Incorrect, clueless, incorrect, false, personal assumption, personal bias, personal assumption, personal bias, false, incorrect...
Also you seem to be missing any references or even credible arguments supporting your personal assumptions.
Go for it, list all the lawsuits MS has initiated based on their patents. Oh wait, you later admit they don't because you 'feel' they wouldn't hold up.
A driver should not cause the OS to crash. Your printer should be able to load its driver in a manner such that if it catches fire the kernel stays alive and can tell you so.
Generic I/O level USB devices can, especially not in usermode. USB devices can be primary kernel level I/O devices (booting from USB anyone? anyone?) Let alone USB can even disrupt the mainboard itself of how the USB/PCI controllers are implemented. This is beyond the OS even.
Cross the wires on your USB devices and plug them in and out of your laptop, tell us how that 'shouldn't' crash it while it catches the mainboard on fire, ok?
In all seriousness if Apple wrote the drivers properly and KEPT THEM IN USERLAND, then it also wouldn't be able to crash Vista.
Is Apple not bright enough to do this?
Maybe, but the truth is their drivers AVOID usermode because they want to ensure their DRM pipeline is protected.
So.. Apple + DRM + Stupidity = bad device software
Apple are not only sleezy, but bad at software, and yet fools RUN here with their fanboi badges to defend them. WTF is wrong with people?
PS Also don't forget the Casio Watches from the 80s that you could write on the screen with your finger to do calculator functions, as well as even manage contacts.
While Apple's iPhone may be the first device most people call to mind
This alone is scary, and the fact that it may be true is even more scary.
I have a digital voice recorder from 1997 that has a rather advanced touch screen, let alone all the PDAs and PocketPC Phones that existed YEARS before the iPhone.
Sometimes you just have to go, "Ok, the public in general is uninformed and borderline scary stupid."
(And before the fanbois go 'multi-touch', they should go look up multi-touch technology, as Apple didn't even invent the multi-touch interface on the iPhone, as it is a DIRECT clone of the TED presentation technology from several years ago, that was building on independant and MS multi-sensory/touch technology.)
You don't need ZFS to equal NTFS's journaling feature, it had been done already with many filesystems.
I wasn't talking ONLY about journaling. Go look up some of the other inherent features of NTFS, like copy on write to compression to encryption to volume size support. (Truly you need to wiki it, or actually read NTFS specifications.)
ZFS is the only FS that can give NTFS a run, and a lot of the ZFS is still yet to be seen in keeping up with the performance of NTFS.
Then please enlighten me as to how this can be possible when the SCSI subsystem uses the standard method to report that the data IS written to disk when it's written TO RAM ONLY and WRITES LATER to disk.
You again assume there is no way for SCSI to communicate data state. And you are right, it is something that *nix users HAVE to pay attention to, since the OS isn't doing any work to ensure data write states. However, there are OSes that do KNOW when data is in RAM an on physical media.
Even if the OS didn't use the inherent mechanisms of SCSI to query for data state, the OS can also cache bypass to test for physical write. (Enterprise level OSes do this, and even non-enterprised level OSes like XP and Vista.)
For consumer level OSes, if you want one you can flip the switch on at any time without worrying about data loss, no matter the device/controllers in use, stick to NT. (This is one reason MS wins in the business world, that a lot of new OSS proponents don't even realize is a major advantage for data protection.)
I am sorry that I came off a bit strong in my previous posts, I would rather get you thinking and research this a bit more, than just piss you off and put you in a defensive mode.
Truly keep this in the back of your mind when you work with data storage, file systems, and OS file servers. (Or even desktop solutions.)
Rove would be proud of you, still partially in charge of a campaign ran by lobbyists, and they have convinced people they will change things.
Maybe start by firing Rove and the Lobbyists running the campaign, and I might believe McCain, until then, the change argument is about as accurate as being 'against' the bridge to nowhere, from one of the people that pushed Stevens for it.;)
This is called WRITE-BACK caching mode and if there's no battery backing-up the cache your data will be LOST.
This is what YOU are not getting, as you are repeating it again.
Data is NOT lost if the OS knows the data was never TRULY written. This means that NO MATTER what type or state of the device cache is, the OS is 'smart' enough to realize when a write is 'completed', and not still in any cache mechanism.
There are OSes smart enough to do this, Microsoft makes a very popular one.
Get it yet?
I've seen more than once NTFS filesystems break on power failure, despite what you call
And my cousin's uncle's brother's dog saw two NT servers burst into flames after Steve Jobs said boo...
NTFS is NOT something that true IT professionals, administrators, OS engineers, or OS theorists make fun of as lightly as you seem to do here.
There is a reason there has been a race for ZFS to mature, as it is the FIRST AND ONLY FS technology that comes close to providing the features and possible performance of NTFS. (Go Wiki it, kid.)
If you think NTFS is bad or notorious for data failure you are either drinking the kool-aid or have no experience in real world IT.
Again, shall we talk about how it pretty much stands alone in the department of the OS understanding the device cache state and working with NTFS meta journaling?
Or should we talk about the added full journaling features of Windows 2008 server and Vista, where a dirty volume, let alone lost data is about as frequent as device failure itself?
When the OS/FS combination is pushing reliability percentages that are near parallel to device failure, you can't do much better.
If you want to make fun of NT or Win32, go for it, but NTFS is one area you better do your homework before you start talking smack, as there are a lot of OS theorists that are *nix zealots that would lay you out flat for calling NT's object model or NTFS a bad or ineffective design.
If are buying a lot of parts, you are better off to establish yourself as business that can buy from direct channels/wholesalers.
This opens the door to a lot of wholesale companies that will not only get you good deals, but have better return policies, dealing directly with the hardware channel.
Unfortunately you make absolutely no distinction between specifications, server-class hardware and cheap consumer-class hardware. I fully understand your comment if you're relying solely on server-class hardware, unfortunately that's not the case of millions of startups that try to keep IT costs low.
Actually, there is a reason I am not making a distinction, because as far as hardware goes, there is none in 99.9% of the cases.
Even the most cheap or generic ATAPI or SCSI device or $15 controller from Frys have the basic interface specifications.
I am surprised that people don't realize that our oldest specifications regarding storage have had mechanisms in place for determinig data and cache state for a long long time, and any device using these specifications adhere by default.
There are reasons the OS can query the cache state, flush the cache, etc etc - even on the cheapest piece of crap hardware, whether it is an IDE/SCSI/SATA/etc device.
The breakdown here is the OS understanding with regard to the device, and being able to properly 'know' or manage the device and even its cache.
In the *nix world this usually requires a marriage of drivers and specific controllers, as the whole I/O model of *nix is very generic.
OSes like NT that have intrinsic 'object' level understanding of I/O, instead of treating all devices under a generic umbrella have the luxury of keeping an eye on the devices in this capacity.
This allows NT to know what the data state is, and uses this information to mark journaling data on the volumes, so with any power failure, the OS volume knows what was 'REALLY' written to the device and what was not.
I don't question your hardware tests, but it all comes down to the OS you are using.
If the OS and FS hasn't a clue about managing the device level data states or cache states, data loss is very possible without the OS knowing any better, even on a journaled FS technology.
And sadly in the *nix world, these are under a generic umbrella and 'left' to the devices to manage themselves only.
Linux when using journaling doesn't keep track and actively manage what the devices are doing, as they are generic to Linux, being a true *nix model, which pushes this outside of the 'job' of the OS.
The crux here is even old HD interface specifications have mechanisms to report cache status to the drivers/OS and even the most generic crap drives, adhere to their specifications and can report this information if the OS is smart enough to ask for it and know what to do with the data.
This is also where the very design of *nix can bite you in the ass, as the generic I/O model is its hallmark.
If anyone was to argue for NT, this is one area they would have some solid ground to make an argument not only for NT, but an obect oriented kernel model that doesn't treat everything like generic textual I/O.
With this kind of configuration, no matter what you do in term of journaling, you will *always* loose data when power fails during I/O operations.
Not sure if this is just confused terms or 'assumed' because of the chain involved you describe.
Dealing with non OS/FS level caches in devices is not something that 'always' equals data loss, as 99% of the devices have methods to signal the OS when a write is complete from cache and when it is only cached waiting write.
I can even give you a simple example of this. NTFS and Vista know what is written and not just device cached, and adds full journaling on top of this.
If this information wasn't available to the OS, then journaling is a wasted technology.
So, devices do let the OS/FS know where the data 'really' is, it is up to the OS to be smart enough to handle this.
Go check out storage device interface specifications, and you will find the mechanisms of how the OS and drivers get this information.
In the Microsoft NT world, turning off write caching in a device is just killing your performance 99% of the time, it is not making your data safer.
Sadly, in the Linux/*nix world, it is a recommended option because the device cache is not something most *nixes or *nix FSs pay attention to very well, until you get to enterprise solutions with very specific devices/drives married to the server installation.
To most people this would mean reporting every URL visited, possibly even what you're typing into forms. To you it means making google.com the default homepage, and OMG if you type something into that box, it's gonna report what you type to Google!! Duh, it's gonna report it to Google because google.com is in the address bar.
You really think this is the only information sent to Google? Really?
Put on your tinfoil hat kiddies, you need to actually research this...
opensource it, so i very much doubt your conspiracy theory
Wow, OSS would make it free of any Google server tie ins?
Even Firefox reports back to Google, it is OSS, right?
OSS isn't that magical, it just might make it easier to see what the browser is doing. Which is something you can also do easily with IE/Opera/Safari by watching the network traffic.
I am seriously starting to think the OSS movement is making people dumber.
I hear too many arguments around the, "We need source code to see what a product is doing." Do people really believe this? Do people not realize how to read binary, assembly anymore?
Sure source makes 'reusing' software easier, but to see the functionality of software, all you need is the freaking binary. Open Source only makes this a 'bit' easier, and you still need to cross check the binary to ensure the source matches anyway.
Truly, Open Source is turning geeks into technical newbs by everyone thinking it is 'necessary' or a magic bullet.
Where are the old school nerds that can read 'code' from a binary without the freaking source?
Google is a marketing company, and in the past has used nefarious ad tracking to even Firefox searches reporting information to the Google servers.
Now they want a browser? Why? What reason would they need for a new browser?
So instead of putting full support behind a 'generic' Firefox, they want to enter the market so they can gather even more information from the user.
Nice... Geesh
Sadly they will get some of the Dell and other bundling deals, because they can afford to pay these companies to put this browser on machines, and most users won't know what is going on behind, even if the tech community finds Google doing the most nefarious things possible with the browser.
This type of concern makes the IE8 privacy mode and blocking sites from tracking users the 'non-evil' choice.
What was Google's ad hoc motto again, and was it just words after all?
There is no justification for Microsoft to file these ridiculous patents, and they should be vilified for it.
Critical thinking needs to be applied here...
If you were MS and hit with almost daily 'insane' patent lawsuits, what would you do? Just let every idiot create a patent and sue you out of existence because THEY CAN?
This is a defensive measure on MS's part, and is EXACTLY why they are doing it.
Microsoft, even with the Linux threats, has had almost NO offensive patent litigation, and this is with them holding as many as they do that pokes holes all the way into GUI features of OS X and Linux that they could probably win and get the products changed.
If MS was truly as evil as we would like to believe, they would have used their patent wealth to shut down all other competing software by now.
(Even inline spell checking, red squiggle lines for spelling, and even dragging and dropping text is a MS design from the Word team, and arguably something they own as the current Patent laws have been upheld. How do you think this would affect any GUI OS or GUI based software product?)
The difference is enough that the problem here isn't MS, it's the patent system. But we knew that. We're vilifying the wrong people. Our efforts should be focused on demonstrating the inferiority of this system, and exposing any corruption involved in maintaining it.
I have to agree, and if anything MS is demonstrating the insanity of the US Patent system by proxy.
MS has been sued over 100s of insane patents, and so they were forced to patent anything even plausibly theirs to protect companies from getting rich off of stupid patent lawsuits.
(If people look at MS patent history, prior to the mid 90s when they started getting hammered with bogus patent lawsuits, MS had a very limited amount of patents.)
In case anyone doubts MS's filings as being anything but defensive, Google their position on Patents going back to Win 3.x days.
Same here. I've got probably 3-4 proper, honest Windows XP licenses, but I keep on having to find new ones because the key either gets lost or decides it doesn't want to work anymore because Microsoft thinks I'm a thief.
Working with literally 100s of thousands of users, if you have a legit key, no matter what, MS will honor your key. (Even after a 'silly' amount of times, call them duringin activation and they will fix the issue with your key and everything is fine.)
Even if you lose your key, if you registered your product, they can look up your registration history and fix the missing ID problem.
So if you are 'legally' using Windows and using 'stolen' IDs, then you either don't know better or are lying.
Knowledge is power. MS had never been picky about users with valid keys or installs.
The latest moves in the WGA shows that MS is stopping the consumer end persecution and focusing on the original OEM piracy targets.
Even if you have a stolen version of Windows, a changing wallpaper or watermark is not a big price to pay, and you can do all the testing or whatever you would use it for.
Silverlight has a pretty good start even on Linux, and on OS X and Windows is darn solid, light and fast compared to Flash.
Especially Video streaming, and HD streaming is not only faster but demands less bandwidth and less server and client resources. If you are doing HD, silverlight VC1 even from a Linux server works well, without the Flash licensing.
Windows and OS X users will note Silverlight handles multimonitor fullscreen modes and other features that Flash often fails with, let alone the video quality in comparison is considerable.
Linux users, check it out, you can view Silverlight content now and even though it is a 'side' project from the Mono team, it is supported by Microsoft. (Microsoft did not want to develop it internally so they wouldn't compete with the Mono project and they also don't have to jump through and OSS licensing that might require them to expose non-related code they consider private.
(Even if you don't agree with MS on this, you can respect their issues with the various licensing models that would force them to provide more than a 'working' version of Silverlight.)
(As for the DNC site Silverlight in previous posts, note that it is not Silverlight that is forcing users to use Windows, but a third party media control plugin.
I think the third party control plugin is stupid, really stupid as it is not needed if they took 10min to design the features as native Silverlight.NET code.)
No one is sitting in a room looking to use this data against people - it is barely even plausible to do so.
In the US this is a problem with the new broad powers of the executive branch, that have already been misused.
Ad agencies have already been used to obtain browsing histories for 'non-security/non-criminal' related investigations. (Reporters in 2004 had their browsing histories reviewed by the DOJ, mainly democratic reporters, like the wife of John Kerry's National Security advisor for a specific example you can lookup.)
Reviewing this data by hand is not easy, but a request for the browsing history of IP Range x-y, is a simple query and very effective in tracking business and home users with semi-static IP addresses/ranges.
When you add in other information obtained like machinename, it becomes very specific and can paint a pattern that is humanly visible.
Just because advertisers have used 'nefarious' methods to garner information in the past/present, does not make it 'right'.
You are right this will require the embedded ad content to be changed to 'stop' doing this, but it will not hurt people that link to embedded ads for the most part. (Changing ad linking code is a common update for all large sites on a daily/weekly basis.)
Users have no idea how easy it is to track them and there ARE risks and sites that use this information for nefarious reasons beyond advertising as well. I know of ISPs that even use hidden pixel headers to track their customers to 'regulate' the customers bandwidth, etc.
This is about giving power back to the users and informing them of what they are providing. Something MS and other companies *cough Firefox* should have offered and combated far before this.
MS is becoming less evil, it is time to start giving them some props, as they are even hitting their OWN ad collecting companies/partners with this, and are chosing user rights over the business pressures.
If you work at a Ad company, you have a head start by knowing this, and can get your technical programmers to get a leg up on this coming change. Use this to leverage the goodwill of your company and lead by doing things better for users.
There is difference between ad blocking and tracking blocking.
This identifies 3rd party code that keeps track of users browsing habits, and allows the user to reject being tracked.
Google would be hurt by this, as Google is NOT just about displaying ads, but displaying 'contextual' ads that it gets from not only the site content but the user viewing the site, based on the user's browsing history stored at Google.
It would be 'easy' to paint MS as being evil, but in reality, this is a feature that 'exposes' the evil that exists all over the web, from pixel tracking systems to full ad user tracking systems like Google uses.
If Google or other online advertisers wants to display Ads, and not be affected by this, then display Ads and STOP TRACKING USERS along with the Ads.
My hope is that someone will come up with a "pluggable" script engine
Until then, check out Silverlight 2.x, it uses a subset of the.NET CLR, and extends past the silverlight 'control'.
You can use.NET C# for everything you normally would of had to use JScript for in the past, HTML form handling, DOM, etc
(Silverlight can be a nice non-visual aspect on a page allowing client side native C# development.)
Not sure how the performance compares, but MS moved to the portable CLR in Silverlight 2.x because of the inconsistencies and speed of JavaScript that Silverlight 1.x was dependant on client side.
Well if Firefox gains popularity, this could take a sharp change.
Since I personally am usually developing or doing other crazy crap for corporate clients, I tend to use IE 90% of the time since IE7 was released.
The thing I personally didn't realize is how bad Flash was 'still' performing on Firefox, I assumed the glitches of the past were old hat. The Firefox Flash mechanism is horrid to say the least, and no wonder all my friends that love Firefox have Flash blockers installed.
If I was using Firefox in a non-professional setting, I would 'have' to block Flash Ads/Content as the inconsitencies and resource drain is time consuming for just getting news let alone using the Web for hardcore fast answer research.
So if Adobe doesn't get the Firefox crap fixed and fast, they will be handing the keys to Microsoft and Silverlight. And even though it is new and using Vista's API subset, it is managed code, and even in semi-beta form is virtually error free in comparison to Flash 'released'.
With the Olympics and Silverlight, Microsoft is proving Silverlight is ready for mainstream, and it really is using Beta 2 of Silverlight. The video quality differences alone are enough to make the content providers/ad agencies go, wtf and abandon Flash.
PS. Yes Flash can do HD, but not nearly as elegant nor has the WMV (VC1) server integration simplicity. I have had a lot of OS X friends take notice that video are appear in Quicktime HD/Flash HD or MS WMV/VC1 and the Microsoft content is better looking at nearly 1/2 the file size. That kind of stuff gets providers interest pretty fast, especially when users can be happy either way.
Side story note and suggestion: (BBC, are you paying attention? You can stick with your current solutions and wrap the player in Silverlight and get multi-platform with a part time Silverlight programmer 'fixing' your content in a few days.)
Slashdot Mirror
Incorrect, clueless, incorrect, false, personal assumption, personal bias, personal assumption, personal bias, false, incorrect...
Also you seem to be missing any references or even credible arguments supporting your personal assumptions.
Go for it, list all the lawsuits MS has initiated based on their patents. Oh wait, you later admit they don't because you 'feel' they wouldn't hold up.
Contradict yourself much?
just made lots of open source accessible
Everything but what makes a Mac a Mac...
Their BSD/Mach work even pales in comparison to OSS alternatives.
It's all politics, and Apple are the best circus promoters of our time...
A driver should not cause the OS to crash. Your printer should be able to load its driver in a manner such that if it catches fire the kernel stays alive and can tell you so.
Generic I/O level USB devices can, especially not in usermode. USB devices can be primary kernel level I/O devices (booting from USB anyone? anyone?) Let alone USB can even disrupt the mainboard itself of how the USB/PCI controllers are implemented. This is beyond the OS even.
Cross the wires on your USB devices and plug them in and out of your laptop, tell us how that 'shouldn't' crash it while it catches the mainboard on fire, ok?
In all seriousness if Apple wrote the drivers properly and KEPT THEM IN USERLAND, then it also wouldn't be able to crash Vista.
Is Apple not bright enough to do this?
Maybe, but the truth is their drivers AVOID usermode because they want to ensure their DRM pipeline is protected.
So..
Apple + DRM + Stupidity = bad device software
Apple are not only sleezy, but bad at software, and yet fools RUN here with their fanboi badges to defend them. WTF is wrong with people?
Trackpads will do the same thing if they are dirty or have conductive grease on them.
Wash your hands once in a while, and this behavior stops.
Just in case you think this is specific to Samsung, or any conductive touch based technology, it is not.
PS Also don't forget the Casio Watches from the 80s that you could write on the screen with your finger to do calculator functions, as well as even manage contacts.
While Apple's iPhone may be the first device most people call to mind
This alone is scary, and the fact that it may be true is even more scary.
I have a digital voice recorder from 1997 that has a rather advanced touch screen, let alone all the PDAs and PocketPC Phones that existed YEARS before the iPhone.
Sometimes you just have to go, "Ok, the public in general is uninformed and borderline scary stupid."
(And before the fanbois go 'multi-touch', they should go look up multi-touch technology, as Apple didn't even invent the multi-touch interface on the iPhone, as it is a DIRECT clone of the TED presentation technology from several years ago, that was building on independant and MS multi-sensory/touch technology.)
You don't need ZFS to equal NTFS's journaling feature, it had been done already with many filesystems.
I wasn't talking ONLY about journaling. Go look up some of the other inherent features of NTFS, like copy on write to compression to encryption to volume size support. (Truly you need to wiki it, or actually read NTFS specifications.)
ZFS is the only FS that can give NTFS a run, and a lot of the ZFS is still yet to be seen in keeping up with the performance of NTFS.
Then please enlighten me as to how this can be possible when the SCSI subsystem uses the standard method to report that the data IS written to disk when it's written TO RAM ONLY and WRITES LATER to disk.
You again assume there is no way for SCSI to communicate data state. And you are right, it is something that *nix users HAVE to pay attention to, since the OS isn't doing any work to ensure data write states. However, there are OSes that do KNOW when data is in RAM an on physical media.
Even if the OS didn't use the inherent mechanisms of SCSI to query for data state, the OS can also cache bypass to test for physical write. (Enterprise level OSes do this, and even non-enterprised level OSes like XP and Vista.)
For consumer level OSes, if you want one you can flip the switch on at any time without worrying about data loss, no matter the device/controllers in use, stick to NT. (This is one reason MS wins in the business world, that a lot of new OSS proponents don't even realize is a major advantage for data protection.)
I am sorry that I came off a bit strong in my previous posts, I would rather get you thinking and research this a bit more, than just piss you off and put you in a defensive mode.
Truly keep this in the back of your mind when you work with data storage, file systems, and OS file servers. (Or even desktop solutions.)
McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
Rove would be proud of you, still partially in charge of a campaign ran by lobbyists, and they have convinced people they will change things.
Maybe start by firing Rove and the Lobbyists running the campaign, and I might believe McCain, until then, the change argument is about as accurate as being 'against' the bridge to nowhere, from one of the people that pushed Stevens for it. ;)
No...
This is called WRITE-BACK caching mode and if there's no battery backing-up the cache your data will be LOST.
This is what YOU are not getting, as you are repeating it again.
Data is NOT lost if the OS knows the data was never TRULY written. This means that NO MATTER what type or state of the device cache is, the OS is 'smart' enough to realize when a write is 'completed', and not still in any cache mechanism.
There are OSes smart enough to do this, Microsoft makes a very popular one.
Get it yet?
I've seen more than once NTFS filesystems break on power failure, despite what you call
And my cousin's uncle's brother's dog saw two NT servers burst into flames after Steve Jobs said boo...
NTFS is NOT something that true IT professionals, administrators, OS engineers, or OS theorists make fun of as lightly as you seem to do here.
There is a reason there has been a race for ZFS to mature, as it is the FIRST AND ONLY FS technology that comes close to providing the features and possible performance of NTFS. (Go Wiki it, kid.)
If you think NTFS is bad or notorious for data failure you are either drinking the kool-aid or have no experience in real world IT.
Again, shall we talk about how it pretty much stands alone in the department of the OS understanding the device cache state and working with NTFS meta journaling?
Or should we talk about the added full journaling features of Windows 2008 server and Vista, where a dirty volume, let alone lost data is about as frequent as device failure itself?
When the OS/FS combination is pushing reliability percentages that are near parallel to device failure, you can't do much better.
If you want to make fun of NT or Win32, go for it, but NTFS is one area you better do your homework before you start talking smack, as there are a lot of OS theorists that are *nix zealots that would lay you out flat for calling NT's object model or NTFS a bad or ineffective design.
If are buying a lot of parts, you are better off to establish yourself as business that can buy from direct channels/wholesalers.
This opens the door to a lot of wholesale companies that will not only get you good deals, but have better return policies, dealing directly with the hardware channel.
Unfortunately, this means they have to hit me up for 9.5% sales tax.
9.5 in TN? Holy crap you need to start voting democrat.
Unfortunately you make absolutely no distinction between specifications, server-class hardware and cheap consumer-class hardware. I fully understand your comment if you're relying solely on server-class hardware, unfortunately that's not the case of millions of startups that try to keep IT costs low.
Actually, there is a reason I am not making a distinction, because as far as hardware goes, there is none in 99.9% of the cases.
Even the most cheap or generic ATAPI or SCSI device or $15 controller from Frys have the basic interface specifications.
I am surprised that people don't realize that our oldest specifications regarding storage have had mechanisms in place for determinig data and cache state for a long long time, and any device using these specifications adhere by default.
There are reasons the OS can query the cache state, flush the cache, etc etc - even on the cheapest piece of crap hardware, whether it is an IDE/SCSI/SATA/etc device.
The breakdown here is the OS understanding with regard to the device, and being able to properly 'know' or manage the device and even its cache.
In the *nix world this usually requires a marriage of drivers and specific controllers, as the whole I/O model of *nix is very generic.
OSes like NT that have intrinsic 'object' level understanding of I/O, instead of treating all devices under a generic umbrella have the luxury of keeping an eye on the devices in this capacity.
This allows NT to know what the data state is, and uses this information to mark journaling data on the volumes, so with any power failure, the OS volume knows what was 'REALLY' written to the device and what was not.
I don't question your hardware tests, but it all comes down to the OS you are using.
If the OS and FS hasn't a clue about managing the device level data states or cache states, data loss is very possible without the OS knowing any better, even on a journaled FS technology.
And sadly in the *nix world, these are under a generic umbrella and 'left' to the devices to manage themselves only.
Linux when using journaling doesn't keep track and actively manage what the devices are doing, as they are generic to Linux, being a true *nix model, which pushes this outside of the 'job' of the OS.
The crux here is even old HD interface specifications have mechanisms to report cache status to the drivers/OS and even the most generic crap drives, adhere to their specifications and can report this information if the OS is smart enough to ask for it and know what to do with the data.
This is also where the very design of *nix can bite you in the ass, as the generic I/O model is its hallmark.
If anyone was to argue for NT, this is one area they would have some solid ground to make an argument not only for NT, but an obect oriented kernel model that doesn't treat everything like generic textual I/O.
With this kind of configuration, no matter what you do in term of journaling, you will *always* loose data when power fails during I/O operations.
Not sure if this is just confused terms or 'assumed' because of the chain involved you describe.
Dealing with non OS/FS level caches in devices is not something that 'always' equals data loss, as 99% of the devices have methods to signal the OS when a write is complete from cache and when it is only cached waiting write.
I can even give you a simple example of this. NTFS and Vista know what is written and not just device cached, and adds full journaling on top of this.
If this information wasn't available to the OS, then journaling is a wasted technology.
So, devices do let the OS/FS know where the data 'really' is, it is up to the OS to be smart enough to handle this.
Go check out storage device interface specifications, and you will find the mechanisms of how the OS and drivers get this information.
In the Microsoft NT world, turning off write caching in a device is just killing your performance 99% of the time, it is not making your data safer.
Sadly, in the Linux/*nix world, it is a recommended option because the device cache is not something most *nixes or *nix FSs pay attention to very well, until you get to enterprise solutions with very specific devices/drives married to the server installation.
To most people this would mean reporting every URL visited, possibly even what you're typing into forms. To you it means making google.com the default homepage, and OMG if you type something into that box, it's gonna report what you type to Google!! Duh, it's gonna report it to Google because google.com is in the address bar.
You really think this is the only information sent to Google? Really?
Put on your tinfoil hat kiddies, you need to actually research this...
It's that easy? Nice, we can expect an IE fork anytime now.
Actually, it wouldn't be that hard, the trick is 'legally' doing it...
Go look up various Windows Hacks that enable features from Multi-User login on Home editions to even modifications to the Composer and Themes.
These modifications didn't happen because people had or NEEDED the source code.
Get it? You are proving my theory OSS is making people dumber if you really think you need source to modify, extend, or even 'reuse' software...
opensource it, so i very much doubt your conspiracy theory
Wow, OSS would make it free of any Google server tie ins?
Even Firefox reports back to Google, it is OSS, right?
OSS isn't that magical, it just might make it easier to see what the browser is doing. Which is something you can also do easily with IE/Opera/Safari by watching the network traffic.
I am seriously starting to think the OSS movement is making people dumber.
I hear too many arguments around the, "We need source code to see what a product is doing." Do people really believe this? Do people not realize how to read binary, assembly anymore?
Sure source makes 'reusing' software easier, but to see the functionality of software, all you need is the freaking binary. Open Source only makes this a 'bit' easier, and you still need to cross check the binary to ensure the source matches anyway.
Truly, Open Source is turning geeks into technical newbs by everyone thinking it is 'necessary' or a magic bullet.
Where are the old school nerds that can read 'code' from a binary without the freaking source?
Now they can monitor everything you do easier...
Google is a marketing company, and in the past has used nefarious ad tracking to even Firefox searches reporting information to the Google servers.
Now they want a browser? Why? What reason would they need for a new browser?
So instead of putting full support behind a 'generic' Firefox, they want to enter the market so they can gather even more information from the user.
Nice... Geesh
Sadly they will get some of the Dell and other bundling deals, because they can afford to pay these companies to put this browser on machines, and most users won't know what is going on behind, even if the tech community finds Google doing the most nefarious things possible with the browser.
This type of concern makes the IE8 privacy mode and blocking sites from tracking users the 'non-evil' choice.
What was Google's ad hoc motto again, and was it just words after all?
There is no justification for Microsoft to file these ridiculous patents, and they should be vilified for it.
Critical thinking needs to be applied here...
If you were MS and hit with almost daily 'insane' patent lawsuits, what would you do? Just let every idiot create a patent and sue you out of existence because THEY CAN?
This is a defensive measure on MS's part, and is EXACTLY why they are doing it.
Microsoft, even with the Linux threats, has had almost NO offensive patent litigation, and this is with them holding as many as they do that pokes holes all the way into GUI features of OS X and Linux that they could probably win and get the products changed.
If MS was truly as evil as we would like to believe, they would have used their patent wealth to shut down all other competing software by now.
(Even inline spell checking, red squiggle lines for spelling, and even dragging and dropping text is a MS design from the Word team, and arguably something they own as the current Patent laws have been upheld. How do you think this would affect any GUI OS or GUI based software product?)
The difference is enough that the problem here isn't MS, it's the patent system. But we knew that. We're vilifying the wrong people. Our efforts should be focused on demonstrating the inferiority of this system, and exposing any corruption involved in maintaining it.
I have to agree, and if anything MS is demonstrating the insanity of the US Patent system by proxy.
MS has been sued over 100s of insane patents, and so they were forced to patent anything even plausibly theirs to protect companies from getting rich off of stupid patent lawsuits.
(If people look at MS patent history, prior to the mid 90s when they started getting hammered with bogus patent lawsuits, MS had a very limited amount of patents.)
In case anyone doubts MS's filings as being anything but defensive, Google their position on Patents going back to Win 3.x days.
Here is a quick link to illustrate:
http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft,%20Oracle%20call%20for%20patent%20reform/2100-1030_3-5683240.html
Same here. I've got probably 3-4 proper, honest Windows XP licenses, but I keep on having to find new ones because the key either gets lost or decides it doesn't want to work anymore because Microsoft thinks I'm a thief.
Working with literally 100s of thousands of users, if you have a legit key, no matter what, MS will honor your key. (Even after a 'silly' amount of times, call them duringin activation and they will fix the issue with your key and everything is fine.)
Even if you lose your key, if you registered your product, they can look up your registration history and fix the missing ID problem.
So if you are 'legally' using Windows and using 'stolen' IDs, then you either don't know better or are lying.
Knowledge is power. MS had never been picky about users with valid keys or installs.
The latest moves in the WGA shows that MS is stopping the consumer end persecution and focusing on the original OEM piracy targets.
Even if you have a stolen version of Windows, a changing wallpaper or watermark is not a big price to pay, and you can do all the testing or whatever you would use it for.
Silverlight has a pretty good start even on Linux, and on OS X and Windows is darn solid, light and fast compared to Flash.
Especially Video streaming, and HD streaming is not only faster but demands less bandwidth and less server and client resources. If you are doing HD, silverlight VC1 even from a Linux server works well, without the Flash licensing.
Windows and OS X users will note Silverlight handles multimonitor fullscreen modes and other features that Flash often fails with, let alone the video quality in comparison is considerable.
Linux users, check it out, you can view Silverlight content now and even though it is a 'side' project from the Mono team, it is supported by Microsoft. (Microsoft did not want to develop it internally so they wouldn't compete with the Mono project and they also don't have to jump through and OSS licensing that might require them to expose non-related code they consider private.
(Even if you don't agree with MS on this, you can respect their issues with the various licensing models that would force them to provide more than a 'working' version of Silverlight.)
http://www.go-mono.com/moonlight/
(As for the DNC site Silverlight in previous posts, note that it is not Silverlight that is forcing users to use Windows, but a third party media control plugin.
I think the third party control plugin is stupid, really stupid as it is not needed if they took 10min to design the features as native Silverlight .NET code.)
No one is sitting in a room looking to use this data against people - it is barely even plausible to do so.
In the US this is a problem with the new broad powers of the executive branch, that have already been misused.
Ad agencies have already been used to obtain browsing histories for 'non-security/non-criminal' related investigations. (Reporters in 2004 had their browsing histories reviewed by the DOJ, mainly democratic reporters, like the wife of John Kerry's National Security advisor for a specific example you can lookup.)
Reviewing this data by hand is not easy, but a request for the browsing history of IP Range x-y, is a simple query and very effective in tracking business and home users with semi-static IP addresses/ranges.
When you add in other information obtained like machinename, it becomes very specific and can paint a pattern that is humanly visible.
Just because advertisers have used 'nefarious' methods to garner information in the past/present, does not make it 'right'.
You are right this will require the embedded ad content to be changed to 'stop' doing this, but it will not hurt people that link to embedded ads for the most part. (Changing ad linking code is a common update for all large sites on a daily/weekly basis.)
Users have no idea how easy it is to track them and there ARE risks and sites that use this information for nefarious reasons beyond advertising as well. I know of ISPs that even use hidden pixel headers to track their customers to 'regulate' the customers bandwidth, etc.
This is about giving power back to the users and informing them of what they are providing. Something MS and other companies *cough Firefox* should have offered and combated far before this.
MS is becoming less evil, it is time to start giving them some props, as they are even hitting their OWN ad collecting companies/partners with this, and are chosing user rights over the business pressures.
If you work at a Ad company, you have a head start by knowing this, and can get your technical programmers to get a leg up on this coming change. Use this to leverage the goodwill of your company and lead by doing things better for users.
There is difference between ad blocking and tracking blocking.
This identifies 3rd party code that keeps track of users browsing habits, and allows the user to reject being tracked.
Google would be hurt by this, as Google is NOT just about displaying ads, but displaying 'contextual' ads that it gets from not only the site content but the user viewing the site, based on the user's browsing history stored at Google.
Check out the Channel9 interview for more information and the intent of this.
http://channel9.msdn.com/posts/Charles/IE-8-Beta-2-Privacy-is-about-more-than-cookies/
It would be 'easy' to paint MS as being evil, but in reality, this is a feature that 'exposes' the evil that exists all over the web, from pixel tracking systems to full ad user tracking systems like Google uses.
If Google or other online advertisers wants to display Ads, and not be affected by this, then display Ads and STOP TRACKING USERS along with the Ads.
My hope is that someone will come up with a "pluggable" script engine
Until then, check out Silverlight 2.x, it uses a subset of the .NET CLR, and extends past the silverlight 'control'.
You can use .NET C# for everything you normally would of had to use JScript for in the past, HTML form handling, DOM, etc
(Silverlight can be a nice non-visual aspect on a page allowing client side native C# development.)
Not sure how the performance compares, but MS moved to the portable CLR in Silverlight 2.x because of the inconsistencies and speed of JavaScript that Silverlight 1.x was dependant on client side.
Flash ads are now the mainstream
Well if Firefox gains popularity, this could take a sharp change.
Since I personally am usually developing or doing other crazy crap for corporate clients, I tend to use IE 90% of the time since IE7 was released.
The thing I personally didn't realize is how bad Flash was 'still' performing on Firefox, I assumed the glitches of the past were old hat. The Firefox Flash mechanism is horrid to say the least, and no wonder all my friends that love Firefox have Flash blockers installed.
If I was using Firefox in a non-professional setting, I would 'have' to block Flash Ads/Content as the inconsitencies and resource drain is time consuming for just getting news let alone using the Web for hardcore fast answer research.
So if Adobe doesn't get the Firefox crap fixed and fast, they will be handing the keys to Microsoft and Silverlight. And even though it is new and using Vista's API subset, it is managed code, and even in semi-beta form is virtually error free in comparison to Flash 'released'.
With the Olympics and Silverlight, Microsoft is proving Silverlight is ready for mainstream, and it really is using Beta 2 of Silverlight. The video quality differences alone are enough to make the content providers/ad agencies go, wtf and abandon Flash.
PS. Yes Flash can do HD, but not nearly as elegant nor has the WMV (VC1) server integration simplicity. I have had a lot of OS X friends take notice that video are appear in Quicktime HD/Flash HD or MS WMV/VC1 and the Microsoft content is better looking at nearly 1/2 the file size. That kind of stuff gets providers interest pretty fast, especially when users can be happy either way.
Side story note and suggestion:
(BBC, are you paying attention? You can stick with your current solutions and wrap the player in Silverlight and get multi-platform with a part time Silverlight programmer 'fixing' your content in a few days.)