Especially when there are loads of products out there which can do the job standalone, either as handsets, or boxes which will take an ordinary analogue phone (including DECT).
Just one picked at random, but this seems like a far more sensible approach...?
I'd rather submit my document to a server for spellchecking than download a javascript dictionary... Similarly with the spreadsheet, I'd rather not have to download javascript functions for every obscure financial formula I'm never going to use...
I posted this story earlier but had it rejected... If it's all a fantasy, which sounds fairly likely, they're going to look rather daft on the 5th of January:
We recently 'upgraded' from ADSL to SDSL for our office to cope with the increasing uploads in mail and FTP serves.
Unfortunately, in our area the only provider available is BT (there are others who resell, but were significantly dearer).
You would think, with a £1000/quarter ($7500pa for American friends), that you might get an IP address from a range used solely by businesses (and that hasn't therefore been blacklisted due to residential customers in the same block relaying spam), and that you might get reverse DNS on said IP address to your company name, rather than hostxxx-xxx-xxx-xxx.in-addr.btopenworld.com, which looks like a dynamic address to most anti-spam filters.
You would think, but you'd be wrong. Spent 4 hours on the phone to them trying to find someone who could (a) understand the problem, and (b) have the authority to change the IP and set up reverse DNS properly. I gave up where their supposedly senior expert told me (a) that we couldn't have a residential IP address as home connections don't have IP addresses!? and (b) to ring 152 for further help (152 is the number for reporting normal analogue phoneline faults and is a separate company).
This is my latest involvement with them, but is typical of every time. Tossers all.
Just noticed something - it's even smaller than you think - 400GB isn't the diff, that's the total size of the data - the diffs are probably a couple hundred meg at most.
I still think we're closer to the "average" business in requirements than your 16Tb;-)
Okay, I think you guys are talking about an order of magnitude more data (and probably two orders in cost?) than your typical business that just need to backup some project data and possibly emails.
I would imagine it's the latter group that MS are going after, rather than people with serious quantities of data.
Which is great till you start thinking about stuff like disaster recovery, offsite copies etc.
I don't understand? That's precisely why we started doing it.
We have an offsite server in a managed facility to which we back up each night over SDSL - nightly update via RSync for ~400GB of total data is around an hour on average. This server collects data from two sites, in the event of total system failure at either site, we've got lots of options depending on the disaster - home users could connect directly, somebody could physically go and pick the box up and install it as a replacement, etc, etc.
Much less effort and downtime than any tape backup system we've ever encountered.
For day-to-day restores (deleted files, etc) we have a similar system at each office, which implements the symlinked backups - I could restore right now, in literally 10 seconds, any file on our network shares exactly as it was at the end of any working day between now and the 5th of January. Perhaps more importantly, pretty much any competent user can do the same, without having to bother me. Show me a tape system which will do that!
We've been doing disk-to-disk for a year or so now using rsync's --link-dest feature to create apparently complete mirrors each night, but with only those changed files actually occupying disk space (beyond that of a symlink).
Makes restoration an absolute breeze compared to tape, but I'm not sure if this M/S effort does the same? *runs off to look*
Yes, TV tuner cards, etc, are already covered and you require a license.
This is referring to streamed online content, which is not 'broadcast' in the traditional sense as understood by leglislation and therefore does not presently require a TV license.
(obviously they shouldn't bother with any of this stuff in the North or the countryside)
Yes, I personally can't wait to pay extra on my next computer purchase so you lot can sit by the Thames sipping shandy and downloading Olympic Bid screensavers over your free WLAN:p
Question Time / Newsnight are both decent programming, however these account for a minute fraction of the BBCs expenditure, and work equally well on radio.
Horizon, I used to enjoy but these days find it has been dumbed down to the point they assume an attention span of five minutes and just recirculate the discussion at such intervals.
As for all the channels you refer to, I would have to pay for those if I watched any television (BBC or not), but I cannot possibly receive them.
That loophole could surely be easily closed by ammending part 4 of the Communications Act 2003. Actually, I thought they'd already done that, but looking at the act now, it appears not:
Personally, I think the whole thing stinks currently, and do not and will not pay for a TV license. The idea that the BBC must produce content that is not commercially viable (and therefore would not otherwise exist) seems to have long since fallen by the wayside (with regards to television anyway, radio 4 is superb), and they now produce the same drivel you would find on ITV.
So another 10 years I'll spent without television. Shame.
I object to the whole concept of the license fee. Why should I pay the BBC to watch Channel 4? I don't buy into this quality argument for BBC television either. I thought the whole idea was that by being differently funded, the BBC could provide programming which would not be commerically viable. Instead of which, we get a 30/45 minute-long program to announce the lottery results, and a constant tit-for-tat battle with ITV for ratings.
The exception to that (imo) is the radio, which I would actually be willing to pay for separately, but as no such provision exists, I can listen to (legally) free-of-charge at the expense of all those who tune into their idiot lantern for 5 hours a night.
As point of interest for people not in the UK, if you do not have a TV license (which is quite reasonable if you do not watch TV), the authorities concerned refuse to believe that in the 21st century, anyone might choose NOT to watch television, and launch a campaign of harrassment (threatening letters, thugs turning up on your doorstep) against you.
I the UK anyway, the non-BBC channels do refer to it as Teletext, so I suspect that is the generic term for the 'technology' (if you can call it that), while the BBC have named their own implementation Ceefax.
It's not as useful as it sounds, in my opinion, as information on a given topic is paged and you have no mechanism to switch between pages other than waiting sometimes minutes for the info to come up.
Of the three machines we've got here with the Windows XP / Office 2000 combination, two of them stopped opening documents after installing SP2 (just hangs). Office seems to have latest service pack itself, so nothing else to do but rollback and disable auto-update.
Don't pull that "I always buy games after I download them, so piracy doesn't really matter" bullshit. I've never done it before, I don't know anyone who does it, and it makes no rational sense to do so anyway.
Actually, I've got Doom3 on preorder for what I consider to be a good-value price (£26), and still started off a torrent download. I'm on holiday just after it comes out here, and then I'm very busy with work when I come back, so it'd be rather nice to have it when I *do* have the free time, i.e. now.
Likewise with MP3s - I've frequently downloaded an album and then gone out and bought it afterwards. The times when I haven't are when the album wasn't worth buying, and the MP3s get wiped the next time I clean my temp directory.
You're suggesting that if you can have something for free, what's the point in then paying for it. Thankfully, not everyone thinks like you.
A bit offtopic perhaps, sorry, but am I the only one who can't get thunderbird and firefox to run on Gentoo?
I've tried both source and binary ebuilds and compiling the source tarball from the website, and while firefox (0.8) will start, it usually terminates within a couple of pages. Thunderbird flashes up and then instantly closes with a segfault being reports by the wrapper script... anyone got any bright ideas, because at the moment I'm booting into windows for email (sorry, not a fan of KMail). Probably something stupid I've done, but damned if I can work out what:-(
Just to go back on topic - yay Mozilla, yay Firebird:-)
Having been on various photographical (i.e. non-tech) forums related to the 300D since before the UK launch of the camera (particularly the one at dpreview.com), I can assure you there is plenty of interest from people outside the "slashdot crowd".
Whether or not they are many enough to be of concern to Canon is a seperate issue, but there has been plenty of interest since day-1.
Slashdot Mirror
Especially when there are loads of products out there which can do the job standalone, either as handsets, or boxes which will take an ordinary analogue phone (including DECT).
Just one picked at random, but this seems like a far more sensible approach...?
I'd rather submit my document to a server for spellchecking than download a javascript dictionary... Similarly with the spreadsheet, I'd rather not have to download javascript functions for every obscure financial formula I'm never going to use...
I posted this story earlier but had it rejected... If it's all a fantasy, which sounds fairly likely, they're going to look rather daft on the 5th of January:
c ator/product_details.asp?prodid=5420
http://cesweb.org/attendees/show_floor/product_lo
We recently 'upgraded' from ADSL to SDSL for our office to cope with the increasing uploads in mail and FTP serves.
Unfortunately, in our area the only provider available is BT (there are others who resell, but were significantly dearer).
You would think, with a £1000/quarter ($7500pa for American friends), that you might get an IP address from a range used solely by businesses (and that hasn't therefore been blacklisted due to residential customers in the same block relaying spam), and that you might get reverse DNS on said IP address to your company name, rather than hostxxx-xxx-xxx-xxx.in-addr.btopenworld.com, which looks like a dynamic address to most anti-spam filters.
You would think, but you'd be wrong. Spent 4 hours on the phone to them trying to find someone who could (a) understand the problem, and (b) have the authority to change the IP and set up reverse DNS properly. I gave up where their supposedly senior expert told me (a) that we couldn't have a residential IP address as home connections don't have IP addresses!? and (b) to ring 152 for further help (152 is the number for reporting normal analogue phoneline faults and is a separate company).
This is my latest involvement with them, but is typical of every time. Tossers all.
Okay, just read kerneltrap - I guess it *has* just sprung out of thin air!
Well the name is daft and some of the quotes sound a bit strange, and hasn't this thing sort of sprung out of thin air in just a week?
We found that, we also stuggled (failed?) to find a version which supported large files properly.
Fortunately, the bulk of our data is on Linux machines and accessed via Samba anyway.
Just noticed something - it's even smaller than you think - 400GB isn't the diff, that's the total size of the data - the diffs are probably a couple hundred meg at most.
I still think we're closer to the "average" business in requirements than your 16Tb ;-)
(and in reply to Colin as well)
Okay, I think you guys are talking about an order of magnitude more data (and probably two orders in cost?) than your typical business that just need to backup some project data and possibly emails.
I would imagine it's the latter group that MS are going after, rather than people with serious quantities of data.
I don't understand? That's precisely why we started doing it.
We have an offsite server in a managed facility to which we back up each night over SDSL - nightly update via RSync for ~400GB of total data is around an hour on average. This server collects data from two sites, in the event of total system failure at either site, we've got lots of options depending on the disaster - home users could connect directly, somebody could physically go and pick the box up and install it as a replacement, etc, etc.
Much less effort and downtime than any tape backup system we've ever encountered.
For day-to-day restores (deleted files, etc) we have a similar system at each office, which implements the symlinked backups - I could restore right now, in literally 10 seconds, any file on our network shares exactly as it was at the end of any working day between now and the 5th of January. Perhaps more importantly, pretty much any competent user can do the same, without having to bother me. Show me a tape system which will do that!
We've been doing disk-to-disk for a year or so now using rsync's --link-dest feature to create apparently complete mirrors each night, but with only those changed files actually occupying disk space (beyond that of a symlink). Makes restoration an absolute breeze compared to tape, but I'm not sure if this M/S effort does the same? *runs off to look*
Yes, TV tuner cards, etc, are already covered and you require a license.
This is referring to streamed online content, which is not 'broadcast' in the traditional sense as understood by leglislation and therefore does not presently require a TV license.
Yes, I personally can't wait to pay extra on my next computer purchase so you lot can sit by the Thames sipping shandy and downloading Olympic Bid screensavers over your free WLAN :p
Concerned, of Aberdeen
Question Time / Newsnight are both decent programming, however these account for a minute fraction of the BBCs expenditure, and work equally well on radio. Horizon, I used to enjoy but these days find it has been dumbed down to the point they assume an attention span of five minutes and just recirculate the discussion at such intervals. As for all the channels you refer to, I would have to pay for those if I watched any television (BBC or not), but I cannot possibly receive them.
That loophole could surely be easily closed by ammending part 4 of the Communications Act 2003. Actually, I thought they'd already done that, but looking at the act now, it appears not:
3 /3 0021--l.htm#368
http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts200
Personally, I think the whole thing stinks currently, and do not and will not pay for a TV license. The idea that the BBC must produce content that is not commercially viable (and therefore would not otherwise exist) seems to have long since fallen by the wayside (with regards to television anyway, radio 4 is superb), and they now produce the same drivel you would find on ITV.
So another 10 years I'll spent without television. Shame.
I object to the whole concept of the license fee. Why should I pay the BBC to watch Channel 4? I don't buy into this quality argument for BBC television either. I thought the whole idea was that by being differently funded, the BBC could provide programming which would not be commerically viable. Instead of which, we get a 30/45 minute-long program to announce the lottery results, and a constant tit-for-tat battle with ITV for ratings.
The exception to that (imo) is the radio, which I would actually be willing to pay for separately, but as no such provision exists, I can listen to (legally) free-of-charge at the expense of all those who tune into their idiot lantern for 5 hours a night.
As point of interest for people not in the UK, if you do not have a TV license (which is quite reasonable if you do not watch TV), the authorities concerned refuse to believe that in the 21st century, anyone might choose NOT to watch television, and launch a campaign of harrassment (threatening letters, thugs turning up on your doorstep) against you.
The whole thing stinks.
I the UK anyway, the non-BBC channels do refer to it as Teletext, so I suspect that is the generic term for the 'technology' (if you can call it that), while the BBC have named their own implementation Ceefax.
It's not as useful as it sounds, in my opinion, as information on a given topic is paged and you have no mechanism to switch between pages other than waiting sometimes minutes for the info to come up.
Of the three machines we've got here with the Windows XP / Office 2000 combination, two of them stopped opening documents after installing SP2 (just hangs). Office seems to have latest service pack itself, so nothing else to do but rollback and disable auto-update.
Actually, I've got Doom3 on preorder for what I consider to be a good-value price (£26), and still started off a torrent download. I'm on holiday just after it comes out here, and then I'm very busy with work when I come back, so it'd be rather nice to have it when I *do* have the free time, i.e. now.
Likewise with MP3s - I've frequently downloaded an album and then gone out and bought it afterwards. The times when I haven't are when the album wasn't worth buying, and the MP3s get wiped the next time I clean my temp directory.
You're suggesting that if you can have something for free, what's the point in then paying for it. Thankfully, not everyone thinks like you.
Which will be the price the BBC are referring to.
Just preordered mine, and think that is perfectly good value.
I've upgraded to 0.9.1, and I still get notification that new updates are available.
Anybody else getting this, or have I bodged something?
Okay, thanks - I'll have a play with those.
Firefox is nowhere near as bad, in that it's generally useable, but had a habit of vanishing without warning often enough to be annoying.
A bit offtopic perhaps, sorry, but am I the only one who can't get thunderbird and firefox to run on Gentoo?
:-(
:-)
I've tried both source and binary ebuilds and compiling the source tarball from the website, and while firefox (0.8) will start, it usually terminates within a couple of pages. Thunderbird flashes up and then instantly closes with a segfault being reports by the wrapper script... anyone got any bright ideas, because at the moment I'm booting into windows for email (sorry, not a fan of KMail). Probably something stupid I've done, but damned if I can work out what
Just to go back on topic - yay Mozilla, yay Firebird
Having been on various photographical (i.e. non-tech) forums related to the 300D since before the UK launch of the camera (particularly the one at dpreview.com), I can assure you there is plenty of interest from people outside the "slashdot crowd".
Whether or not they are many enough to be of concern to Canon is a seperate issue, but there has been plenty of interest since day-1.