And just in case someone comes back with "Knoppix can write to NTFS if you use the NTFS driver from windows", I've used a LOT of versions of Knoppix and I've NEVER gotten that to work correctly.
If their ratio is anything like I get with the filter I use at home (I eventually get around to taking a look at what's fallen into my spam bucket), about 16. ~99% of the mislabeled mail from my filter is spam that makes it though the filters. Not too bad out of 16 million.
That's ok. Back in the day WD had the same issue with a line of 3 platter drives. I had 10 of them in machines I controlled. I went through about 40 drive swaps before WD finally replaced the bad model with an equivalent sized 2 platter that actually worked.
Next year it will be 6 platter drives that have issues and 5 platters will be safe...
You've got many many metric tons of snowdrift, floating through space.
You ram a refridgerator size probe REAL fast into one side of it.
The 'snow' right where the fridge hits is going to move inward, but the many many metric tons of snow on the other side of it is going to want to stay right where they are (a body at rest tends to stay at rest). The movement inward of the snow under the probe's impact against all that 'resting mass' will cause the compression of the 'snow' in that area.
You only move the source of pollution away from the highly visible tail pipe.
Correct, but it is much easier to put a large scrubber system on a Hydrogen 'factory' than it is to put that scrubber system on a car. The factory scrubbing can be much more complete and it makes less weight for the car to drag around.
Electrolyzing water is short sighted at best. The second law of thermodynamics (which we obey in this house!) dictates that it will always take more energy to get the free hydrogen that you can ever get back in a fuel cell. This means that it will take a LOT of power to supply a hydrogen economy which means new power plants, which means burning more natural gas and coal. The single best leveragabile solution to a hydrogen economy is new nuclear power plants...
Or Solar, or wind, or wave. All of those can be mounted nicely on a piece of land but not very well on a vehicle.
The tree huggers of this world like to think that we can supply hydrogen with windmills, solar, and tidal power. Now while these alternate energy sources certainly merit investment we are a looong way from being able to produce anywhere near the energy needed to supply millions of autos with hydrogen.
You don't have to produce enough from those source to supply *all* the cars. Just producing enough for a decent percentage of cars would go a long way toward reducing carbon emissions. Every bit of reduction is good, it doesn't have to be total. Eventually folks may come around to using pebble-bed fission if fusion doesn't pan out.
Because there are lots of other companies out there who also have patents and they may sue you for patent violation. If you have a large stockpile of useful patents you can arrange a 'cross-licensing' agreement with the other company so that they can use your patents, and you can use theirs (defusing their lawsuit against you). I'd not hard to understand or believe.
I haven't seen any games yet that run appreciably better on multiple CPUs than on one. Have you? Just because those extra CPUs are in a box, it doesn't mean that the game developers will actually be able to take good advantage of them. Until we see that games deriving a real benefit from them released, it seems like it might be a valid criticism.
This particiular 'interview' was particularly short. Even some other ones I've seen don't give much room to talk about PC game future. The 'console-centric' aspect is that these new consoles will be out very soon with multiple CPUs and he thinks it may be a few years before game writers actually become proficient at writing games that can actually take advantage of the CPUs (/sony cores). By that time your console is now a relic, however you've probably got other uses for those multiple CPUs in your desktop computer.
I'm not really surprised he says Xbox 360 makes his life worse - a lot of the planned online functionality MS have in store renders Steam somewhat irrelevant.
That's not what makes his life worse. It's the multi-CPU aspect. Same as with the new Sony Cell chips making things diffucult.
Oh, in case you think he's still just upset about your company 'rendering Steam somewhat irrelevent', check out what John Carmack of Id (DOOM 3) and Tim Sweeney of Epic Games (Unreal Tournament) have to say about the topic. Those two don't have any Steam to worry about, but agree with Gabe.
A Sony employee dismissing criticism of Sony. Who'd believe it...
It's not like NT sprang fully formed as a pirated version of Mica without OS/2.
No, but most of the OS/2 bits are in the upper layer for compatability. They don't make up the kernel and basic heart of the OS. That part is very much VMS-like. The OS/2 bits resides up on top like the Win32 and Win16/DOS and POSIX bits.
I'm sorry that it 'irks' you that NT isn't treated more as an offshoot of OS/2, but plenty of us do consider the OS/2 history and still think of the heart of NT as a VMS offshoot (no matter how MS might have mucked it up since it's development).
It's really hard to boil it down since there are so many metrics and variables. Tools, features, learning curve, performance both on small and large scale, clustering, apps it needs to interact with, yadda, yadda, yadda. Basically you have to go with the saying 'use the right tool for the right job'. For some jobs that's going to be one DB, for others it will be another.
You can always get a trial copy of SQL server to test vs the other databases you are considering to see what fits the bill.
Franky, and this is extremely generally speaking, for features and scalability, I find it just above PostgreSQL, but well below Oracle. MS SQL has been well ahead of PostgreSQL feature wise for years (uptatable views, PostgeSQL's need for vaccuming, etc, etc), but PostgreSQL is starting to catch up. Then again MS is about to release a new version of their SQL server. I haven't had a chance to play with the beta, so I don't know what they will be bringing to the plate.
It's a love-hate thing with SQL server. I like their tools, but really don't like they ways they handle some things like date/time/timestamp, etc.
If they need to tie it into other MS apps, access, etc, or think down the road you might use portal server, etc, it's not a bad way to go. Should you let them use it? It depends on their needs.
Please, Oracle has a ton of features that just aren't there in PostgreSQL. For features a mom&pop shop need, Postgres is usually fine. But for serious enterprise work PostgreSQL is not anywhere on the same playing field as Oracle.
I'm not dissing PostgreSQL. I like it, and I use it. I also use MS SQL server and when I have no other choice, MySQL.
The feature list difference between each of the databases is quite large. Simply saying "PostreSQL compares very well to Oracle" is NOT informative.
Well, it was. They even shared filesystems, until Microsoft took their ball and went home. It's not "just some guy on/." (me) saying it's an outgrowth of OS/2, but everyone else that lived through that era from 1987 until the virtual death of OS/2 sometime in 1997.
Really? Because I lived through that era, and I and a bunch of other folks that did think otherwise. I was a VMS user long before NT ever came out. Coming from a VMS background, it's not hard to see more similarities in the foundation of the OS than I see with it and OS/2.
I can point you to quite a few other sites with evidence that NT is more based on VMS with just some compatible bits from OS/2 included.
Looks the the terminology, the table of significant similarities, etc. They included an OS/2 compatability layer and some bits and pieces they had been working on from OS/2, but the basics of the system were VMS-like.
It wasn't just Dave Culter MS hired away from VMS, it was also about 20 former Digital employees that had worked with him on the Mica project, a whole new updated version of VMS. Whether or not they included exact code they wrote for Mica in NT (and Microsoft's settlement with DEC implies there was), you know they had to implement some of the ideas they had been working on. Software developers rarely like to give up on good new ideas they invent and DEC killed Mica. Incorporating those ideas in NT was the only way they would see the light of day.
For a graphical representation:
That's hardly a scholarly study of OS history. Have you looked at their links for references? It's nothing special. For Microsoft, they have exactly two link as references, and one of them is the exact article I posted above for you which states that NT *is* a direct descendent of VMS.
And lastly, if NT is a direct descendent of VMS, who is the idiot that removed the stability bits?
In case you hadn't noticed, NT has to run on a LOT more different types of hardware than VMS ever had to. Most of the instability in NT came from driver issues. It's not really surprising that it's more unstable than VMS. As a server/desktop rather than a server only OS, Microsoft also made some choices to help out it's desktop performance (moving video to ring0 in NT4, etc) that didn't help stability at all.
Slashdot Mirror
The Post may classify it as news, maybe as tax waste, but a 'news for nerds' story about windows not working right on 'unix hardware'? I think not.
And just in case someone comes back with "Knoppix can write to NTFS if you use the NTFS driver from windows", I've used a LOT of versions of Knoppix and I've NEVER gotten that to work correctly.
If their ratio is anything like I get with the filter I use at home (I eventually get around to taking a look at what's fallen into my spam bucket), about 16. ~99% of the mislabeled mail from my filter is spam that makes it though the filters. Not too bad out of 16 million.
I just want to know when they'll let me download the old Blake's 7 series.
Check your math.
That's why I miss using BeOS for my email. :(
Check your match before telling him he doesn't know what he's talking about.
It's 8.76 hours of outage a year.
Next year it will be 6 platter drives that have issues and 5 platters will be safe...
You've got many many metric tons of snowdrift, floating through space.
You ram a refridgerator size probe REAL fast into one side of it.
The 'snow' right where the fridge hits is going to move inward, but the many many metric tons of snow on the other side of it is going to want to stay right where they are (a body at rest tends to stay at rest). The movement inward of the snow under the probe's impact against all that 'resting mass' will cause the compression of the 'snow' in that area.
Maybe, but if you look at the 'after' pictures, we didn't put much of a dent in that huge dust/snow-drift with the equivalent of 5-10 tons of TNT.
Would you like to play some Texas Hold-em?
Correct, but it is much easier to put a large scrubber system on a Hydrogen 'factory' than it is to put that scrubber system on a car. The factory scrubbing can be much more complete and it makes less weight for the car to drag around.
Electrolyzing water is short sighted at best. The second law of thermodynamics (which we obey in this house!) dictates that it will always take more energy to get the free hydrogen that you can ever get back in a fuel cell. This means that it will take a LOT of power to supply a hydrogen economy which means new power plants, which means burning more natural gas and coal. The single best leveragabile solution to a hydrogen economy is new nuclear power plants...
Or Solar, or wind, or wave. All of those can be mounted nicely on a piece of land but not very well on a vehicle.
The tree huggers of this world like to think that we can supply hydrogen with windmills, solar, and tidal power. Now while these alternate energy sources certainly merit investment we are a looong way from being able to produce anywhere near the energy needed to supply millions of autos with hydrogen.
You don't have to produce enough from those source to supply *all* the cars. Just producing enough for a decent percentage of cars would go a long way toward reducing carbon emissions. Every bit of reduction is good, it doesn't have to be total. Eventually folks may come around to using pebble-bed fission if fusion doesn't pan out.
Because there are lots of other companies out there who also have patents and they may sue you for patent violation. If you have a large stockpile of useful patents you can arrange a 'cross-licensing' agreement with the other company so that they can use your patents, and you can use theirs (defusing their lawsuit against you). I'd not hard to understand or believe.
Nah, the BSD folks will keep chugging along just fine.
If the GNU folks move to this new license, I forsee a huge fork in Linux's future.
Far more important, doesn't IBM have software patents? Making Linux unusable by it's largest corporate sponsor is kinda... stupid.
Unfortunately, this sounds very similar to the Apache 2.0 license.
You don't have to be a console expert, you just have to read. The articles linked to talk about problems programming on both the Xbox and Sony. Idiot.
I haven't seen any games yet that run appreciably better on multiple CPUs than on one. Have you? Just because those extra CPUs are in a box, it doesn't mean that the game developers will actually be able to take good advantage of them. Until we see that games deriving a real benefit from them released, it seems like it might be a valid criticism.
This particiular 'interview' was particularly short. Even some other ones I've seen don't give much room to talk about PC game future. The 'console-centric' aspect is that these new consoles will be out very soon with multiple CPUs and he thinks it may be a few years before game writers actually become proficient at writing games that can actually take advantage of the CPUs (/sony cores). By that time your console is now a relic, however you've probably got other uses for those multiple CPUs in your desktop computer.
That's not what makes his life worse. It's the multi-CPU aspect. Same as with the new Sony Cell chips making things diffucult.
Check out his other interview on the same topic
Oh, in case you think he's still just upset about your company 'rendering Steam somewhat irrelevent', check out what John Carmack of Id (DOOM 3) and Tim Sweeney of Epic Games (Unreal Tournament) have to say about the topic. Those two don't have any Steam to worry about, but agree with Gabe.
A Sony employee dismissing criticism of Sony. Who'd believe it...
When the makers of the big 3 FPS games all agree on it, I think there may just be a real issue.
No, but most of the OS/2 bits are in the upper layer for compatability. They don't make up the kernel and basic heart of the OS. That part is very much VMS-like. The OS/2 bits resides up on top like the Win32 and Win16/DOS and POSIX bits.
I'm sorry that it 'irks' you that NT isn't treated more as an offshoot of OS/2, but plenty of us do consider the OS/2 history and still think of the heart of NT as a VMS offshoot (no matter how MS might have mucked it up since it's development).
Franky, and this is extremely generally speaking, for features and scalability, I find it just above PostgreSQL, but well below Oracle. MS SQL has been well ahead of PostgreSQL feature wise for years (uptatable views, PostgeSQL's need for vaccuming, etc, etc), but PostgreSQL is starting to catch up. Then again MS is about to release a new version of their SQL server. I haven't had a chance to play with the beta, so I don't know what they will be bringing to the plate.
It's a love-hate thing with SQL server. I like their tools, but really don't like they ways they handle some things like date/time/timestamp, etc.
If they need to tie it into other MS apps, access, etc, or think down the road you might use portal server, etc, it's not a bad way to go. Should you let them use it? It depends on their needs.
Please, Oracle has a ton of features that just aren't there in PostgreSQL. For features a mom&pop shop need, Postgres is usually fine. But for serious enterprise work PostgreSQL is not anywhere on the same playing field as Oracle.
I'm not dissing PostgreSQL. I like it, and I use it. I also use MS SQL server and when I have no other choice, MySQL.
The feature list difference between each of the databases is quite large. Simply saying "PostreSQL compares very well to Oracle" is NOT informative.
Really? Because I lived through that era, and I and a bunch of other folks that did think otherwise. I was a VMS user long before NT ever came out. Coming from a VMS background, it's not hard to see more similarities in the foundation of the OS than I see with it and OS/2.
I can point you to quite a few other sites with evidence that NT is more based on VMS with just some compatible bits from OS/2 included.
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Articles/Print.cfm?Art icleID=4494
Looks the the terminology, the table of significant similarities, etc. They included an OS/2 compatability layer and some bits and pieces they had been working on from OS/2, but the basics of the system were VMS-like.
It wasn't just Dave Culter MS hired away from VMS, it was also about 20 former Digital employees that had worked with him on the Mica project, a whole new updated version of VMS. Whether or not they included exact code they wrote for Mica in NT (and Microsoft's settlement with DEC implies there was), you know they had to implement some of the ideas they had been working on. Software developers rarely like to give up on good new ideas they invent and DEC killed Mica. Incorporating those ideas in NT was the only way they would see the light of day.
For a graphical representation:
That's hardly a scholarly study of OS history. Have you looked at their links for references? It's nothing special. For Microsoft, they have exactly two link as references, and one of them is the exact article I posted above for you which states that NT *is* a direct descendent of VMS.
And lastly, if NT is a direct descendent of VMS, who is the idiot that removed the stability bits?
In case you hadn't noticed, NT has to run on a LOT more different types of hardware than VMS ever had to. Most of the instability in NT came from driver issues. It's not really surprising that it's more unstable than VMS. As a server/desktop rather than a server only OS, Microsoft also made some choices to help out it's desktop performance (moving video to ring0 in NT4, etc) that didn't help stability at all.