It's not exactly the same. When you delete a file on your computer, the block can be (and usually is) written over again. That does not happen on the google system - that's the whole point of it. It keeps everything in order, and jumps over stuff that's deemed "deleted".
I'm pretty sure most, if not all of the/. crowd would have trouble recovering a deleted file, if it's been overwritten;)
There are legitimate privacy concerns from this technology, but I feel they've been blown out of all proportion by people not understanding the technology. If anyone's read about the google filesystem, they'll know why this is happening. If you haven't, you'd probably jump to all sorts of crazy tin-hat-related conclusions.
trust me - I know how to get windows to do things:)
I know what you're saying, but if linux continues being techie-oriented, it will never get onto the home desktop. Windows isn't techie-oriented, but it can be used by techies. Linux, on the other hand, is techie-oriented and can only be used by the few lucky non-techies who has a linux install that doesn't need fixing.
I'm just saying that people are bitching that linux isn't on every desktop, and the answer is right in front of their face. And no, it's not microsoft. Or sco. Or IBM. Or sun. Or any other scapegoat-of-the-month.:)
They keep the email because the google filesystem doesn't delete data. It has 64mb chunks on a linux filesystem, and if data in one of those chunks is "deleted", it's marked as deleted, much the same way as a FAT, except chunks aren't overwritten. That keeps a contiguous filesystem in tact, and allows for great scalability. apparently.:)
You can delete them, but they're not "deleted". Also, with 1gb of space, there's no need to delete them. Just flag them as deleted, and if you use up your 1gb, the oldest "deleted" mails get pushed out.
As the google file system doesn't actually delete the data off the disks when it's "erased", it'll still exist. I think that's the real perceived problem (even though it's a tiny one, in actual fact)
The real reason they're keeping the data is the way google's distributed file system works.
It uses 64mb-chunks of disk space, and instead of erasing data from within the chunk, it just flags it as deleted, thereby not fragmenting the filesystem fantastically. That method means it's practically impossible to delete the email.
It has to be kept on their filesystem as the inbox is searchable, and 1gb large - raid arrays just wouldn't cope with that stress (and it'd take 3 days to search your mail). The filesystem is the real genius of google - their system is made of hundreds of terabytes of storage on a distributed system. Thousands of servers running redundantly. When one dies (with that many it's a regular occurance) it gets swapped out seamlessly. The processing on the data also requires huge bandwidth throughput.
To me, it looks like the google boys found a great use for their systems, but the very methods that make them great contradict local law in some areas they're selling in.
<10% of total internet users don't really count for much. By supporting another browser, they'd have to double their work to get another 2% machines it could work on. That's hardly good business for anyone.
If you step outside of the mainstream, you can't expect everyone else to follow you;)
I'm saying is there seems to be 2 camps in the linux world - those hell-bent on bringing it to the end user, and those hell-bent on improving it for techies. Most people out there aren't techies, so where does that leave linux? A highly-technical, computer-literate-user only operating system.
It's fine - you can say/think what you want about me. Just watch as linux goes precisely nowhere on the desktop because of things like this.
What's useful to techies isn't necessarily useful to the home user. Until linux is useful to the home user, bill gates gets the last laugh. You can't seriously expect most of the windows users out there to format c: and get linux in its current state??
I agree with nearly everything you said - thank you for a great answer:)
The part about being second-to-none struck me as slightly strange, as any coverage of Iraq would show that's not the case. I know the US soldiers want to do a good job, and various factors inhibit this, but they really aren't as effective as a combat force as most people make out. Good training means a 4-man team can do what 20 other guys can. When most countries will send 300 elite or top-notch troops, the US will send 30,000 guys screaming "hoo-yeah!" at each other. Big guys with guns != effective army. The fact they kill anyone is more down to statistics and collateral damage than training.
I know everyone out there who's fighting for what they believe deserves my utmost respect, but more of them would be coming home if the US military realised these horrible shortcomings and did something about them.
I hear ya about Bush et al - professional politicians never make good role models for troops, especially seeing as troops should be totally removed from politics. Take, for example, the British armed forces' top officer: an old lady from London... they still pack one of the fiercest punches out there, though;) I guess a lot of it is down to tradition and rigorous training (The RM's training is the longest of any regular troops in the world). Once they have discipline, they're set.
When using linux, it's hard to get apps on the same box to have the same look and feel:-P
If you look at a number of people who use XP, you'll see there is a great number of different looks out there. Deviant Art has a huge library of just a few of the themes out there. As for themexp.org, there are a few hundred more.
I can understand why you get that impression, but it's completely false.
It's not a trolling point, actually, but a valid point (i feel, however)
As I've said elsewhere in this story, the linux community can't bitch about not being on everyone's computer if energy is wasted on projects like this. Imagine if everyone who spent time working on things like this vented that energy into making an OS people want to use... Linux would be on everyone's desktop. First things first - get people using the OS. Second step - improve it for them. I mean, no-one even knows if Joe Public is going to want any of these features when they're using their linux box to surf the web. Microsoft developers/hardware providers and their ilk can afford to make custom drivers because millions more people use their software. At the moment, in the linux world, it's common for 10 people to work on a project that will only be used by 10,000 people. On that scale, for Linux to be a world-leading desktop OS, the dev teams would have to be in their millions, and working on the same project. That's obviously not going to happen, so the ratio of developers/users has to be addressed before real growth can happen. Shaving 10% off access times isn't the best way to do that.
Call me a troll or whatever - I don't care. I do care that I can see why linux isn't as popular as it is, and I do care that no-one listens, or is even prepared to engage in a discussion. I'm more than willing to accept I'm wrong, but as soon as I raise points like this I get some tux-licking fanboy triyng to cram an entire O'Reilly library down my throat.
At the moment linux distros ask you everything from how you take your coffee to which side you dress. It was more of an illustration than an example. Nice of you to take it seriously, though;) If Linux is going to dominate the computer world, it has to appeal to as many people as possible. The linux community can't bellyache about MS's dominance if this is how the community spends its time. Don't try to run before you can walk. Super-fast IO doesn't matter if the software isn't on anyone's machines. First, get people using it then improve it as they demand.
But, as I'm sure we'll be made aware of in the coming months, Avalon will be optional. Expecting every user of Windows to have a (will be) middle-of-the-line 3D accelerator is a bit steep, even for MS's standards. When you turn Avalon off, you're still going to need themes, which is where this will come in.
And I know about the current longhorn releases, as I had a longhorn box on my desk for a couple of months;)
I'm running Apache/MySQL on an XP box under my desk here, and it hasn't been rebooted in months. You only need to update XP with service packs, as the other updates are security-based and feature-based. As I'm behind a good amount of firewalling, security isn't an issue - the only visible process is Apache, and he's cool.
I only use Windows on the box because I use it for other stuff (and I've got custom software running on it to do some things linux can't). Apart from that, I'm 100% linux on the server, but I know it is not only possible, but viable to run a server on XP.
It's in wide use in XP. You can change how your entire OS looks. At work I do web design, so it's advantageous to have a neutral, minimal theme - so I use a light-grey theme with small fonts and clean buttons. At home, I'm more of a moody bastard so I have a dark blue/green theme with nice gradients and pretty fonts.
It's hard to express, but these themes are so well put together they change the entire feel of your OS, not just the look. And, they do it in such a way that they always look built-in to the OS itself, and not a bold-on afterthought.
After all, you can change your wallpaper in most OSs - this is just the natural progression. I'm sure it's a harder thing to do in Linux owing to the various differing methods for window construction, etc out there.
Deviant Art has a great library of visual styles, all for free. Absolutely stunning, some of those.
Windows XP uses a.DLL file (.so) for handling "visual styles" (skins). These skins are signed by microsoft, so you can only use their skins (to stop people from making virii or something, or to line their pockets). Since XP came out, people have been hacking this.dll file (uxtheme.dll) to allow custom, non-microsoft visual styles to be used. This is quite a coup as they've removed the need for signing before the OS is even released. It's not about the technology present in skinning, but the fact that they've circumvented MS's encryption/signing thingy 2 years prior to release.
It's direct3D-9 hardware accelerated, so it'll be one of the fastest GUIs out there, much faster than anything in the UNIX world, simply through co-operation with the card manufacturers.
There isn't much mud you can sling at longhorn that will stick;)
Windows 2000 & XP don't crash. I've been using it for years, and it's rock-solid. I rebooted my machine for the first time in a couple of months today (my work PC). All the old "wind0ze crashes!" stuff ceased to be factual when Windows 2000 appeared.
They have several different components, and the one you're talking about hasn't been released to beta testers yet (hence it not being leaked everywhere). It will have a fully-direct3D9 accelerated GUI, allowing all sorts of craziness.
Seriously, you think GUIs are good now - just wait.
Windows only takes ages to boot if something's wrong. My machines (p3 1ghz, p4 2.4ghz) all boot up in under a minute... I'd try taking a look in your error log:)
Yeah, and where I work in Microsoft, Bill Gates frequently drops in with the latest copy of Linux User, espousing his love for Tux. Why, only yesterday he said he cries himself to sleep wishing he thought of Linux, instead of Windows.
Zealotry is all fine and dandy, but delusional zealotry just lands people in jail.
I think that's exactly what Ma & Pa want to choose when they first turn on their Wal*Mart linux box - what IO mode their HDDs should use.
If Linux is going to tackle the desktop, the priority should be to make it desktop-ready, surely... Adding extra features which don't add functionality that keeps people away is counter-productive.
Slashdot Mirror
errr.... 1 hour, dude.
I'm pretty sure most, if not all of the /. crowd would have trouble recovering a deleted file, if it's been overwritten ;)
There are legitimate privacy concerns from this technology, but I feel they've been blown out of all proportion by people not understanding the technology. If anyone's read about the google filesystem, they'll know why this is happening. If you haven't, you'd probably jump to all sorts of crazy tin-hat-related conclusions.
I know what you're saying, but if linux continues being techie-oriented, it will never get onto the home desktop. Windows isn't techie-oriented, but it can be used by techies. Linux, on the other hand, is techie-oriented and can only be used by the few lucky non-techies who has a linux install that doesn't need fixing.
I'm just saying that people are bitching that linux isn't on every desktop, and the answer is right in front of their face. And no, it's not microsoft. Or sco. Or IBM. Or sun. Or any other scapegoat-of-the-month. :)
They keep the email because the google filesystem doesn't delete data. It has 64mb chunks on a linux filesystem, and if data in one of those chunks is "deleted", it's marked as deleted, much the same way as a FAT, except chunks aren't overwritten. That keeps a contiguous filesystem in tact, and allows for great scalability. apparently. :)
As the google file system doesn't actually delete the data off the disks when it's "erased", it'll still exist. I think that's the real perceived problem (even though it's a tiny one, in actual fact)
It uses 64mb-chunks of disk space, and instead of erasing data from within the chunk, it just flags it as deleted, thereby not fragmenting the filesystem fantastically. That method means it's practically impossible to delete the email.
It has to be kept on their filesystem as the inbox is searchable, and 1gb large - raid arrays just wouldn't cope with that stress (and it'd take 3 days to search your mail). The filesystem is the real genius of google - their system is made of hundreds of terabytes of storage on a distributed system. Thousands of servers running redundantly. When one dies (with that many it's a regular occurance) it gets swapped out seamlessly. The processing on the data also requires huge bandwidth throughput.
To me, it looks like the google boys found a great use for their systems, but the very methods that make them great contradict local law in some areas they're selling in.
Oh, and the rules are that different in europe ;)
If you step outside of the mainstream, you can't expect everyone else to follow you ;)
For me, the fact IE doesn't break when it encounters <style> tags is a good thing. call me crazy, but I prefer things to not break.
It's fine - you can say/think what you want about me. Just watch as linux goes precisely nowhere on the desktop because of things like this.
What's useful to techies isn't necessarily useful to the home user. Until linux is useful to the home user, bill gates gets the last laugh. You can't seriously expect most of the windows users out there to format c: and get linux in its current state??
"offtopic to my bias"
"troll to my bias"
etc ;)
as the only way you get modded accurately is if you're in the same camp as the moderator. I'm clearly not.
The part about being second-to-none struck me as slightly strange, as any coverage of Iraq would show that's not the case. I know the US soldiers want to do a good job, and various factors inhibit this, but they really aren't as effective as a combat force as most people make out. Good training means a 4-man team can do what 20 other guys can. When most countries will send 300 elite or top-notch troops, the US will send 30,000 guys screaming "hoo-yeah!" at each other. Big guys with guns != effective army. The fact they kill anyone is more down to statistics and collateral damage than training.
I know everyone out there who's fighting for what they believe deserves my utmost respect, but more of them would be coming home if the US military realised these horrible shortcomings and did something about them.
I hear ya about Bush et al - professional politicians never make good role models for troops, especially seeing as troops should be totally removed from politics. Take, for example, the British armed forces' top officer: an old lady from London... they still pack one of the fiercest punches out there, though ;) I guess a lot of it is down to tradition and rigorous training (The RM's training is the longest of any regular troops in the world). Once they have discipline, they're set.
If you look at a number of people who use XP, you'll see there is a great number of different looks out there. Deviant Art has a huge library of just a few of the themes out there. As for themexp.org, there are a few hundred more.
I can understand why you get that impression, but it's completely false.
As I've said elsewhere in this story, the linux community can't bitch about not being on everyone's computer if energy is wasted on projects like this. Imagine if everyone who spent time working on things like this vented that energy into making an OS people want to use... Linux would be on everyone's desktop. First things first - get people using the OS. Second step - improve it for them. I mean, no-one even knows if Joe Public is going to want any of these features when they're using their linux box to surf the web. Microsoft developers/hardware providers and their ilk can afford to make custom drivers because millions more people use their software. At the moment, in the linux world, it's common for 10 people to work on a project that will only be used by 10,000 people. On that scale, for Linux to be a world-leading desktop OS, the dev teams would have to be in their millions, and working on the same project. That's obviously not going to happen, so the ratio of developers/users has to be addressed before real growth can happen. Shaving 10% off access times isn't the best way to do that.
Call me a troll or whatever - I don't care. I do care that I can see why linux isn't as popular as it is, and I do care that no-one listens, or is even prepared to engage in a discussion. I'm more than willing to accept I'm wrong, but as soon as I raise points like this I get some tux-licking fanboy triyng to cram an entire O'Reilly library down my throat.
At the moment linux distros ask you everything from how you take your coffee to which side you dress. It was more of an illustration than an example. Nice of you to take it seriously, though ;) If Linux is going to dominate the computer world, it has to appeal to as many people as possible. The linux community can't bellyache about MS's dominance if this is how the community spends its time. Don't try to run before you can walk. Super-fast IO doesn't matter if the software isn't on anyone's machines. First, get people using it then improve it as they demand.
And I know about the current longhorn releases, as I had a longhorn box on my desk for a couple of months ;)
I only use Windows on the box because I use it for other stuff (and I've got custom software running on it to do some things linux can't). Apart from that, I'm 100% linux on the server, but I know it is not only possible, but viable to run a server on XP.
It's hard to express, but these themes are so well put together they change the entire feel of your OS, not just the look. And, they do it in such a way that they always look built-in to the OS itself, and not a bold-on afterthought.
After all, you can change your wallpaper in most OSs - this is just the natural progression. I'm sure it's a harder thing to do in Linux owing to the various differing methods for window construction, etc out there.
Deviant Art has a great library of visual styles, all for free. Absolutely stunning, some of those.
Windows XP uses a .DLL file (.so) for handling "visual styles" (skins). These skins are signed by microsoft, so you can only use their skins (to stop people from making virii or something, or to line their pockets). Since XP came out, people have been hacking this .dll file (uxtheme.dll) to allow custom, non-microsoft visual styles to be used. This is quite a coup as they've removed the need for signing before the OS is even released. It's not about the technology present in skinning, but the fact that they've circumvented MS's encryption/signing thingy 2 years prior to release.
There isn't much mud you can sling at longhorn that will stick ;)
Windows 2000 & XP don't crash. I've been using it for years, and it's rock-solid. I rebooted my machine for the first time in a couple of months today (my work PC). All the old "wind0ze crashes!" stuff ceased to be factual when Windows 2000 appeared.
Seriously, you think GUIs are good now - just wait.
So, in turn, should the Linux community cease developing/including things that are "inspired" by Windows?
Windows only takes ages to boot if something's wrong. My machines (p3 1ghz, p4 2.4ghz) all boot up in under a minute... I'd try taking a look in your error log :)
Zealotry is all fine and dandy, but delusional zealotry just lands people in jail.
You need help, buddy.
If Linux is going to tackle the desktop, the priority should be to make it desktop-ready, surely... Adding extra features which don't add functionality that keeps people away is counter-productive.