Kind of like the odds of a beetle that shoots fire out his arse eh?
What seems likely to us is that which is close to the possiblities which HAVE resulted from this random grinder, had different results occured and lived for us to discover we'd have completely different ideas. If the fish with a 3 foot wide eyeball shooting pez were something that existed it would be the beetle shooting fire out it's arse we'd argue was statistically impossible.
For all we know such a fish could have occured somewhere within the galaxy, but it wouldn't be likely to survive.
Granted the laws of physics apply, but the laws of physics really don't limit much. Everytime we find something to be impossible physically, we find out there is another way that IS valid within the laws of physics that would make the task possible.
For instance we though nobody could travel faster than light, the truth is, nobody can accelerate to a speed greater than that of light, but thanks to quantum teleportation we know physics does not bar something from going from one place to another and getting there before light would have been able to traverse the distance. Physics isn't much of a limitation at all. Nothing truely defies physics (even if it defies physics as we understand them, it's very existance changes physics as we understand them).
However the possiblities that exist without violating the laws of physics are so innumerable as to be practically infinate. And physics itself could be argued to be merely the universal produce of evolution.
Apparently you missed the point. Killing every eco-system we see is cooperating with nature every bit as much as not. By supporting one form of life you kill another, or another potential life. There is NO right answer, no action is better or worse than another from natures perspective. Nature does not prefer green grass to desert wasteland.
"Of course, such accountability will not be put into effect by the goldfish itself, but how would you like it if an alien race would genetically experiment on humanity just because they can."
Why not? We do it constantly. If we could we would be experimenting on them. It's no more right or wrong than experimenting on a chimp or a rat.
I think you may have gotten the wrong spin. I don't mean been told in terms of developing a solution. I simply mean when working with multiple systems as an admin.
That would depend on what you consider environmentally degrading. I would argue that evolution is self balancing. Evolution has destroyed ecosystems or parts thereof just as readily as we have.
What keeps it going is continuing to produce more randomness until eventually another mutation survives, either causing a change in the existing environment or learning to survive within it. Over time both happens, the changing elements cause the co-existing elements to fade away if they do not (by random chance) produce the right random evolution capable of coping with the change rapidly enough. Other changing elements appear and this happens over and over again.
Now of course individual creatures evolve and adapt differently (even within a single species, sometimes becoming different enough we'd call them another). Some of those individuals within the human species have adapted as (mostly) co-existing elements (of course it's not really true, even those "co-existing" actually change the environment a great deal, just more subtly). Some have adapted as changing elements, these may well expend the resources they and some of the other species depend on. Exactly how do you determine that the changing elements are somehow less natural than the co-existing ones? Even if we evolve ourselves out of existance and eliminate the resources we depend on, not everything depends on those resources. Even if we eliminate all life as we know it including ourselves (an unlikely scenerio, there are lifeforms on earth that could survive a climate change of pretty much any type we could foresee, freezing cold, or hot as lava, even extreme radiation.) Evolution and nature are not limited to our planet, they span the Universe.
George Carlin was cracking jokes of course when he said it, but he made a good point saying "Who the fuck are we to think we can save the planet?". The planet will likely be around long after us and any other species or even all life on it. And certainly any claim that our actions have significant impact on a Universal scale is absurd.
So how about we stop playing games pretending the terms "natural" and "unnatural" as they are actually commonly used (not as I've used them above) mean anything more or less or with less impact than "not done by man" and "done by man". In terms of being part of grand scheme and it's actions being "natural" then everything we do is certainly quite natural. If you accept that, then you also accept that your attempts prevent the demise of a species or certain eco system you prefer are every bit as "unnatural" as the actions you believe would destroy them. Either way, please don't fool yourself into genuinely believing that your actions can make or break the greater scheme of the Universe.
Think about what I've said and please realize the "balances" you speak of are merely temporary snapshots and that evolution WILL introduce a changing element and change (or destroy in view) in what to it is a brief period whether we are that element or not. All eco-systems are eventually broken and changed. That IS nature.
Who are we to kill off the fuzzy bunnies? We are evolutions archangel of death, it's the purpose for our existance as much as anything else we do.
Why? I mean seriously, what difference does it make? If there are primative lifeforms on Mars I don't really see how it makes a difference in the greater scheme of things. It's statistically impossible that there be no other life of some sort in the Universe. Hell it's statistically impossible that there be no other INTELLIGENT life in the Universe.
Wouldn't it be of more real significance to find out whether or not primative life CAN live on mars than whether or not it's already there? If we find out whether or something CAN live there, we know if we should ask WHAT and HOW. Possibly gaining insight into how we might accomplish it or use it to our advantage.
Regardless of your belief about the ORIGIN of life it's pretty hard to debunk evolution anymore.
For one thing, there are pretty serious indications the human species has evolved and continues to do so at a rapidly accelerating rate. Each generation is more intelligent than the last. Methods of education haven't significantly changed between generations. The information on standardized tests has been readily available as long as the standardized tests have been around, eliminating the internet as the culprit. Yet despite constant updating of standardized tests to make them more difficult, each generation yields more perfect scores than the last, and the average scores have raised... and believe me kids haven't all the sudden spontaneously started loving tests or school.
On another note, adaptation can certainly no longer be denied... many species have adapted in quite noticable ways in short periods of time, to that I don't think I need to list examples or provide any proofs, I think it's common knowledge. If species adapt over a short term, it's hard to debate that they adapt over the long term (Evolution).
And last but certainly not least, we have deciphered much of the code that makes a living thing (DNA of course) and we've found that code to be reused over and over again in different species, and also found equivelent code that was not the same in other species.
Now this could be interpreted a few different ways. I have trouble believing at least that an omnipotent creator would have any reason whatsoever or anything to gain from writting common libraries. If he did so, an omnipotent being could effortlessly do it with unqiue implementations, and interpret them effortlessly, therefore the only excuse would be to make it so someone else could eventually interpret them more easily... like us. Now if you think we were designed by more intelligent alien lifeforms, then perhaps the common libs would make more sense. Or the option I can think of, is that our current codes evolved from less numerous common bases and therefore share code that has not yet evolved (at least not evolved and survived).
So, our current knowledge of genetics indicates that (take your pick):
A. We were designed by an omnipotent God who gave us the intellect and intentionally made things easier for us to unravel and manipulate genetics.
B. We were designed by an alien lifeform that used common libraries in our design, and may or may not have intended for us to eventually unravel it.
C. We EVOLVE, and that various species have come from common root species.
Actually I've found that 90% of slashdots population is composed of Microsoft supporting fantatics who run around claiming that Microsoft is a beautiful archangel from above and that they are oppressed by the anti-microsoft fantatics.
So in the meantime, they mod up these posts about their complaints and mod those who have had a better experience with other operating systems like linux and BSD (granted, that's pretty much everyone who has used them for more than a year) into a mudhole.
Slashdot articles in general are basically a mix, some pro microsoft, some against, pretty unbiased reporting... it's just that there is more to report that is negative about microsoft than positive.
Since I'm a genetically modified fish with a glowing arse who uses linux to spam, and thus increase sales of my spoof of the microsoft spoof of the matrix which I call "Master/Slave Jumper Settings".
I have to say I find the policies of L.A. County and the State of California to be Discriminatory.
Please fix moderation to something else, maybe negative or neutral. Troll might work. But it's not offtopic, if you bother reading the slashbacks that site is linked does have red blinking text and that text is the whole point of the update. Therfore it IS ON TOPIC, even if it is a troll.
No kidding. I mean ok, 3-6months I could buy, or if microsoft was unaware, I could buy that to. But 20+yrs? I mean seriously, I've been advised by Microsoft to use 3rd party utilities and devices that come preformated with FAT to transfer data to a windows system before, that kinda blows the theory they haven't cracked down because they didn't know it was happening for 20yrs out the window in my book.
Nope, they sat back and waited, baiting the so called infringers by inaction and intentionally letting it grow so they could hit the jackpot later. I thought at some point I had read somewhere else that doing this intentionally to get more revenue from infringers was actually illegal in some fashion? Not that breaking the law or fear of justice has ever exactly bothered microsoft. I'm fairly sure their confident in their ability to thwart their tame justice department.
The only thing that confuses me, is WHY DO WE CARE IF WE ALTER THE ENVIRONMENT OF MARS??? Is our goal to be the first product of nature that doesn't leave a lasting impact (for better or worse) as is perfectly natural (and arguably, if there were a purpose, it would probably be the purpose of) for any of natures completely random mutations?
I'd wager this won't have much more or less effect on the environment than other random events, like for instance pissing in the wind.
Let's not forget, it's not like nature is an ordered and delicately balanced thing like some eco-freaks try to make out. Instead it's a random conglomeration of random mutations. When one of natures random mutations lives and breeds we call it evolution. We call the wiping out of other plants, animals and creatures, and the ecological shifts "natural".
When we do the same thing in intelligently guided ways (and a rats intelligence is more than what is behind natures random changes)it's called ecological disaster or pollution. Why is that?
Can someone explain to me why it's suddenly bad because it's us and not nature. No matter that we ourselves are one of natures mutations and what we do is merely the natural result of that mutation.
Well, again, it's not like software patents are legitimate to begin with. Even if they were, the idea of a patent is SUPPOSED to be to cover the invention, NOT the idea (which is why the inventor was required to send a physical working prototype to the patent office until this filled up too many warehouses and the practice was stopped). So if you did believe they could patent and copyright format both, patenting fat itself wouldn't be valid since format was their invention, not fat.
Second, it's not like Microsoft didn't enforce their patents for a few months and finally catch these guys. Microsoft didn't enforce their patent for TWENTY YEARS. This is obviously a case of a submarine patent if one ever existed.
And further, I've worked with MICROSOFT on interaction with many of these products and been told by their support staff to use fat as a way to transfer data in cases. You can't tell me Microsoft hasn't been aware and even involved in the fat filesystem being used by 3rd parties over the past 20yrs.
"Once, but not any more. Originally cameras used FAT for Windows compatibility (Even though it wasn't really needed back then... at that time, consumers needed new drivers to recognize flashcards, so they could've installed a new filesystem at the same time). But today, cameras need to be compatible not only with Windows desktops, but also other digital cameras, media on store shelves, Kodak photo-kiosks."
Media is irrelevant. You can pick a media type an format it with your filesystem of choice.
"That's painfully obvious, and changes nothing."
No, no it's not, and I don't see where he got that idea. If microsoft is willing to let the filesystem float around patent free for 20yrs to become standard and then suddenly start charging for it, I wouldn't be suprised at all if they intend to enforce it on products which are already on the shelves.
"Oh really? You've never moved a memcard from one camera to another? You don't enjoy the convenience of tearing an SD Card out of its package and immediately jamming it into your camera, without reformating it first? (Which would erase any data already on the card)"
"It is precisely because all current digital cameras use FAT that future cameras will need to- otherwise, those future cameras will be at a competitive disadvantage because sticking a memory-card into them doesn't "just work"."
And do you really think pressing two buttons on the camera (which could be simplified to one) is really going to have a big impact in whether or not someone replaced and obsolete low quality camera for a modern high quality one? Any displacement would be short lived at best so long as the industry AGREED on a format for everyone to start using. If they don't then there will be more of an issue. If they do, the inconvience will be on the owners of fat based cameras because media will come formated for that new filesystem not fat.
Aside from the fact that software patents in and of themselves should not be acknowledged as having any validity. Software after all is covered under copyright law, not patent law.
Microsoft has allowed the fat file system to propogate for free until becoming a standard, and now is slamming charges on it's use for everything that should grandfather this. Microsoft has every right to do it (again if you believe software patents are legitimate and therefore give right) but they shouldn't impose this on existing applications of the technology. Rather on whatever comes out of the gate from this day forth.
Besides that, the fat filesystem is only unique in the sense that it never occured to anyone to write a filesystem so blatantly weak and crippled.
I believe the real reason microsoft is doing this is because fat is the only filesystem which can easily be used to exchange data between windows and other operating systems.
Of course you do, look at your sig for god sake. Seriously though, in a world where 512mb+ is typical for ram, this results in very poor performance. For those who actually need to swap at all with this amount of RAM (very few will EVER need to swap with half a gig) they'll be hitting the barrier on a regular basis.
Linux is one (though not the only) OS that handles this properly, when VM is needed it's turned on, after that it stays on awhile. If you are doing something that requires alot of ram you only take the performance hit once to turn on vm and you DO notice it, but what you notice is really more the sluggish nature of VM compared with pure ram.
Yeah but the sad part is that it still uses 15-50% of physical ram and 3x that if all your running is notepad and have a 2gig ram. That's just sick, there shouldn't even be any VM happening, but on windows, VM is always happening.
"Quoting the comment you replied to:...since it uses the lufs kernel module to communicate via a unix socket with the user-land ntfs hack.
The important part is "user-land". The lufs module allows filesystems to be implemented in userspace, so the windows dlls will be running in usermode, no worse than running wine."
umm ok, here is the full text of the post I was replying to, could you please show me exactly where that quote is contained in it. Perhaps you meant the grandparent which had almost nothing to do with the post I responded to?
" Does it have to be done that way? Is it not possible, given that the Linux kernel can be modified, for a Windoze.dll to be loaded directly in kernel memory space, with a minimal wrapper round it to map linux system calls to the correct dll entry points?
I am not an expert, but all OSs I have ever seen support a fairly standard set of file operations, the mapping should not be overly complex. Or have M$ messed up big time, as usual, and created a messy interface with hundreds of entry points where about 3 would suffice?"
Perhaps you meant the grandparent's post? The post I was replying to was suggesting that we should do this DIRECTLY IN KERNEL space RATHER THAN in USER space. I maintain that loading windows drivers directly into kernel space, whether doable or not, would give us a result that might well actually be LESS stable than windows (hard to imagine that I know, but these drivers aren't stable on the system their designed for! Let alone running via emulation on a foreign kernel!).
Windows never uses 100% of RAM!!!! It's generally using more like 15-50% of physical ram and triple whatever physical amount that is in swap. Wonder why that is...
Please refer to the 4000 posts above which already answer this question.
First you have it more or less right, however it's a.sys not a.dll. If the user has an NTFS partition I'd say it's fairly likely they have a windows OS that supports ntfs and therefore they have ntfs.sys somewhere;)
Slashdot Mirror
Kind of like the odds of a beetle that shoots fire out his arse eh?
What seems likely to us is that which is close to the possiblities which HAVE resulted from this random grinder, had different results occured and lived for us to discover we'd have completely different ideas. If the fish with a 3 foot wide eyeball shooting pez were something that existed it would be the beetle shooting fire out it's arse we'd argue was statistically impossible.
For all we know such a fish could have occured somewhere within the galaxy, but it wouldn't be likely to survive.
Granted the laws of physics apply, but the laws of physics really don't limit much. Everytime we find something to be impossible physically, we find out there is another way that IS valid within the laws of physics that would make the task possible.
For instance we though nobody could travel faster than light, the truth is, nobody can accelerate to a speed greater than that of light, but thanks to quantum teleportation we know physics does not bar something from going from one place to another and getting there before light would have been able to traverse the distance. Physics isn't much of a limitation at all. Nothing truely defies physics (even if it defies physics as we understand them, it's very existance changes physics as we understand them).
However the possiblities that exist without violating the laws of physics are so innumerable as to be practically infinate. And physics itself could be argued to be merely the universal produce of evolution.
Apparently you missed the point. Killing every eco-system we see is cooperating with nature every bit as much as not. By supporting one form of life you kill another, or another potential life. There is NO right answer, no action is better or worse than another from natures perspective. Nature does not prefer green grass to desert wasteland.
"Of course, such accountability will not be put into effect by the goldfish itself, but how would you like it if an alien race would genetically experiment on humanity just because they can."
Why not? We do it constantly. If we could we would be experimenting on them. It's no more right or wrong than experimenting on a chimp or a rat.
"Natural mutations are random within tightly determined limits."
Where on earth did you get that idea? Natural mutations are as random as the randomly mutated ability to mutate.
I think you may have gotten the wrong spin. I don't mean been told in terms of developing a solution. I simply mean when working with multiple systems as an admin.
"environmentally degrading"
That would depend on what you consider environmentally degrading. I would argue that evolution is self balancing. Evolution has destroyed ecosystems or parts thereof just as readily as we have.
What keeps it going is continuing to produce more randomness until eventually another mutation survives, either causing a change in the existing environment or learning to survive within it. Over time both happens, the changing elements cause the co-existing elements to fade away if they do not (by random chance) produce the right random evolution capable of coping with the change rapidly enough. Other changing elements appear and this happens over and over again.
Now of course individual creatures evolve and adapt differently (even within a single species, sometimes becoming different enough we'd call them another). Some of those individuals within the human species have adapted as (mostly) co-existing elements (of course it's not really true, even those "co-existing" actually change the environment a great deal, just more subtly). Some have adapted as changing elements, these may well expend the resources they and some of the other species depend on. Exactly how do you determine that the changing elements are somehow less natural than the co-existing ones? Even if we evolve ourselves out of existance and eliminate the resources we depend on, not everything depends on those resources. Even if we eliminate all life as we know it including ourselves (an unlikely scenerio, there are lifeforms on earth that could survive a climate change of pretty much any type we could foresee, freezing cold, or hot as lava, even extreme radiation.) Evolution and nature are not limited to our planet, they span the Universe.
George Carlin was cracking jokes of course when he said it, but he made a good point saying "Who the fuck are we to think we can save the planet?". The planet will likely be around long after us and any other species or even all life on it. And certainly any claim that our actions have significant impact on a Universal scale is absurd.
So how about we stop playing games pretending the terms "natural" and "unnatural" as they are actually commonly used (not as I've used them above) mean anything more or less or with less impact than "not done by man" and "done by man". In terms of being part of grand scheme and it's actions being "natural" then everything we do is certainly quite natural. If you accept that, then you also accept that your attempts prevent the demise of a species or certain eco system you prefer are every bit as "unnatural" as the actions you believe would destroy them. Either way, please don't fool yourself into genuinely believing that your actions can make or break the greater scheme of the Universe.
Think about what I've said and please realize the "balances" you speak of are merely temporary snapshots and that evolution WILL introduce a changing element and change (or destroy in view) in what to it is a brief period whether we are that element or not. All eco-systems are eventually broken and changed. That IS nature.
Who are we to kill off the fuzzy bunnies? We are evolutions archangel of death, it's the purpose for our existance as much as anything else we do.
Why? I mean seriously, what difference does it make? If there are primative lifeforms on Mars I don't really see how it makes a difference in the greater scheme of things. It's statistically impossible that there be no other life of some sort in the Universe. Hell it's statistically impossible that there be no other INTELLIGENT life in the Universe.
Wouldn't it be of more real significance to find out whether or not primative life CAN live on mars than whether or not it's already there? If we find out whether or something CAN live there, we know if we should ask WHAT and HOW. Possibly gaining insight into how we might accomplish it or use it to our advantage.
Regardless of your belief about the ORIGIN of life it's pretty hard to debunk evolution anymore.
For one thing, there are pretty serious indications the human species has evolved and continues to do so at a rapidly accelerating rate. Each generation is more intelligent than the last. Methods of education haven't significantly changed between generations. The information on standardized tests has been readily available as long as the standardized tests have been around, eliminating the internet as the culprit. Yet despite constant updating of standardized tests to make them more difficult, each generation yields more perfect scores than the last, and the average scores have raised... and believe me kids haven't all the sudden spontaneously started loving tests or school.
On another note, adaptation can certainly no longer be denied... many species have adapted in quite noticable ways in short periods of time, to that I don't think I need to list examples or provide any proofs, I think it's common knowledge. If species adapt over a short term, it's hard to debate that they adapt over the long term (Evolution).
And last but certainly not least, we have deciphered much of the code that makes a living thing (DNA of course) and we've found that code to be reused over and over again in different species, and also found equivelent code that was not the same in other species.
Now this could be interpreted a few different ways. I have trouble believing at least that an omnipotent creator would have any reason whatsoever or anything to gain from writting common libraries. If he did so, an omnipotent being could effortlessly do it with unqiue implementations, and interpret them effortlessly, therefore the only excuse would be to make it so someone else could eventually interpret them more easily... like us. Now if you think we were designed by more intelligent alien lifeforms, then perhaps the common libs would make more sense. Or the option I can think of, is that our current codes evolved from less numerous common bases and therefore share code that has not yet evolved (at least not evolved and survived).
So, our current knowledge of genetics indicates that (take your pick):
A. We were designed by an omnipotent God who gave us the intellect and intentionally made things easier for us to unravel and manipulate genetics.
B. We were designed by an alien lifeform that used common libraries in our design, and may or may not have intended for us to eventually unravel it.
C. We EVOLVE, and that various species have come from common root species.
D. Either A or B, in combination with C.
Actually I've found that 90% of slashdots population is composed of Microsoft supporting fantatics who run around claiming that Microsoft is a beautiful archangel from above and that they are oppressed by the anti-microsoft fantatics.
So in the meantime, they mod up these posts about their complaints and mod those who have had a better experience with other operating systems like linux and BSD (granted, that's pretty much everyone who has used them for more than a year) into a mudhole.
Slashdot articles in general are basically a mix, some pro microsoft, some against, pretty unbiased reporting... it's just that there is more to report that is negative about microsoft than positive.
Since I'm a genetically modified fish with a glowing arse who uses linux to spam, and thus increase sales of my spoof of the microsoft spoof of the matrix which I call "Master/Slave Jumper Settings".
I have to say I find the policies of L.A. County and the State of California to be Discriminatory.
Please fix moderation to something else, maybe negative or neutral. Troll might work. But it's not offtopic, if you bother reading the slashbacks that site is linked does have red blinking text and that text is the whole point of the update. Therfore it IS ON TOPIC, even if it is a troll.
No kidding. I mean ok, 3-6months I could buy, or if microsoft was unaware, I could buy that to. But 20+yrs? I mean seriously, I've been advised by Microsoft to use 3rd party utilities and devices that come preformated with FAT to transfer data to a windows system before, that kinda blows the theory they haven't cracked down because they didn't know it was happening for 20yrs out the window in my book.
Nope, they sat back and waited, baiting the so called infringers by inaction and intentionally letting it grow so they could hit the jackpot later. I thought at some point I had read somewhere else that doing this intentionally to get more revenue from infringers was actually illegal in some fashion? Not that breaking the law or fear of justice has ever exactly bothered microsoft. I'm fairly sure their confident in their ability to thwart their tame justice department.
The only thing that confuses me, is WHY DO WE CARE IF WE ALTER THE ENVIRONMENT OF MARS??? Is our goal to be the first product of nature that doesn't leave a lasting impact (for better or worse) as is perfectly natural (and arguably, if there were a purpose, it would probably be the purpose of) for any of natures completely random mutations?
I'd wager this won't have much more or less effect on the environment than other random events, like for instance pissing in the wind.
Let's not forget, it's not like nature is an ordered and delicately balanced thing like some eco-freaks try to make out. Instead it's a random conglomeration of random mutations. When one of natures random mutations lives and breeds we call it evolution. We call the wiping out of other plants, animals and creatures, and the ecological shifts "natural".
When we do the same thing in intelligently guided ways (and a rats intelligence is more than what is behind natures random changes)it's called ecological disaster or pollution. Why is that?
Can someone explain to me why it's suddenly bad because it's us and not nature. No matter that we ourselves are one of natures mutations and what we do is merely the natural result of that mutation.
Well, again, it's not like software patents are legitimate to begin with. Even if they were, the idea of a patent is SUPPOSED to be to cover the invention, NOT the idea (which is why the inventor was required to send a physical working prototype to the patent office until this filled up too many warehouses and the practice was stopped). So if you did believe they could patent and copyright format both, patenting fat itself wouldn't be valid since format was their invention, not fat.
Second, it's not like Microsoft didn't enforce their patents for a few months and finally catch these guys. Microsoft didn't enforce their patent for TWENTY YEARS. This is obviously a case of a submarine patent if one ever existed.
And further, I've worked with MICROSOFT on interaction with many of these products and been told by their support staff to use fat as a way to transfer data in cases. You can't tell me Microsoft hasn't been aware and even involved in the fat filesystem being used by 3rd parties over the past 20yrs.
"Once, but not any more. Originally cameras used FAT for Windows compatibility (Even though it wasn't really needed back then... at that time, consumers needed new drivers to recognize flashcards, so they could've installed a new filesystem at the same time). But today, cameras need to be compatible not only with Windows desktops, but also other digital cameras, media on store shelves, Kodak photo-kiosks."
Media is irrelevant. You can pick a media type an format it with your filesystem of choice.
"That's painfully obvious, and changes nothing."
No, no it's not, and I don't see where he got that idea. If microsoft is willing to let the filesystem float around patent free for 20yrs to become standard and then suddenly start charging for it, I wouldn't be suprised at all if they intend to enforce it on products which are already on the shelves.
"Oh really? You've never moved a memcard from one camera to another? You don't enjoy the convenience of tearing an SD Card out of its package and immediately jamming it into your camera, without reformating it first? (Which would erase any data already on the card)"
"It is precisely because all current digital cameras use FAT that future cameras will need to- otherwise, those future cameras will be at a competitive disadvantage because sticking a memory-card into them doesn't "just work"."
And do you really think pressing two buttons on the camera (which could be simplified to one) is really going to have a big impact in whether or not someone replaced and obsolete low quality camera for a modern high quality one? Any displacement would be short lived at best so long as the industry AGREED on a format for everyone to start using. If they don't then there will be more of an issue. If they do, the inconvience will be on the owners of fat based cameras because media will come formated for that new filesystem not fat.
Aside from the fact that software patents in and of themselves should not be acknowledged as having any validity. Software after all is covered under copyright law, not patent law.
Microsoft has allowed the fat file system to propogate for free until becoming a standard, and now is slamming charges on it's use for everything that should grandfather this. Microsoft has every right to do it (again if you believe software patents are legitimate and therefore give right) but they shouldn't impose this on existing applications of the technology. Rather on whatever comes out of the gate from this day forth.
Besides that, the fat filesystem is only unique in the sense that it never occured to anyone to write a filesystem so blatantly weak and crippled.
I believe the real reason microsoft is doing this is because fat is the only filesystem which can easily be used to exchange data between windows and other operating systems.
Of course you do, look at your sig for god sake. Seriously though, in a world where 512mb+ is typical for ram, this results in very poor performance. For those who actually need to swap at all with this amount of RAM (very few will EVER need to swap with half a gig) they'll be hitting the barrier on a regular basis.
Linux is one (though not the only) OS that handles this properly, when VM is needed it's turned on, after that it stays on awhile. If you are doing something that requires alot of ram you only take the performance hit once to turn on vm and you DO notice it, but what you notice is really more the sluggish nature of VM compared with pure ram.
What happens if you get a cavity? or a filling pops out?
Yeah but the sad part is that it still uses 15-50% of physical ram and 3x that if all your running is notepad and have a 2gig ram. That's just sick, there shouldn't even be any VM happening, but on windows, VM is always happening.
"Quoting the comment you replied to: ...since it uses the lufs kernel module to communicate via a unix socket with the user-land ntfs hack.
.dll to be loaded directly in kernel memory space, with a minimal wrapper round it to map linux system calls to the correct dll entry points?
The important part is "user-land". The lufs module allows filesystems to be implemented in userspace, so the windows dlls will be running in usermode, no worse than running wine."
umm ok, here is the full text of the post I was replying to, could you please show me exactly where that quote is contained in it. Perhaps you meant the grandparent which had almost nothing to do with the post I responded to?
" Does it have to be done that way? Is it not possible, given that the Linux kernel can be modified, for a Windoze
I am not an expert, but all OSs I have ever seen support a fairly standard set of file operations, the mapping should not be overly complex. Or have M$ messed up big time, as usual, and created a messy interface with hundreds of entry points where about 3 would suffice?"
Perhaps you meant the grandparent's post? The post I was replying to was suggesting that we should do this DIRECTLY IN KERNEL space RATHER THAN in USER space. I maintain that loading windows drivers directly into kernel space, whether doable or not, would give us a result that might well actually be LESS stable than windows (hard to imagine that I know, but these drivers aren't stable on the system their designed for! Let alone running via emulation on a foreign kernel!).
ok I confess, there were only 352 comments answering the question before he posted.
Windows never uses 100% of RAM!!!! It's generally using more like 15-50% of physical ram and triple whatever physical amount that is in swap. Wonder why that is...
Please refer to the 4000 posts above which already answer this question.
.sys not a .dll. If the user has an NTFS partition I'd say it's fairly likely they have a windows OS that supports ntfs and therefore they have ntfs.sys somewhere ;)
First you have it more or less right, however it's a
scroll up a lil bit and read the 4000 posts already answering this.