specifically for the swap file and temp files. That way they don't add to the fragmentation mess of the OS partition."
This could, in reality, decrease system performance.
That's because for every swap operation you would have to seek a partition out of the way (because files are elsewhere). A smarter way to allocate swap would be to put it on the middle of the disk or even scattered in bands around the disk. This way, you would reduce the need to full seeks to the edges of the drive while being able to, more or less, keep things locally.
If the bands are far enough from each other and the file system never gets nearly full, fragmentation should be negligible
"It's not only about how high you can go, but how fast"
I would like to revise it a bit. It's neither about how high nor how fast, but how much energy you have. You can enter orbit just by reaching a given altitude - that's what we call geosynchronous orbit.
It would be impossible to make the X-15 LEO-capable with one or two generations. You just can't pack that much rocket into that small vehicle and expect it to achieve orbital speeds. There is a limit on how much energy you can carry with you. It's not only about how high you can go, but how fast.
The only device that could pack the kind of punch needed to launch useful payload to LEO with a X-15 sized vehicle would be a nuclear-thermal device. NERVA and ROVER had problems of radioactive exhaust and would be damn hard to justify unless there were no alternatives. Current designs can be much more cleaner and it could be possible to build something the size of an X-15 that could boost itself to LEO with a useful payload.
Another interesting approach could be to make the carrier plane fly faster and higher still with air-breathing engines (so that it would not require carrying oxidizer for the first part of the launch) easing the burden on the spacecraft propulsion system. Still, keep in mind that Mach 2, 3 or even 4 would be only about a fraction of what you need to get into LEO.
"Unless you are in a situation where you have absolutely no infrastructure (electricity, internet, etc.), I can't see the benefit to getting an OX/OLPC."
It's called the XO, not the OX. Apart from that it's small, portable, usable under direct sunlight, wireless, runs Linux and has great battery life.
I want one too.
Still, the about USD 400 buy-two-get-one price tag doesn't make much business sense...
When you fail to understand why you lose your job to someone who costs a third of what you do, yet can do everything you do, it's time to learn something new. I suggest something around Economics 101.
Maybe you will be jobless, but, at least, you will know why.
Sorry to tell, but a data loss error is unjustifiable. And OSX is not that new an OS to make us expect something like this. When you move a file be damn sure to check if the files are really there (invalidating caches - I suspect excessive caching could be the cause of the problem) _before_ you delete the originals.
"A happy Windows user and developer, And PROUD of it!"
"It would be trivial to solve the debate on whether we actually went to the moon or not if we could look in a telescope and see what we left there."
You expect the lunatics (pun intended) who think man never landed there to be rational and give up their theories just because of a few good recent pictures?
Were they rational in the first place, they wouldn't be lunatics.
Hello world is a nasty example for GUI programming. It's so simple that you have to take extra steps (and make the program more complex than it should) for it not to be entirely comprised of one function or method call and a GUI description file.
Calm down. I didn't say it's a successor - I only said it's easier to write a given app in C# (or Java or Python or Ruby) than it would be to code it in C++ (or C, BTW).
There may be more problems, but the one I like the most is "because it cedes control over how people develop software (C# and the.NET API) for a free platform (Mono) to Microsoft". With such control in hand, Microsoft can make the development as awkward or costly as they want. And in the unlikely hypothesis developers succeed, Microsoft may call in all their patents and make half of Gnome illegal in the US.
But supporting and promoting that "superb" technology gives them even more power. The fact that Miguel does endorse it should ring alarms everywhere.
I think it's time we fight back. We should say _no_ to MS-OOXML while we may tolerate.doc and promote and improve ODF where appropriate.
Mono should have two priorities: 1) to help make Gnome software easier to develop and 2) to make it easier to make Windows software that runs unmodified on free platforms. It more or less succeeds in 1 (C# is easier than C++) and has a long way to go before 2.
A free plug-in for Visual Studio that flags source that is Windows-only (or Mono-unfriendly) would help enormously with 2.
It will work wonders when all the five users of the two programs that actually use what Mono has that.NET hasn't start raving and evangelizing people into running Mono on free platforms.
You must have market dominance to play Embrace and Extend. Otherwise, you will follow all those neat enhanced supersets of whatever technology was mainstream at the time into oblivion.
"At that point, the whole distinction between the web browser and the operating system becomes completely irrelevant and we approach stage where windows is just a collection of device drivers (quote Netscape, mid nineties?)."
Note to self: Next time, shoot the giant dead before trying to wake it up.
I have used Active Desktop a lot for small intranet applications like issue tracking, simple messages, "what's on the menu at the company cafeteria", and so on. People at that company (an advertising agency) actually loved that. Mac users at the time couldn't use it (under MacOS 9), but they would never envy a bunch of Windows 98 and 2000 users.
I kind of miss its functionality under Gnome. I wish I could do it that easily.
Slashdot Mirror
'cause, you know, four cores should be enough for everybody. ;-)
"When installing Windows, I make a partition specifically for the swap file and temp files. That way they don't add to the fragmentation mess of the OS partition."
This could, in reality, decrease system performance.
That's because for every swap operation you would have to seek a partition out of the way (because files are elsewhere). A smarter way to allocate swap would be to put it on the middle of the disk or even scattered in bands around the disk. This way, you would reduce the need to full seeks to the edges of the drive while being able to, more or less, keep things locally.
If the bands are far enough from each other and the file system never gets nearly full, fragmentation should be negligible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasmosis
"It has been found that the parasite has the ability to change the behavior of its host: infected rats and mice are less fearful of cats"
+1 scary
"It's not only about how high you can go, but how fast"
I would like to revise it a bit. It's neither about how high nor how fast, but how much energy you have. You can enter orbit just by reaching a given altitude - that's what we call geosynchronous orbit.
"where the victory in court usually goes to the one with most money"
Not only that, but it can also become binding and be given more or less the force of a law.
It would be impossible to make the X-15 LEO-capable with one or two generations. You just can't pack that much rocket into that small vehicle and expect it to achieve orbital speeds. There is a limit on how much energy you can carry with you. It's not only about how high you can go, but how fast.
The only device that could pack the kind of punch needed to launch useful payload to LEO with a X-15 sized vehicle would be a nuclear-thermal device. NERVA and ROVER had problems of radioactive exhaust and would be damn hard to justify unless there were no alternatives. Current designs can be much more cleaner and it could be possible to build something the size of an X-15 that could boost itself to LEO with a useful payload.
Another interesting approach could be to make the carrier plane fly faster and higher still with air-breathing engines (so that it would not require carrying oxidizer for the first part of the launch) easing the burden on the spacecraft propulsion system. Still, keep in mind that Mach 2, 3 or even 4 would be only about a fraction of what you need to get into LEO.
"Unless you are in a situation where you have absolutely no infrastructure (electricity, internet, etc.), I can't see the benefit to getting an OX/OLPC."
It's called the XO, not the OX. Apart from that it's small, portable, usable under direct sunlight, wireless, runs Linux and has great battery life.
I want one too.
Still, the about USD 400 buy-two-get-one price tag doesn't make much business sense...
Let me guess... You are American (as in born in the USA), right?
When you fail to understand why you lose your job to someone who costs a third of what you do, yet can do everything you do, it's time to learn something new. I suggest something around Economics 101.
Maybe you will be jobless, but, at least, you will know why.
"the days when the likes of Einstein worked for the Patent Office are long past"
;-)
Just to point out Einstein never worked for the USPTO.
Neither his likes, for what I see
Sorry to tell, but a data loss error is unjustifiable. And OSX is not that new an OS to make us expect something like this. When you move a file be damn sure to check if the files are really there (invalidating caches - I suspect excessive caching could be the cause of the problem) _before_ you delete the originals.
"A happy Windows user and developer, And PROUD of it!"
That kind of explains the low expectations.
"It would be trivial to solve the debate on whether we actually went to the moon or not if we could look in a telescope and see what we left there."
You expect the lunatics (pun intended) who think man never landed there to be rational and give up their theories just because of a few good recent pictures?
Were they rational in the first place, they wouldn't be lunatics.
Has anyone predicted what a brane collision looks like from within the branes?
Again, I didn't say _any_ given app.
Hello world is a nasty example for GUI programming. It's so simple that you have to take extra steps (and make the program more complex than it should) for it not to be entirely comprised of one function or method call and a GUI description file.
Calm down. I didn't say it's a successor - I only said it's easier to write a given app in C# (or Java or Python or Ruby) than it would be to code it in C++ (or C, BTW).
"What does he stand to gain from backing this? What have I missed?"
A nice paying job at Microsoft or one of its puppets?
There may be more problems, but the one I like the most is "because it cedes control over how people develop software (C# and the .NET API) for a free platform (Mono) to Microsoft". With such control in hand, Microsoft can make the development as awkward or costly as they want. And in the unlikely hypothesis developers succeed, Microsoft may call in all their patents and make half of Gnome illegal in the US.
Actually they already have that power.
.doc and promote and improve ODF where appropriate.
But supporting and promoting that "superb" technology gives them even more power. The fact that Miguel does endorse it should ring alarms everywhere.
I think it's time we fight back. We should say _no_ to MS-OOXML while we may tolerate
Mono should have two priorities: 1) to help make Gnome software easier to develop and 2) to make it easier to make Windows software that runs unmodified on free platforms. It more or less succeeds in 1 (C# is easier than C++) and has a long way to go before 2.
A free plug-in for Visual Studio that flags source that is Windows-only (or Mono-unfriendly) would help enormously with 2.
BTW, is there one?
Right...
.NET hasn't start raving and evangelizing people into running Mono on free platforms.
It will work wonders when all the five users of the two programs that actually use what Mono has that
You must have market dominance to play Embrace and Extend. Otherwise, you will follow all those neat enhanced supersets of whatever technology was mainstream at the time into oblivion.
LOL. Wish I had modpoints.
Maybe it's an IBM thing. Both my 43Ps run AIX and neither didn't came with SSH support.
Yes. I have a collection of old computers.
I also believe (can't check right now) neither my Classic (running Solaris 2.5) nor my Ultra 1 (running Solaris 8) have it.
"At that point, the whole distinction between the web browser and the operating system becomes completely irrelevant and we approach stage where windows is just a collection of device drivers (quote Netscape, mid nineties?)."
Note to self: Next time, shoot the giant dead before trying to wake it up.
I use to teach my students JavaScript and DOM, then let them build a, say, calculator.
They loved to develop client-side stuff and made some very impressive things in a couple weeks.
Then I would present them the wonderful world of forms and XMLHttpRequest stuff.
If you don't insist on using XML, it's even fun to do.
I have used Active Desktop a lot for small intranet applications like issue tracking, simple messages, "what's on the menu at the company cafeteria", and so on. People at that company (an advertising agency) actually loved that. Mac users at the time couldn't use it (under MacOS 9), but they would never envy a bunch of Windows 98 and 2000 users.
I kind of miss its functionality under Gnome. I wish I could do it that easily.
But I can live without the crashes.