I'm talking about having a transient global journal and separate persistent journals, if you will, on a per-inode basis. Really, I'm talking more about a log-structured filesystem at the inode level, rather than what the term "journal" implies.
One problem I can see is how to avoid manually searching through many low-level writes in the course of one logically high-level write. I'd need to know a lot more about filesystems and journaling than I do now.
I wonder, could an existing open filesystem be modified so that a file marked with some attribute will store its contents as a log, rather than as a working copy, able to be rolled back and forward (probably by some utility) until squashed, yet have the current copy be worked with transparently, without making (invasive) changes to the VFS? Does something like this already exist? Maybe something using FUSE?
For as long as people have told stories, storytellers have had the tendency to put their own touch on the stories they received from those before them. I see the rash of remakes as a manifestation of this, as reinterpretations.
Now, the suckage is a completely different matter.
Whether or not it sucks, this is the thing that keeps people cozily asleep at night, knowing that if they have a problem, they have an unchallengeable defense of having bought the best in class support solution (notice I avoid any discussion of h/w, because in the enterprise, h/w without support is worthless).
Because, obviously, it is just that important to cover one's own ass.
It's a reaction similar to the one that happens when you think that one program/environment "stole" another's feature. Yes, it's a cheap shot to ridicule MS because some of its users reach the same conclusion (and even cast it in the same image) that Unix and original PC users reached decades ago. Oh well...
It's not the primary reason by far, and I am trying to be cautious in pushing the issue (and will probably regret doing it), but let's face it: other things equal, most gamers are going to choose a human over an anthropomorph. (Or so I assert---I don't have any hard evidence or statistics. Also, I make no claims about causality.)
Yes and no. Gussying up the argument (for which I seem to have an affinity) aside, in the third paragraph, I was stating what I think would happen if the balance of power in the matter of copyright were to shift more towards the middle, not what I believe should be. Also, when I emphasized the word "limited", not only was I referring to the legal duration, but also I was referring to certain attitues that effectively unlimited copyright can instill in the artists it is in name supposed to protect (which of course has nothing to do with anything legal, which is why I didn't say anything about it---meh, so I get carried away sometimes).
Largely, I'm trying to say that maybe, just maybe, it's time to re-evaluate the (unprecidented?*) 1880s' concept of copyright in favor of a new paradigm that takes into account modern economics and information science and technology. Information just isn't the kind of good (if you even want to see information as a good) that can rely on retail as the primary source of revenue (yes, I think there are other ways of compensating an author of a work than for him to sell directly or indirectly to individual customers) when information seems to naturally spread and be altered (meme, anyone?).
(* Say, does anybody know of a good source for some kind of comprehensive history of copyright going all the way back as far as possible (yes, as far away from Berne as possible), so that I don't have to make unsubstantiated statements like that (and possibly others) and that I might gain better perspective? If there isn't one, maybe somebody out there should write one.)
Since Knuckles' Chaotix, when they started loading in additional characters, piling on fluff at the expense of gameplay, the franchise has been struggling.
As a Sonic fanboy, I think I can speak for the rest of us when I say that while we appreciate the wealth of characters created, even we can only stand the shitty gameplay for so long.
The whole idea of "digital ownership" is stupid. If we had the ability to replicate objects, the concept of property ownership would probably be radically different. But we do not.
However, the ability to replicate bitstrings is not only a part of digital technology, it is essential for its operation. The characteristics of physical objects lends itself well to the concept of property; the characteristics of information do not. On this basis, I reject the notion of "intellectual property", "digital ownership", or whatever you want to call it.
If you want to have a legal framework whereby the distribution of certain information is restricted for limited periods of time (and definitely not in the range of lifetimes, as copyright is done today), that is a compromise that can probably be worked out. But it should be made clear that it is not ownership.
I can only hope that the powers-that-be come to realize this without too much more duress.
Re:On the subject of the CD Rootkit...
on
A Closed Off System?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The whole shitstorm over "Trusted Computing" and this are essentially the same topic, and the issue is who has control over the access control list, the user-administrator or some other party. The feature can be used for good or evil, for lawfulness or chaos, just as with any other tool.
Wikipedia is not so much unbiased as it is all-biased.
I do think that your comment about the system collapsing under its own weight is valid. A great example of this is the recent Great Userbox Fiasco, where you have clearly non-encyclopedic, community-exclusive content extending far beyond its original role, incurring the ire of older admins, who then take unilateral action (speedy deletion), which in turn incurs the ire of many newer users, a good portion of whom are positive contributors to the encyclopedic part of Wikipedia; communication broke down horribly on a regular basis, especially when discussions over formal policy reached impasses, and everybody returned to doing the things that pissed the other side off.
If that is not an example of bureaucracy at its worst...
I'd actually think that everyone going the recommended route would end up in the same boat as the current monoculture of point product that they complain about. Now, instead of being compromised because we're all running the same code, we get compromised because we're all running the same security appliance, with the same flaws.
I'd actually rather see a diverse and heterogeneous set of defenses to prevent large scale compromises working against everyone, and the economy of throwing everything into a box, rather than loading a bunch of diverse software strikes me as a false one.
The horrible part is that homogeneity of implementation is not only the norm, it is the expectation. Largely this arises out of confusion between implementation and interface. Of course, we all know the source of this particular area of confusion.
Why is it that this glue is (ultimately) dictating to the materials what properties they must possess? That's a pretty backwards way of doing things IMO.
Yeah, but some are beginning to complain about stability and lack of code maintenance for parts of the kernel, due to the attention being given to new features but not old---bug fixes are less exciting and less likely to be addressed willingly.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm talking about having a transient global journal and separate persistent journals, if you will, on a per-inode basis. Really, I'm talking more about a log-structured filesystem at the inode level, rather than what the term "journal" implies.
One problem I can see is how to avoid manually searching through many low-level writes in the course of one logically high-level write. I'd need to know a lot more about filesystems and journaling than I do now.
I wonder, could an existing open filesystem be modified so that a file marked with some attribute will store its contents as a log, rather than as a working copy, able to be rolled back and forward (probably by some utility) until squashed, yet have the current copy be worked with transparently, without making (invasive) changes to the VFS? Does something like this already exist? Maybe something using FUSE?
Previous story on stupid engineering mistakes
For as long as people have told stories, storytellers have had the tendency to put their own touch on the stories they received from those before them. I see the rash of remakes as a manifestation of this, as reinterpretations.
Now, the suckage is a completely different matter.
Anybody else read that as Microsoft Envisions Patent Free Computing?
Whether or not it sucks, this is the thing that keeps people cozily asleep at night, knowing that if they have a problem, they have an unchallengeable defense of having bought the best in class support solution (notice I avoid any discussion of h/w, because in the enterprise, h/w without support is worthless).
Because, obviously, it is just that important to cover one's own ass.
It's a reaction similar to the one that happens when you think that one program/environment "stole" another's feature. Yes, it's a cheap shot to ridicule MS because some of its users reach the same conclusion (and even cast it in the same image) that Unix and original PC users reached decades ago. Oh well...
Indeed, American totalitarianism need not resemble previous regimes for it to be totalitarian.
You gain 'experience points' by using MSWord
Actually, I think that action just abuses wisdom and intelligence.
Federal judges sit until resignation, death, or impeachment and conviction by the Senate, for this very reason.
Since when did the Legislature of the State of Louisiana ever have a sense of priority? Or for that matter, any legislature?
Mario? Link?
Human or humanesque.
It's not the primary reason by far, and I am trying to be cautious in pushing the issue (and will probably regret doing it), but let's face it: other things equal, most gamers are going to choose a human over an anthropomorph. (Or so I assert---I don't have any hard evidence or statistics. Also, I make no claims about causality.)
Yes and no. Gussying up the argument (for which I seem to have an affinity) aside, in the third paragraph, I was stating what I think would happen if the balance of power in the matter of copyright were to shift more towards the middle, not what I believe should be. Also, when I emphasized the word "limited", not only was I referring to the legal duration, but also I was referring to certain attitues that effectively unlimited copyright can instill in the artists it is in name supposed to protect (which of course has nothing to do with anything legal, which is why I didn't say anything about it---meh, so I get carried away sometimes).
Largely, I'm trying to say that maybe, just maybe, it's time to re-evaluate the (unprecidented?*) 1880s' concept of copyright in favor of a new paradigm that takes into account modern economics and information science and technology. Information just isn't the kind of good (if you even want to see information as a good) that can rely on retail as the primary source of revenue (yes, I think there are other ways of compensating an author of a work than for him to sell directly or indirectly to individual customers) when information seems to naturally spread and be altered (meme, anyone?).
(* Say, does anybody know of a good source for some kind of comprehensive history of copyright going all the way back as far as possible (yes, as far away from Berne as possible), so that I don't have to make unsubstantiated statements like that (and possibly others) and that I might gain better perspective? If there isn't one, maybe somebody out there should write one.)
As a Sonic fanboy, I think I can speak for the rest of us when I say that while we appreciate the wealth of characters created, even we can only stand the shitty gameplay for so long.
The whole idea of "digital ownership" is stupid. If we had the ability to replicate objects, the concept of property ownership would probably be radically different. But we do not.
However, the ability to replicate bitstrings is not only a part of digital technology, it is essential for its operation. The characteristics of physical objects lends itself well to the concept of property; the characteristics of information do not. On this basis, I reject the notion of "intellectual property", "digital ownership", or whatever you want to call it.
If you want to have a legal framework whereby the distribution of certain information is restricted for limited periods of time (and definitely not in the range of lifetimes, as copyright is done today), that is a compromise that can probably be worked out. But it should be made clear that it is not ownership.
I can only hope that the powers-that-be come to realize this without too much more duress.
The whole shitstorm over "Trusted Computing" and this are essentially the same topic, and the issue is who has control over the access control list, the user-administrator or some other party. The feature can be used for good or evil, for lawfulness or chaos, just as with any other tool.
from the lymp0cty3z-narf-poit!-claire-said-the-laundry-whee l dept.
Pinky, if I could reach you I would hurt you.
Wikipedia is not so much unbiased as it is all-biased.
I do think that your comment about the system collapsing under its own weight is valid. A great example of this is the recent Great Userbox Fiasco, where you have clearly non-encyclopedic, community-exclusive content extending far beyond its original role, incurring the ire of older admins, who then take unilateral action (speedy deletion), which in turn incurs the ire of many newer users, a good portion of whom are positive contributors to the encyclopedic part of Wikipedia; communication broke down horribly on a regular basis, especially when discussions over formal policy reached impasses, and everybody returned to doing the things that pissed the other side off.
If that is not an example of bureaucracy at its worst...
The horrible part is that homogeneity of implementation is not only the norm, it is the expectation. Largely this arises out of confusion between implementation and interface. Of course, we all know the source of this particular area of confusion.
That negotiation can be done with an ARB as well.
Why is it that this glue is (ultimately) dictating to the materials what properties they must possess? That's a pretty backwards way of doing things IMO.
Yeah, stupid metaphor. I tried, at least.
Any procedure not involving making new orifaces is a wonderful thing.
I'm going to be having a gastroscopy soon-ish, and the procedure appears to involve an IV. (It's probably just acid reflux. Probably. Hopefully.)
(Yep, TFA gave me the creeps.)
Yeah, but some are beginning to complain about stability and lack of code maintenance for parts of the kernel, due to the attention being given to new features but not old---bug fixes are less exciting and less likely to be addressed willingly.
Having more registers (x86-64 doubles the count of general purpose and SIMD registers) is never a bad thing.