Nearly 15 years ago I built a P2P torrent-style anonymized backup program, based on Reed-Solomon EC. At the time, disk sizes and internet speeds were against it.
Now, I'm wondering if I should resurrect it. Any interest in a open-source, cross-platform P2P backup program?
Speaking for myself, I've been through six different frameworks/versions of "data binding", starting with VB3, now all the way through AngularJS. I've got 20 years of similar examples in DBMSs, distributed protocols, GUI design, testing, requirements, etc.
It's not that I refuse to learn new technologies, because I've taken on new things every year that I've worked in this field. jQuery? Love it. HTML5, CSS transitions? B-E-A-utiful. Bootstrap? You betcha.
I do, however, refuse to make all the same mistakes and work through the same leaky abstractions and other problems just to try the new hotness. A great example is the NoSQL movement - now that Postgres supports JSON documents (and has had great K-V support for a while now), I'll be very happy to exploit those features without wrestling MongoDB or Firebase to the ground.
Came here to say essentially the same thing - GET REQUIREMENTS. No matter which road you end up choosing, the requirements will make choices much clearer, and their objective nature will give you a buffer against the business folks who agreed to them, but want the flaming logo on Wednesdays.
I did this a few years ago for a decent-sized telecom, that wanted to get rid of dozens of home-built systems in favor of telecom-specific ERP type software (usually called OSS for this industry). The RFP was a bust (no vendor selected), but those requirements guided the next 18 months of systems development, COTS adoption, integration and legacy retirement. In the end, even the business folks acknowledged that without the written requirements, they would not have been able to make any of the advances we made.
Depends, many people enjoy doing crazy jumps and moves and fighting monsters and stuff (yes, that includes Mario games), which they couldn't perform when they would be wearing a a mo-cap suit and have perfect 1:1 mapping. Abstraction helps you do stuff you couldn't do in reality, complete lack of abstractions just puts you back into reality, which is not where most people want to be when they think about games.
To some extent, I think that's my point, too. But wouldn't you agree that there are many cases where pointing at the screen or moving the controller in space is a more effective abstraction? The controlled level of physicality in Wii games is different and very enjoyable for non-gamers.
And yet I have never seen such huge obtrusive tutorial texts as in Wii games on any other console. Those games sure have to explain a hell of a lot of stuff for their "intuitive interaction".
As a recovering 133t gamer, I sure don't need those, but if they help my wife, nieces, and kids catch up, then that's fine. It's not all about me anymore.
Really? How come third party developers largely ignore the Wii and focus on Xbox360 and PS3 instead?
AC above is clearly an idiot. The abstraction is a neccessary evil, not a feature. Motion-sensing controls and peripherals (like the Wii Fit board) give the user more intuitive interaction with the game. This is where game developers (and non-133t gamers) WANT to go - it's not some degradation of "pure" gaming design.
I really wish that people would look a little more at the context and a little less at what they WANT to be true.
It has been common practice over the last 40 years or so to ask for the resignations of all USA's at the beginning of an administration. Didja get that? AT THE BEGINNING, which is what GWB43 did as well. Putting your own people in place is clearly the President's perogative, by law.
The comparison ends there. In eight years, the Clinton administration "fired" about 9 USAs (c/b 8, I don't remember right now). Of those, all but one were what you'd call "for cause" - e.g., one guy got caught on-camera throttling a reporter. This batch of firings was not "for cause" but "by choice", and had the effect, intentional or not, of interfering in several significant and high-profile pending investigations and indictments.
If you haven't looked at your friendly County Assessor or Auditor's site lately, you might be surprised to find that many of them ALREADY HAVE THESE PICTURES.
Being half-Canadian, I guess that makes be half-stupid.
STEP 1....Take pictures of all the American's houses, eh?
STEP 2....????
STEP 3....Lots of money. Beauty, eh?
You paid $2000 for VS.NET? What the hell is wrong with you?
Enough fanboy crap. Java is good, and so is.NET. You can continue to run your 1.1 apps in the 1.1 framework, ON THE SAME SERVER AS your 2.0 web apps. Any 1.1 desktop apps will also run side-by-side with 2.0 apps.
Switching to the newer framework without a need for its new features is the result of too much magazine-reading by the PHBs.
I'm working on this problem, too. And I'm looking for a few dozen testers for version 0.2. Please go and sign up if you're in the mood.
I might get flamed for saying this out loud, but from the testing I've done and the thought process that led to my project, I don't see a huge value in dividing up files if they're encrypted. First of all, you need more than one successful retrieval to get the file. Second, you're likely going to lose much of the economy of breaking the file up because you're adding the bloat of encryption to each copy.
Looking around, I see that there are lots of other solutions to this problem. Consider mine if you want to help me bootstrap this into something really great.
Slashdot Mirror
We are all filmmakers now, right? Just stick to the story and don't ruin for everyone, Doug.
Nearly 15 years ago I built a P2P torrent-style anonymized backup program, based on Reed-Solomon EC. At the time, disk sizes and internet speeds were against it.
Now, I'm wondering if I should resurrect it. Any interest in a open-source, cross-platform P2P backup program?
Speaking for myself, I've been through six different frameworks/versions of "data binding", starting with VB3, now all the way through AngularJS. I've got 20 years of similar examples in DBMSs, distributed protocols, GUI design, testing, requirements, etc.
It's not that I refuse to learn new technologies, because I've taken on new things every year that I've worked in this field. jQuery? Love it. HTML5, CSS transitions? B-E-A-utiful. Bootstrap? You betcha.
I do, however, refuse to make all the same mistakes and work through the same leaky abstractions and other problems just to try the new hotness. A great example is the NoSQL movement - now that Postgres supports JSON documents (and has had great K-V support for a while now), I'll be very happy to exploit those features without wrestling MongoDB or Firebase to the ground.
You had me at Feynman.
Came here to say essentially the same thing - GET REQUIREMENTS. No matter which road you end up choosing, the requirements will make choices much clearer, and their objective nature will give you a buffer against the business folks who agreed to them, but want the flaming logo on Wednesdays.
I did this a few years ago for a decent-sized telecom, that wanted to get rid of dozens of home-built systems in favor of telecom-specific ERP type software (usually called OSS for this industry). The RFP was a bust (no vendor selected), but those requirements guided the next 18 months of systems development, COTS adoption, integration and legacy retirement. In the end, even the business folks acknowledged that without the written requirements, they would not have been able to make any of the advances we made.
This is also known as "Bugs Bunny-ing" someone.
I see what you did there.
Hey, feels just like Reddit!
I can do this with an Inbox rule in Outlook today. Why would I want my printer doing it autonomously?
Joe Celko, is that you?
Depends, many people enjoy doing crazy jumps and moves and fighting monsters and stuff (yes, that includes Mario games), which they couldn't perform when they would be wearing a a mo-cap suit and have perfect 1:1 mapping. Abstraction helps you do stuff you couldn't do in reality, complete lack of abstractions just puts you back into reality, which is not where most people want to be when they think about games.
To some extent, I think that's my point, too. But wouldn't you agree that there are many cases where pointing at the screen or moving the controller in space is a more effective abstraction? The controlled level of physicality in Wii games is different and very enjoyable for non-gamers.
And yet I have never seen such huge obtrusive tutorial texts as in Wii games on any other console. Those games sure have to explain a hell of a lot of stuff for their "intuitive interaction".
As a recovering 133t gamer, I sure don't need those, but if they help my wife, nieces, and kids catch up, then that's fine. It's not all about me anymore.
Really? How come third party developers largely ignore the Wii and focus on Xbox360 and PS3 instead?
That's a pretty subjective point.
Bottom line - the Wii is definitely made for a different class of gamer. Hardcore gamers are generally not going to understand the point of it.
AC above is clearly an idiot. The abstraction is a neccessary evil, not a feature. Motion-sensing controls and peripherals (like the Wii Fit board) give the user more intuitive interaction with the game. This is where game developers (and non-133t gamers) WANT to go - it's not some degradation of "pure" gaming design.
Wow. Good response. It's uncanny how much that sounds exactly like me.
I mean the good parts, not the socially-inept, agile-code-fu parts.
I really wish that people would look a little more at the context and a little less at what they WANT to be true. It has been common practice over the last 40 years or so to ask for the resignations of all USA's at the beginning of an administration. Didja get that? AT THE BEGINNING, which is what GWB43 did as well. Putting your own people in place is clearly the President's perogative, by law. The comparison ends there. In eight years, the Clinton administration "fired" about 9 USAs (c/b 8, I don't remember right now). Of those, all but one were what you'd call "for cause" - e.g., one guy got caught on-camera throttling a reporter. This batch of firings was not "for cause" but "by choice", and had the effect, intentional or not, of interfering in several significant and high-profile pending investigations and indictments.
The 6 million not sold would probably pay the xxAA for the 74 million sitting on the shelves :)
If you haven't looked at your friendly County Assessor or Auditor's site lately, you might be surprised to find that many of them ALREADY HAVE THESE PICTURES.
Being half-Canadian, I guess that makes be half-stupid.
STEP 1....Take pictures of all the American's houses, eh?
STEP 2....????
STEP 3....Lots of money. Beauty, eh?
Has anyone noticed that the Terms of Service for LinkSafe includes a [link] instead of a link to their privacy policy??
You paid $2000 for VS.NET? What the hell is wrong with you?
.NET. You can continue to run your 1.1 apps in the 1.1 framework, ON THE SAME SERVER AS your 2.0 web apps. Any 1.1 desktop apps will also run side-by-side with 2.0 apps.
Enough fanboy crap. Java is good, and so is
Switching to the newer framework without a need for its new features is the result of too much magazine-reading by the PHBs.
I'm working on this problem, too. And I'm looking for a few dozen testers for version 0.2. Please go and sign up if you're in the mood.
I might get flamed for saying this out loud, but from the testing I've done and the thought process that led to my project, I don't see a huge value in dividing up files if they're encrypted. First of all, you need more than one successful retrieval to get the file. Second, you're likely going to lose much of the economy of breaking the file up because you're adding the bloat of encryption to each copy.
Looking around, I see that there are lots of other solutions to this problem. Consider mine if you want to help me bootstrap this into something really great.