Retrospect Express is designed to be limited. That's why they sell it so cheap. If you're willing to spend a couple hundred dollars you can get the workgroup upgrade, with five or ten clients. Works great for me.
-fred
Re:Why would I use this over Dantz Retrospect?
on
BRU LE for Mac OS X
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I don't know what product YOU used, but I have used Retrospect to back up:
1) My five computer home network 2) A 25-Mac-and-8-PC development network 3) A network of about 100 computers, mixed Mac and PC
At various times, with various versions. Perhaps you used someone's personal machine which was off 2/3 of the time or whatever, but installed on a server (on a beige G3 web server, a Quadra 700 (in 1998!), and a Mac IIci (in 1994) respectively) it always worked just fine for me. Especially compared to what I'm trying to get to work now, a Computer Associates piece of junk Windows app with a lousy UI which only appears to send email notifications of missed backups when IT wants to.
Maybe you should consider a different career, if you really had that much trouble with Retrospect.
> I'm getting a silver one simply because it looks better and I'm not huge on music to be honest
Um... so you're not huge on music (which I take to mean that you don't care much one way or the other for it) but you're paying $250 for an MP3 player?
I'm a huge music buff, I know I'd use it every day (for, at least, my 20-minute walk to and from work), and I love the design... but I don't have one. I wish I had your budget.
-fred
*sigh* Humor impaired?
on
Postfix
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
So the point was that you are the admin for a corporate network that ran on MacOS 9, and now runs on MacOS X.
And therefore, since the administration is so easy, you have plenty of time to read and review books.
See? He made a funny.
(Mind you, this is funny because it's true. If you'd said the same thing except about moving your servers from Windows NT 4 to Windows 2003 Advanced Server, he could have said the same thing, and it would've been funny because it was so outrageously false.)
> It was indeed a bailout. It was termed so inside the tech world, and also in the "secular" business press at the time. Do you want > some of the many many examples?
And it is well documented that one of the reasons that everybody thought it was a bailout was because nobody was allowed to mention the real reason that it happened. Which was because Apple discovered that MS had stolen the source code for QuickTime and inserted it whole-cloth into their competing product. Lawsuit, settlement, and large investment.
Of course, you've heard all of this before and chosen to ignore it all, so I'm sure I can't convince you of anything. But I worked at Apple for a while, and know a couple of the people who were involved in the trial.
Basically, Apple got some money when it needed it (although they did still have billions in cash and assets, the stock purchase definitely helped), and Microsoft got to look like a 'good company' at a time it needed it. A win-win settlement.
> I don't know that it matters that much in Broadway plays (I suspect they play things the way they play them without any > influence from the audience)
You'd be pretty surprised.
Not that I've performed on Broadway. But I'd hate to think that the Broadway shows were WORSE in this regard than the shows that I've performed in. (And would find it hard to believe, frankly.) I do amateur work as an operetta singer/actor (the performers are unpaid, the conductor, director, costumer, and a few other people are paid) for a high-end amateur group, and I can tell you right now that our performances vary WIDELY depending on the audience's mood.
> When some people can't do the job at a price the rest of us are willing to pay, then it is time to find new skills or promote other > skills they may have.
Ah, the famous 'capitalism is god' theory. If you accept that the most important thing in the world is capitalism, then this is perfectly reasonable.
If you accept that people have value too, aside from solely that which they provide to capitalism, then this is an ugly, ugly attitude. But an increasingly prevalent one.
Funny how people are happier, the standards of living are higher, there's lower crime, there's lower incidence of ulcers, there's lower incidence of cancer, and so forth, in countries like Sweden. But if you accept that all these things are meaningless, then unfettered capitalism is the way to go.
> Maybe, just maybe, people should decide their opinions of art based on the art, not on the meta-discussion behind it and the > concensus of the cultural elite.
This is fine for people who don't know anything about music.
Music changes from performance to performance. One night the audience gets excited at one part of the show... the director speeds everything up a little, brings up the tympani, gets the singers to kick it up a notch. Or maybe he slows things down, stretches out the tension until a moment of dead silence, that stretches out an extra two or three beats... and then comes crashing to a climax.
Look, if you don't know that there's a difference between live and recorded music, in experience, then that's fine. But if you assume that *I* can't tell, that there really isn't a difference, than you're one of those poor souls that thinks that just because he's too thick to notice something it can't exist. In reality, there's a mood in the crowd, and a good conductor with good musicians and singers can use that mood, encourage it, shape it, and then resonate with it and make the whole experience more powerful. And if you are incapible of experiencing that, then you're missing out.
Take any part of the equation away and the experience is dramatically lessened. But hey... if people will still pay the same amount for it, then who am I to say that it's bad? After all, since the only valid argument is profit these days, clearly recorded music IS far superior. Right?
> Unless someone's done something interesting with arrangements, the musicians playing the score for Les Mis have > very little to no creative input in the music they're producing. They play what's on the score, and there's very little interaction > between the cast and orchestra in a typical concert hall.
I'd hate to be in any of the shows YOU'VE been in. In the shows I perform in, there is plenty of interaction between cast and orchestra. Mediated, of course, through the CONDUCTOR. That's what he's there for. And the conductor is supposed to pick up the vibe from the audience, and will if he's any good, which adds a third party into the mix.
As soon as you add a synth playing six parts at once, then your tempos can't vary, you can't easily alter dynamics from night to night (unless you want to alter them all in exactly the same way, which is a bad idea), and basically you end up with a much inferior performance. But since people don't actually know what a stage show should look like these days anyway, nobody misses anything. And hey, if people will pay just as much for an inferior performance that costs less to produce, then that's what they'll get.
> Humans are in most cases simply acting as input for synthesized instruments anyway.
Uh... what?
I don't know what you consider 'most', but 'most' musicians these days don't play digital synthesized instruments. They play real instruments. As did the musicians which were replaced.
I read Perdido Street Station
on
King Rat
·
· Score: 1
Irritated by the ending. Basically, 'there is no such thing as redemption, there shouldn't be, and if someone does something bad when he is young he ought to go on paying for it for the rest of his life, because he's evil.'
I'll probably read King Rat at some point, but I'm certainly waiting for the paperback. Perdido was good, but the author's philosophy and mine are squarely at odds.
I found it hard to put too much faith in these guys after I read this bit:
-- Snippity -- What are phosphors? Phosphors are chemical compounds on back glass that emit the visible light that makes up the picture we see. Hit them with light and they react by producing an amount of red, green or blue. On a direct-view television (CRT, or cathode ray tube) the phosphors are on the front glass and are excited by a beam of light from the cathode-ray. On plasma monitors the phosphors are excited by UV light produced by electromagnetically charged plasma. -- Snippity --
Oh, yes. Phosphors are excited by a beam of light from the cathode ray. Because, after all, we wouldn't want to use a beam of electrons, because then we'd have to use electromagnets to aim it, instead of using... uh... gravity! Yes, there are microscopic black holes in your TV, moving around to steer this beam of light.
And they call it an electron gun because... uh, because...
Oh, hell with it. Anyway, kudoes not only to the author for being clueless, but for the editor for being either clueless or supremely oblivious.
Amongst the hats I'm currently wearing is that of a build engineer for a company that has a java product. We build using Apple's Java 1.3.1 on the Mac (to avoid some incompatibilities with 1.4.1) and Sun's Java 1.3.1 on Windows.
Our project builds in the following times: (minutes:seconds) 2:27 700 mHz P3 with 256 megs RAM 1:56 800 mHz Duron with 1 gig RAM 1:09 1.5 gHz P4 with 512 mb RAM 0:56 1.25 gHz G4 (15" AlBook) with 512 mb RAM
Bear in mind that this is 1.3.1, and I don't have any stats for 1.4 onward.
> Measured from the center, the Washington Post is leftist.
Funny how 'the center' is always 'where I am'.
There is almost no media left in this country that is left of where the 'center' was defined to be 20 years ago. Fortunately, there is never any shortage of pundits willing to redefine the center such that the media can always be called liberal.
So you're saying that the world's largest user of depleted uranium, which has publically said that they would never even consider a ban on DU no matter what the health consequenses were, and that the current research on DU was fine and therefore we didn't need any more, doesn't have an axe to grind.
From what I understood, the FBI won't even get involved with anything that doesn't represent at least X tens of thousands of dollars of losses/damage.
At least, that's what a friend of mine and I were told when someone broke into the systems at his workplace and rearranged some rather important bits of his business. 'Unless the losses are over $20k, don't even bother calling the FBI. And they probably still won't talk to you unless it's more than $50k.'
Whereas the actual losses were only about two weeks of work by his IT consultant. (Me.) Sadly, I don't charge $20k for two weeks of work.
So perhaps what you mean is, the FBI generally gets involved in really high-profile high-profit computer crime?
His point was, the typical law enforcement personnel (NOT the FBI) is clueless about Macs. The FBI doesn't generally get involved in every case that comes along.
The US government won't even sign the international land mine treaty! Mines kill a person every twenty minutes, are damn tough to clean up, the US spends hundreds of millions every year cleaning up American landmindes...
Some people really WILL do anything to play minesweeper.
Slashdot Mirror
There's this new craze sweeping the nation... it's called 'joking'.
-fred
Retrospect Express is designed to be limited. That's why they sell it so cheap. If you're willing to spend a couple hundred dollars you can get the workgroup upgrade, with five or ten clients. Works great for me.
-fred
I don't know what product YOU used, but I have used Retrospect to back up:
1) My five computer home network
2) A 25-Mac-and-8-PC development network
3) A network of about 100 computers, mixed Mac and PC
At various times, with various versions. Perhaps you used someone's personal machine which was off 2/3 of the time or whatever, but installed on a server (on a beige G3 web server, a Quadra 700 (in 1998!), and a Mac IIci (in 1994) respectively) it always worked just fine for me. Especially compared to what I'm trying to get to work now, a Computer Associates piece of junk Windows app with a lousy UI which only appears to send email notifications of missed backups when IT wants to.
Maybe you should consider a different career, if you really had that much trouble with Retrospect.
-fred
> I'm getting a silver one simply because it looks better and I'm not huge on music to be honest
Um... so you're not huge on music (which I take to mean that you don't care much one way or the other for it) but you're paying $250 for an MP3 player?
I'm a huge music buff, I know I'd use it every day (for, at least, my 20-minute walk to and from work), and I love the design... but I don't have one. I wish I had your budget.
-fred
So the point was that you are the admin for a corporate network that ran on MacOS 9, and now runs on MacOS X.
And therefore, since the administration is so easy, you have plenty of time to read and review books.
See? He made a funny.
(Mind you, this is funny because it's true. If you'd said the same thing except about moving your servers from Windows NT 4 to Windows 2003 Advanced Server, he could have said the same thing, and it would've been funny because it was so outrageously false.)
-fred
> It was indeed a bailout. It was termed so inside the tech world, and also in the "secular" business press at the time. Do you want
> some of the many many examples?
And it is well documented that one of the reasons that everybody thought it was a bailout was because nobody was allowed to mention the real reason that it happened. Which was because Apple discovered that MS had stolen the source code for QuickTime and inserted it whole-cloth into their competing product. Lawsuit, settlement, and large investment.
Of course, you've heard all of this before and chosen to ignore it all, so I'm sure I can't convince you of anything. But I worked at Apple for a while, and know a couple of the people who were involved in the trial.
Basically, Apple got some money when it needed it (although they did still have billions in cash and assets, the stock purchase definitely helped), and Microsoft got to look like a 'good company' at a time it needed it. A win-win settlement.
-fred
>>> "However, for some reason this is locked by Apple."
>> How about because they didn't pay for it?
> Because it's a terrible file format compared to MP3, and MP3 is already the standard?
And this, boys and girls, is why you should read the comments twice before replying to them.
-fred
> I don't know that it matters that much in Broadway plays (I suspect they play things the way they play them without any
> influence from the audience)
You'd be pretty surprised.
Not that I've performed on Broadway. But I'd hate to think that the Broadway shows were WORSE in this regard than the shows that I've performed in. (And would find it hard to believe, frankly.) I do amateur work as an operetta singer/actor (the performers are unpaid, the conductor, director, costumer, and a few other people are paid) for a high-end amateur group, and I can tell you right now that our performances vary WIDELY depending on the audience's mood.
-fred
> When some people can't do the job at a price the rest of us are willing to pay, then it is time to find new skills or promote other
> skills they may have.
Ah, the famous 'capitalism is god' theory. If you accept that the most important thing in the world is capitalism, then this is perfectly reasonable.
If you accept that people have value too, aside from solely that which they provide to capitalism, then this is an ugly, ugly attitude. But an increasingly prevalent one.
Funny how people are happier, the standards of living are higher, there's lower crime, there's lower incidence of ulcers, there's lower incidence of cancer, and so forth, in countries like Sweden. But if you accept that all these things are meaningless, then unfettered capitalism is the way to go.
-fred
> Maybe, just maybe, people should decide their opinions of art based on the art, not on the meta-discussion behind it and the
> concensus of the cultural elite.
This is fine for people who don't know anything about music.
Music changes from performance to performance. One night the audience gets excited at one part of the show... the director speeds everything up a little, brings up the tympani, gets the singers to kick it up a notch. Or maybe he slows things down, stretches out the tension until a moment of dead silence, that stretches out an extra two or three beats... and then comes crashing to a climax.
Look, if you don't know that there's a difference between live and recorded music, in experience, then that's fine. But if you assume that *I* can't tell, that there really isn't a difference, than you're one of those poor souls that thinks that just because he's too thick to notice something it can't exist. In reality, there's a mood in the crowd, and a good conductor with good musicians and singers can use that mood, encourage it, shape it, and then resonate with it and make the whole experience more powerful. And if you are incapible of experiencing that, then you're missing out.
Take any part of the equation away and the experience is dramatically lessened. But hey... if people will still pay the same amount for it, then who am I to say that it's bad? After all, since the only valid argument is profit these days, clearly recorded music IS far superior. Right?
-fred
> Unless someone's done something interesting with arrangements, the musicians playing the score for Les Mis have
> very little to no creative input in the music they're producing. They play what's on the score, and there's very little interaction
> between the cast and orchestra in a typical concert hall.
I'd hate to be in any of the shows YOU'VE been in. In the shows I perform in, there is plenty of interaction between cast and orchestra. Mediated, of course, through the CONDUCTOR. That's what he's there for. And the conductor is supposed to pick up the vibe from the audience, and will if he's any good, which adds a third party into the mix.
As soon as you add a synth playing six parts at once, then your tempos can't vary, you can't easily alter dynamics from night to night (unless you want to alter them all in exactly the same way, which is a bad idea), and basically you end up with a much inferior performance. But since people don't actually know what a stage show should look like these days anyway, nobody misses anything. And hey, if people will pay just as much for an inferior performance that costs less to produce, then that's what they'll get.
-fred
> Humans are in most cases simply acting as input for synthesized instruments anyway.
Uh... what?
I don't know what you consider 'most', but 'most' musicians these days don't play digital synthesized instruments. They play real instruments. As did the musicians which were replaced.
-fred
Les Miserables is an operetta.
-fred
Irritated by the ending. Basically, 'there is no such thing as redemption, there shouldn't be, and if someone does something bad when he is young he ought to go on paying for it for the rest of his life, because he's evil.'
I'll probably read King Rat at some point, but I'm certainly waiting for the paperback. Perdido was good, but the author's philosophy and mine are squarely at odds.
-fred
So what does this have to do with darwin ports, then?
-fred
I found it hard to put too much faith in these guys after I read this bit:
-- Snippity --
What are phosphors? Phosphors are chemical compounds on back glass that emit the visible light that makes up the picture we see. Hit them with light and they react by producing an amount of red, green or blue. On a direct-view television (CRT, or cathode ray tube) the phosphors are on the front glass and are excited by a beam of light from the cathode-ray. On plasma monitors the phosphors are excited by UV light produced by electromagnetically charged plasma.
-- Snippity --
Oh, yes. Phosphors are excited by a beam of light from the cathode ray. Because, after all, we wouldn't want to use a beam of electrons, because then we'd have to use electromagnets to aim it, instead of using... uh... gravity! Yes, there are microscopic black holes in your TV, moving around to steer this beam of light.
And they call it an electron gun because... uh, because...
Oh, hell with it. Anyway, kudoes not only to the author for being clueless, but for the editor for being either clueless or supremely oblivious.
-fred
I am not your old bean.
Mwah mwah, sweetie.
-fred
Amongst the hats I'm currently wearing is that of a build engineer for a company that has a java product. We build using Apple's Java 1.3.1 on the Mac (to avoid some incompatibilities with 1.4.1) and Sun's Java 1.3.1 on Windows.
Our project builds in the following times: (minutes:seconds)
2:27 700 mHz P3 with 256 megs RAM
1:56 800 mHz Duron with 1 gig RAM
1:09 1.5 gHz P4 with 512 mb RAM
0:56 1.25 gHz G4 (15" AlBook) with 512 mb RAM
Bear in mind that this is 1.3.1, and I don't have any stats for 1.4 onward.
-fred
> Measured from the center, the Washington Post is leftist.
Funny how 'the center' is always 'where I am'.
There is almost no media left in this country that is left of where the 'center' was defined to be 20 years ago. Fortunately, there is never any shortage of pundits willing to redefine the center such that the media can always be called liberal.
-fred
Errm...
So you're saying that the world's largest user of depleted uranium, which has publically said that they would never even consider a ban on DU no matter what the health consequenses were, and that the current research on DU was fine and therefore we didn't need any more, doesn't have an axe to grind.
Of COURSE we can trust them.
-fred
Looking at this one, I'd guess that a lot more of them are attempts at humorous quips that actually suck.
-fred
From what I understood, the FBI won't even get involved with anything that doesn't represent at least X tens of thousands of dollars of losses/damage.
At least, that's what a friend of mine and I were told when someone broke into the systems at his workplace and rearranged some rather important bits of his business. 'Unless the losses are over $20k, don't even bother calling the FBI. And they probably still won't talk to you unless it's more than $50k.'
Whereas the actual losses were only about two weeks of work by his IT consultant. (Me.) Sadly, I don't charge $20k for two weeks of work.
So perhaps what you mean is, the FBI generally gets involved in really high-profile high-profit computer crime?
-fred
His point was, the typical law enforcement personnel (NOT the FBI) is clueless about Macs. The FBI doesn't generally get involved in every case that comes along.
Even if they do involve Macs.
-fred
> Next you'll be asking who's penis is bigger.
Mine.
-fred
The US government won't even sign the international land mine treaty! Mines kill a person every twenty minutes, are damn tough to clean up, the US spends hundreds of millions every year cleaning up American landmindes...
Some people really WILL do anything to play minesweeper.
-fred