To maintain backwards compatibility with traditional Unix/Linux apps, there are symbolic links that mimic the Unix tree, such as "/usr/bin ->/System/Links/Executables", and "/sbin ->/System/Links/Executables" (this example shows that arbitrary differentiations between files of the same category were also removed).
The "differentiation" between/usr/bin and/sbin is hardly arbitrary./usr is often on a separate partition;/sbin must be accessible even without other partitions mounted.
But the concept is interesting. I plan to download the.iso and give it a spin. (VMware is great for this type of thing.)
Instead of trying to prevent copying, cinemas should just force all viewers to strip naked before entering. As an added benefit, if the movie is boring, the audience can devise their own entertainment.
FWIW: I have a MUVO NX (128MB, USB 1.1) and it rocks! The sound quality is great, I get at least 20 hours of play time on a single rechargable AAA battery, it's small, and durable. My only complaint is the headphones seem to be designed to tangle their wires as quickly as possible.
The MUVO TX was announced about a week after I bought my NX. Such is life with technology. Grrr....
Interesting, as it seems to be getting at the idea of launching different applications based on how long you hold down a hardware button, rather than how long you click and hold on the screen.
You mean like, pressing and holding a mouse button?
I wonder if anyone is researching special filesystems for compact flash storage. It seems to me it would be possible to design a filesystem that spreads data around the media to avoid (as much as possible) overwriting the same storage blocks.
God help you if you put swap on the card.
Compact Flash is slow, on the order of 8MB/second. Swapping to CF is a Bad Idea (for many reasons).
We are currently testing and updating our basic system architecture/design, which now uses a
combination of open, free and proprietary code/modules from numerous sources.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out as the project matures. As I understand it, they can either a) make the entire project open source, or b) make the entire project proprietary. Option (a) is obviously preferred to most of the folks around here. Option (b) will require them to rewrite any open source dependencies they currently have. Of course, one could argue that they have been "tainted" by viewing/using projects like Wine...
One could argue (only slightly tongue-in-cheek) that depending on ActiveX controls is also "...deliberately sending broken code".
My point: Microsoft has been forced to open up their browser interfaces (to make it easier to run "competing" browsers, etc). Given that, it is inappropriate for Windows Update to require IE.
Does this mean that Mozilla can now sue Microsoft because Windows Update only works with IE >= 5? When I try to access Windows Update using Mozilla 1.6, I get the following:
You need to be running a version of Internet Explorer 5 or higher in order to use Windows Update.
Download the latest version of Internet Explorer
Once Internet Explorer is installed, you can go to the Windows Update site by typing http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com into the address bar of Internet Explorer.
If you prefer to use a different Web browser, updates to Windows may be downloaded from the Microsoft Download Center.
I suppose the last sentence is some concession to those of us who run non-IE browsers. However, the Microsoft Download Center won't tell you which updates you need. Apparently, only Windows Update can do that...
Many years ago, I tutored a friend though an Advanced Pascal course he was taking at one of the local universities. In exchange, he gave me a really nice Mossberg shotgun. Only in Texas...
And Wired... "The coastal region of northwest Washington state and southeast British Columbia is prone to earthquakes, and scientist warn the area gets hit with a devastating shake of magnitude 9 about every 500 years."
Google for cascadian subduction zone for information on the cause of many of the Pacific Northwest area earthquakes. And yes, the experts predict a huge (>= 9.0) quake in this area Real Soon Now (within a century or two).
Soon after I bought my first digital camera (and before I bought a printer) I found a camera store with one of those Kodak "digital printing" kiosks. I played with it a bit, then I had a question. I could see a floppy drive on the system, but I coulnd't find a CD or CF reader.
Me - Can this machine read Compact Flash cards, or do I need to copy my pictures to floppies first?
Employee - It will read Compact Flash. In fact, that's preferred - you'll get much better pictures with Compact Flash than with floppies.
Me - Uhh, no. CF and floppies are just storage media. You'll get the exact same data from both.
Employee (annoyed) - Look, I know this is true. I'm not going to argue with you about this!
Me - Good. That's the smartest thing you've said so far. Nevermind.
My (one and only) blog entry on kerneltrap has instructions for running Fedora Core 2 Test 3 under VMware Workstation 4.5.1. I will confirm the procedure works with the released FC2 as soon as I finish downloading the damned thing. (3 hours to go on disc 3. W00t.)
In my example, I retrieved the file with wget. It just reads the stream from the net and writes them to the local file. No copy.
But you're right -- a file retrieved with IE would probably not be heavily fragmented. Of course, given the behavior of NTFS, IE's local cache does get fragmented. Here are the fragmentation stats from my "Temporary Internet Files" directory:
500 files total: 472 files with 1 extent, 24 files with 2 extents, and 4 files with 3 extents. Not bad, but I don't use IE much.
I just did another small experiment. I retrieved 2.6.6-mm4.bz2 from kernel.org using both Moz 1.6 and IE. Moz just retrieves the file directly where you want it (i.e. "in place"). The file was badly fragmented. I deleted it, and retrieved the file with IE. The copy in the cache was fragmented, but the copy in my target directory was not fragmented at all. Not exactly scientific, but it seems to support your theory.
My own experience, using a small tool I wrote to analyze NTFS fragmentation:
NTFS is pretty good at avoiding fragmentation when creating new files if the size of the file is set before it is written. In other words, if the file is created, the EOF set, and then the file data is written, NTFS does a good job of finding a set of contiguous clusters for the file data.
NTFS does a poor job of avoiding fragmentation for files written sequentially. Consider a file retrieved with wget. An empty file is created, then the contents are written sequentially as it is read from the net. Odds are, the file data will be scattered all over the disk.
Here's a concrete example. Today, I downloaded Andrew Morton's 2.6.6-mm4.tar.bz2 patch set. (Yes, I run WinXP on my Toshiba laptop -- deal with it.) Anyway, the file is less than 2.5MB, but it is allocated in 19 separate fragments. I copied it to another file, and that file is unfragmented. Since the copy command sets EOF before writing the data, NTFS can try ot allocate a contiguous run of clusters.
Note - This was done on uncompressed NTFS. My feeling is that compressed NTFS is even worse about fragmentation, but I don't have any numbers to back that up.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's get rid of the FAA while we're at it. I'm sure the airlines will "self regulate" and Do The Right Thing (tm).
Q: What do you get when you merge Microsoft and SAP?
A: Microsoft
Relays.
From their web site:
The "differentiation" between /usr/bin and /sbin is hardly arbitrary. /usr is often on a separate partition; /sbin must be accessible even without other partitions mounted.
But the concept is interesting. I plan to download the .iso and give it a spin. (VMware is great for this type of thing.)
Just stay away from the Harry Potter flicks...
Instead of trying to prevent copying, cinemas should just force all viewers to strip naked before entering. As an added benefit, if the movie is boring, the audience can devise their own entertainment.
This is a lot easier to do when you're using read/write media...
FWIW: I have a MUVO NX (128MB, USB 1.1) and it rocks! The sound quality is great, I get at least 20 hours of play time on a single rechargable AAA battery, it's small, and durable. My only complaint is the headphones seem to be designed to tangle their wires as quickly as possible.
The MUVO TX was announced about a week after I bought my NX. Such is life with technology. Grrr....
You mean like, pressing and holding a mouse button?
There's a virtual (online only) bank here in Poland that has used one-time pads for the last couple of years.
My current bank uses a secure token to protect online access.
I wonder if anyone is researching special filesystems for compact flash storage. It seems to me it would be possible to design a filesystem that spreads data around the media to avoid (as much as possible) overwriting the same storage blocks.
Compact Flash is slow, on the order of 8MB/second. Swapping to CF is a Bad Idea (for many reasons).
Just gr*at. I can't *v*n us* th* <blockquot*> tag to quot* your original m*ssag*.
I gu*ss I'll n**d to chang* my signatur* -- Th*r*'s no l*tt*r form*rly known as * in t*am...
ESheep.
From the SpecOpS letter (emphasis mine):
It will be interesting to see how this plays out as the project matures. As I understand it, they can either a) make the entire project open source, or b) make the entire project proprietary. Option (a) is obviously preferred to most of the folks around here. Option (b) will require them to rewrite any open source dependencies they currently have. Of course, one could argue that they have been "tainted" by viewing/using projects like Wine...
One could argue (only slightly tongue-in-cheek) that depending on ActiveX controls is also "...deliberately sending broken code".
My point: Microsoft has been forced to open up their browser interfaces (to make it easier to run "competing" browsers, etc). Given that, it is inappropriate for Windows Update to require IE.
Does this mean that Mozilla can now sue Microsoft because Windows Update only works with IE >= 5? When I try to access Windows Update using Mozilla 1.6, I get the following:
I suppose the last sentence is some concession to those of us who run non-IE browsers. However, the Microsoft Download Center won't tell you which updates you need. Apparently, only Windows Update can do that...
Many years ago, I tutored a friend though an Advanced Pascal course he was taking at one of the local universities. In exchange, he gave me a really nice Mossberg shotgun. Only in Texas...
Google for cascadian subduction zone for information on the cause of many of the Pacific Northwest area earthquakes. And yes, the experts predict a huge (>= 9.0) quake in this area Real Soon Now (within a century or two).
So instead of keeping Windows around "cuz of the games", you keep it around "cuz of the job".
If you find Windows so repugnant, then find another job.
You ask:
Then you proceed to answer your own question:
WTF?
...is an appropriate color for this book.
Soon after I bought my first digital camera (and before I bought a printer) I found a camera store with one of those Kodak "digital printing" kiosks. I played with it a bit, then I had a question. I could see a floppy drive on the system, but I coulnd't find a CD or CF reader.
My (one and only) blog entry on kerneltrap has instructions for running Fedora Core 2 Test 3 under VMware Workstation 4.5.1. I will confirm the procedure works with the released FC2 as soon as I finish downloading the damned thing. (3 hours to go on disc 3. W00t.)
In my example, I retrieved the file with wget. It just reads the stream from the net and writes them to the local file. No copy.
But you're right -- a file retrieved with IE would probably not be heavily fragmented. Of course, given the behavior of NTFS, IE's local cache does get fragmented. Here are the fragmentation stats from my "Temporary Internet Files" directory:
500 files total: 472 files with 1 extent, 24 files with 2 extents, and 4 files with 3 extents. Not bad, but I don't use IE much.
I just did another small experiment. I retrieved 2.6.6-mm4.bz2 from kernel.org using both Moz 1.6 and IE. Moz just retrieves the file directly where you want it (i.e. "in place"). The file was badly fragmented. I deleted it, and retrieved the file with IE. The copy in the cache was fragmented, but the copy in my target directory was not fragmented at all. Not exactly scientific, but it seems to support your theory.
My own experience, using a small tool I wrote to analyze NTFS fragmentation:
NTFS is pretty good at avoiding fragmentation when creating new files if the size of the file is set before it is written. In other words, if the file is created, the EOF set, and then the file data is written, NTFS does a good job of finding a set of contiguous clusters for the file data.
NTFS does a poor job of avoiding fragmentation for files written sequentially. Consider a file retrieved with wget. An empty file is created, then the contents are written sequentially as it is read from the net. Odds are, the file data will be scattered all over the disk.
Here's a concrete example. Today, I downloaded Andrew Morton's 2.6.6-mm4.tar.bz2 patch set. (Yes, I run WinXP on my Toshiba laptop -- deal with it.) Anyway, the file is less than 2.5MB, but it is allocated in 19 separate fragments. I copied it to another file, and that file is unfragmented. Since the copy command sets EOF before writing the data, NTFS can try ot allocate a contiguous run of clusters.
Note - This was done on uncompressed NTFS. My feeling is that compressed NTFS is even worse about fragmentation, but I don't have any numbers to back that up.