Ah, I knew the trendy counterculturalists would come out of the woodwork once micheal posted this article.
Oddly enough, you know, the people who're presently bitterly resenting our foreign policy are decrying exactly such a culture. And I'm not just talking about in Iraq, or Syria, or Egypt -- I'm talking about in France and in our closest ally, the UK, too. Out of passing curiosity, had you ever considered actually listening to the nature of the criticisms against us? Or are you completely isolated in your solipsistic echo chamber?
France has motives. They're so uptight about their own culture that the very idea of a McDonald's hurts their egos.
The other countries--well, of course they're going to spew propoganda of anti-corporatism. Look at their governments. Anything non-Muslim is immediately evil to them.
It's the echo chamber, then...
Sounds like you're upset he proved a point.
Talk about your "propoganda (sic)." The Arab world hates us because our businesses are so efficient at giving people what they want. It's all just basic human nature.
Gee, how do you explain the Shias in Iraq right now? They were cheering when the tanks went into Baghdad; why are they now telling us to go home, if they're gravitating toward more satisfaction as you say?
Because they've been conditioned to hate anything non-Muslim for the past decades. Next.
Why is the Shiite reaction so similar to their reaction to the British in 1919? Were the British also exceptionally good at giving the people the satisfaction they wanted? Or does this explanation of yours float in a totally ahistorical fantasy universe where you don't need to deal with comparisons like that?
Why are you getting so upset over this? He obviously struck a nerve.
More to the point: supply us with one clear case in which this has motivated a specific terrorist act. We know a fair amount about the 9/11 hijackers. Were Mohammed Atta's attitudes toward skyscrapers born of this way of thinking you describe? They seem to fit the "corporatism" critique much better, to me.
They did it because they've been conditioned to hate America. It is non-Muslim and represents the infidels. The Taliban wanted everyone to revert to a pre-technology era. Obviously, they were jealous and envious that such infidels could rise to be the superpowers of the world.
You have actually read about the 9/11 hijackers, haven't you? I don't mean at your left-wing, elitist group gatherings either.
Please, please, look into how the educated Arab world feels about US foreign policy. There are many, many people out there whose desperate desire is to bring secular, democratized states to the Arab world, but who also seem to understand the sources of terrorism. They do understand the despotic regimes out there -- they seem particularly aware of ones like Egypt, and of the Shah in Iran. You know, the ones the US props up? Like in Pakistan, where Bush W. applauded the military coup that brought Musharraf to power back during the 2000 election? (Those regimes really don't fit into your idea of leaders oppressing the people to preserve the status quo, incidentally. The people resent our backing their leaders. Ever notice that? Ever hear of Anwar Sadat?) Those people aren't living in fantasy la-la land where "The terrorists hate us because we provide the people with more satisfaction." They're saying things about how US foreign policy is counterproductive.
Again, they'll hate anything American because they're envious and they're miffed non-Muslims have so much power. This is really easy. Next.
You might want to try listening.
He obviously struck a nerve with you since you resorted to such biased and condescending arguments. It only weakens your positions and makes you look like a kook. Because he disagrees with you, he's not "listening?"
No matter; you didn't have anything worthwhile to say anyway.
Sad to say, this scenario is no longer really beyond the imaginable.
Yes, it is, as a matter of fact. Though you may hold paranoid delusions about the government's evil plans, the rest of us realize Saddam needed to go.
And therein lies the source of your frustration, like with most of those so-called anti-war protesters. You're not anti-war or anti-policy. You're just anti-Bush. Get over it. Bush won and will likely win again.
You can freely protest. It's those big groups of anti-war people that block traffic and ambulances (this really happened in San Francisco) that they're trying to avoid.
There's a time and a place.
Re:DirectX will be used to render the Windows UI
on
Looking at Longhorn
·
· Score: 1
Big freaking deal. So the GPU will be handling a few flat polys to draw some windows and buttons. By then, the effects of such small tasks are negligible on performance, if even noticable.
Easy! Of course there's more than one way to do this, but to state blatently that this system is more powerful than GNU/Linux is uninformed at best, trolling at worst, and wishful thinking either way.
Wrong. The filesystem is indeed more powerful than GNU/Linux.
Using your theoretical system, Grandma still has to save her files in ~/photos. If not, you get to sit through an entire hard drive search. Fun.
Longhorn will take at most a few seconds, no matter where the files are. See those "Library" folders in the Longhorn screenshots? Picture Library, for instance, will display all the pictures on your computer. All Explorer windows will be filterable in that way.
You don't need special features like you suggest in a filesystem to manage your files properly.
When you're dealing with gigabytes and gigabytes of data, yes, you do.
I wonder how many years it will take for Linux to play catchup to these kinds of features that I imagine will be commonplace by the time 2005 rolls around. Heck, I'm still holding my breath for a hardware accelerated X replacement, but the Linux zealots are too afraid of change for that to happen anytime soon...
Re:The submitter of the article was an idiot
on
Looking at Longhorn
·
· Score: 1
The new features of the current itteration of the filing system IS journaling.
No, it's not. In fact, that can't even be a new feature since NTFS has been a journaling filesystem ever since it was first created over a decade ago.
WinFS isn't out yet, nor was it slated to be included in Longhorn last time I checked.
It's not out yet (though you can see the search dialogs building up for it in the latest milestone release), but it will be in Longhorn. This is common knowledge amongst all the Windows sites.
Well, that and the fact that WinFS will break EVERY SINGLE PROGRAM for Windows.
The benefits of Longhorn are, among other things, a database filesystem, the move away from Win32 to.NET, hardware acceleration, and a code branch from Windows Server 2003, which everyone is agreeing boots much faster and is more responsive than previous NT incarnations. Seeing as how Longhorn isn't scheduled to be released until 2005, it's safe to say that's just the tip of the iceberg feature-wise.
Do a Google search or read some friggin' Windows sites. Sheesh.
Re:NEWSFLASH, NTFS is a journaling filesystem!
on
Looking at Longhorn
·
· Score: 1
You're just nitpicking because you hate the fact that he was right. Everyone else understood the point behind the miswording except you.
1.) This is pre-alpha. You're an idiot if you're judging it as the next version of Windows.
2.) They're moving away from Win32 and going to.NET.
3.) Hardware-acceleration.
4.) WinFS, a database filesystem which uses the upcoming Yukon SQL engine.
5.) Various other little features, such as the ability to add and remove RAM without rebooting (Windows Server 2003 currently only allows adding) and changes to the way hardware is listed and handled by the user.
Of course, Slashbots will call it all "eye candy" and ignore the feature changes. Simply because it's Microsoft.
You were trolled. NTFS has been a journaling filesystem since its inception. Meaning over a decade. If you're running at least Windows 2000 right now, you're likely running on a journaling filesystem.
I'm talking about WinFS, which will be using technology from the Yukon engine, which will indeed be included in Longhorn. You can already see the search dialog gearing up for when this will happen in a future milestone release.
They are integrating database capabilities into the filesystem. See those "Library" folders in the screenshots? Those are just filters that search for pictures and so forth. Picture Library lists all the pictures on your hard drive. The filesystem allows for detailed metadata searches.
Has anyone read anything about Longhorn? I thought everyone knew about this. Apparently not.
It's too bad rational folk like yourself are far and few between at Slashdot. Any mention of a 3D accelerated desktop brings the monkeys out of the woodwork, who ask the same questions every time: What's the point? What is the advantage? Why can't I think rationally for myself? Why can't I just stick with my ugly hacked-together KDE configuration for running xterms and Emacs?
It's simply common sense that offloading graphics interface tasks to the graphics chip will improve performance over all. Do we really want to do software window transparency forever?
Longhorn's new filesystem isn't just a journalling filesystem. The submitter of the article is an all-out idiot. The big news about the new filesystem is that it will be integrated with Microsoft's SQL engine and be searchable in that way. Doing a search for "Pink Floyd" will bring up e-mails mentioning Pink Floyd, images, mp3s, contacts with Pink Floyd in their nick, and so forth. Microsoft's big push with this release is how easy it will be to find your files in an era of 100+ GB capacity hard drives.
The filters can be greatly refined as well, and implement machine learning to determine how you use the results in order to perform searches better in the future. If you're a musician and you search for "strings," you'll more likely bring up guitar strings instead of yarn.
Next time, future submitters, read the fucking article.
Slashdot Mirror
Slashbots complain constantly about how bloated, say, Office XP is.
And you're telling me Emacs is an entire light weight OS?
Double standards are amusing.
No, most terrorists hate us because we're non-Muslims with so much power.
Name an example of how we "interfer in other countries buisness very aggressively." You can't.
It's also interesting to note the way people justify terrorists' motives. We interfere with everybody! Yeah, that means it's okay to blow people up.
And Saddam needed to go. Even France knows it deep down.
Next.
Ah, I knew the trendy counterculturalists would come out of the woodwork once micheal posted this article.
Oddly enough, you know, the people who're presently bitterly resenting our foreign policy are decrying exactly such a culture. And I'm not just talking about in Iraq, or Syria, or Egypt -- I'm talking about in France and in our closest ally, the UK, too. Out of passing curiosity, had you ever considered actually listening to the nature of the criticisms against us? Or are you completely isolated in your solipsistic echo chamber?
France has motives. They're so uptight about their own culture that the very idea of a McDonald's hurts their egos.
The other countries--well, of course they're going to spew propoganda of anti-corporatism. Look at their governments. Anything non-Muslim is immediately evil to them.
It's the echo chamber, then...
Sounds like you're upset he proved a point.
Talk about your "propoganda (sic)." The Arab world hates us because our businesses are so efficient at giving people what they want. It's all just basic human nature.
Gee, how do you explain the Shias in Iraq right now? They were cheering when the tanks went into Baghdad; why are they now telling us to go home, if they're gravitating toward more satisfaction as you say?
Because they've been conditioned to hate anything non-Muslim for the past decades. Next.
Why is the Shiite reaction so similar to their reaction to the British in 1919? Were the British also exceptionally good at giving the people the satisfaction they wanted? Or does this explanation of yours float in a totally ahistorical fantasy universe where you don't need to deal with comparisons like that?
Why are you getting so upset over this? He obviously struck a nerve.
More to the point: supply us with one clear case in which this has motivated a specific terrorist act. We know a fair amount about the 9/11 hijackers. Were Mohammed Atta's attitudes toward skyscrapers born of this way of thinking you describe? They seem to fit the "corporatism" critique much better, to me.
They did it because they've been conditioned to hate America. It is non-Muslim and represents the infidels. The Taliban wanted everyone to revert to a pre-technology era. Obviously, they were jealous and envious that such infidels could rise to be the superpowers of the world.
You have actually read about the 9/11 hijackers, haven't you? I don't mean at your left-wing, elitist group gatherings either.
Please, please, look into how the educated Arab world feels about US foreign policy. There are many, many people out there whose desperate desire is to bring secular, democratized states to the Arab world, but who also seem to understand the sources of terrorism. They do understand the despotic regimes out there -- they seem particularly aware of ones like Egypt, and of the Shah in Iran. You know, the ones the US props up? Like in Pakistan, where Bush W. applauded the military coup that brought Musharraf to power back during the 2000 election? (Those regimes really don't fit into your idea of leaders oppressing the people to preserve the status quo, incidentally. The people resent our backing their leaders. Ever notice that? Ever hear of Anwar Sadat?) Those people aren't living in fantasy la-la land where "The terrorists hate us because we provide the people with more satisfaction." They're saying things about how US foreign policy is counterproductive.
Again, they'll hate anything American because they're envious and they're miffed non-Muslims have so much power. This is really easy. Next.
You might want to try listening.
He obviously struck a nerve with you since you resorted to such biased and condescending arguments. It only weakens your positions and makes you look like a kook. Because he disagrees with you, he's not "listening?"
No matter; you didn't have anything worthwhile to say anyway.
Next.
You're obviously a kook.
Sad to say, this scenario is no longer really beyond the imaginable.
Yes, it is, as a matter of fact. Though you may hold paranoid delusions about the government's evil plans, the rest of us realize Saddam needed to go.
And therein lies the source of your frustration, like with most of those so-called anti-war protesters. You're not anti-war or anti-policy. You're just anti-Bush. Get over it. Bush won and will likely win again.
You can freely protest. It's those big groups of anti-war people that block traffic and ambulances (this really happened in San Francisco) that they're trying to avoid.
There's a time and a place.
Big freaking deal. So the GPU will be handling a few flat polys to draw some windows and buttons. By then, the effects of such small tasks are negligible on performance, if even noticable.
Easy! Of course there's more than one way to do this, but to state blatently that this system is more powerful than GNU/Linux is uninformed at best, trolling at worst, and wishful thinking either way.
Wrong. The filesystem is indeed more powerful than GNU/Linux.
Using your theoretical system, Grandma still has to save her files in ~/photos. If not, you get to sit through an entire hard drive search. Fun.
Longhorn will take at most a few seconds, no matter where the files are. See those "Library" folders in the Longhorn screenshots? Picture Library, for instance, will display all the pictures on your computer. All Explorer windows will be filterable in that way.
You don't need special features like you suggest in a filesystem to manage your files properly.
When you're dealing with gigabytes and gigabytes of data, yes, you do.
I wonder how many years it will take for Linux to play catchup to these kinds of features that I imagine will be commonplace by the time 2005 rolls around. Heck, I'm still holding my breath for a hardware accelerated X replacement, but the Linux zealots are too afraid of change for that to happen anytime soon...
The new features of the current itteration of the filing system IS journaling.
No, it's not. In fact, that can't even be a new feature since NTFS has been a journaling filesystem ever since it was first created over a decade ago.
WinFS isn't out yet, nor was it slated to be included in Longhorn last time I checked.
It's not out yet (though you can see the search dialogs building up for it in the latest milestone release), but it will be in Longhorn. This is common knowledge amongst all the Windows sites.
Well, that and the fact that WinFS will break EVERY SINGLE PROGRAM for Windows.
Yeah. Just like NTFS did, right?
Some people will say anything to bash Microsoft.
You're an idiot if you think Paul Thurrot of Winsupersite is going to tell you the only benefit of Longhorn will be hardware acceleration.
Do you know what a pre-alpha is? You do know they're unfinished products, right?
The things I have to explain to Slashbots.
Do you even know what a journaling file system actually does?
You're not guaranteed to never lose data. Use Google sometime and get back to me.
Last time I unplugged the machine by mistake.
Who the hell modded this up? NTFS is a fully journaling filesystem. It's not an opinion; it's a technical fact.
Next.
And Windows had it even longer than you.
Next.
The benefits of Longhorn are, among other things, a database filesystem, the move away from Win32 to .NET, hardware acceleration, and a code branch from Windows Server 2003, which everyone is agreeing boots much faster and is more responsive than previous NT incarnations. Seeing as how Longhorn isn't scheduled to be released until 2005, it's safe to say that's just the tip of the iceberg feature-wise.
Do a Google search or read some friggin' Windows sites. Sheesh.
You're just nitpicking because you hate the fact that he was right. Everyone else understood the point behind the miswording except you.
Hello? NTFS is a full journaling file system.
Again, the new feature of WinFS is SQL integration. Not new journaling features.
The "idiot" part is debatable.
Ever heard of a little called GDI+?
I resent idiots who use "M$" as if it's insulting or clever in any way.
How dare a company make money! Let's put a dollar sign in their name! That will show everyone how mature Linux users are.
Your idea for laws that prevent hardware deals is fascism at its worst.
1.) This is pre-alpha. You're an idiot if you're judging it as the next version of Windows.
.NET.
2.) They're moving away from Win32 and going to
3.) Hardware-acceleration.
4.) WinFS, a database filesystem which uses the upcoming Yukon SQL engine.
5.) Various other little features, such as the ability to add and remove RAM without rebooting (Windows Server 2003 currently only allows adding) and changes to the way hardware is listed and handled by the user.
Of course, Slashbots will call it all "eye candy" and ignore the feature changes. Simply because it's Microsoft.
You were trolled. NTFS has been a journaling filesystem since its inception. Meaning over a decade. If you're running at least Windows 2000 right now, you're likely running on a journaling filesystem.
Next.
I'm talking about WinFS, which will be using technology from the Yukon engine, which will indeed be included in Longhorn. You can already see the search dialog gearing up for when this will happen in a future milestone release.
They are integrating database capabilities into the filesystem. See those "Library" folders in the screenshots? Those are just filters that search for pictures and so forth. Picture Library lists all the pictures on your hard drive. The filesystem allows for detailed metadata searches.
Has anyone read anything about Longhorn? I thought everyone knew about this. Apparently not.
The NT line has been using NTFS for over a decade now.
The submitter of the article was simply an idiot looking to mention "Linux" in some way in a Slashdot article summary.
It's too bad rational folk like yourself are far and few between at Slashdot. Any mention of a 3D accelerated desktop brings the monkeys out of the woodwork, who ask the same questions every time: What's the point? What is the advantage? Why can't I think rationally for myself? Why can't I just stick with my ugly hacked-together KDE configuration for running xterms and Emacs?
It's simply common sense that offloading graphics interface tasks to the graphics chip will improve performance over all. Do we really want to do software window transparency forever?
You posted the definition for a journalling filesystem.
That gets "+5" around here?
Someone was karma whoring.
Anyone judging anything in these pre-alpha releases is just looking for something to bash.
And Windows users have had since... 1994?
Since the inception of NTFS itself.
Longhorn's new filesystem isn't just a journalling filesystem. The submitter of the article is an all-out idiot. The big news about the new filesystem is that it will be integrated with Microsoft's SQL engine and be searchable in that way. Doing a search for "Pink Floyd" will bring up e-mails mentioning Pink Floyd, images, mp3s, contacts with Pink Floyd in their nick, and so forth. Microsoft's big push with this release is how easy it will be to find your files in an era of 100+ GB capacity hard drives.
The filters can be greatly refined as well, and implement machine learning to determine how you use the results in order to perform searches better in the future. If you're a musician and you search for "strings," you'll more likely bring up guitar strings instead of yarn.
Next time, future submitters, read the fucking article.