Sorry, but at least two of your points are factually incorrect.
* ReFS is lacking a few notable features, including file compression / encryption, sparse files, hard links, extended attributes, disk quotas, and others[1]. You could say that the only notable improvements over NTFS that it has would be much improved resiliency and higher capacity limits. You can't compare this to BrtFS. At all. The two aren't even in the same ballpark. ReFS is there to store millions of large files and managed bad blocks in a smart way without taking the volume offline. It supports little else. * Dynamic access control can't even be compared to SELinux. SELinux can restrict a program to running from a certain location, it can restrict which ports in the TCP/IP stack it can/can't open, it can restrict which hosts a specific process can talk to, and yes, it can alter the fundamental view of the file system hierarchy based upon access levels granted. Dynamic access control is really just more complexity in the form of an ACL on top of the already present windows file system ACLs, and it impacts nothing outside of files[2]. Now, you can use claims (which dynamic access control is built upon, at least partially) to control other aspects of your environment, but that isn't "dynamic access control" as far as MS is concerned. Further, it really is another layer of complexity -- if your claims server (which is a web server(!)) goes down, you're losing access to stuff (but if you're a decent sized MS shop, this will likely not be an issue, as you're already maintaining decent uptime on your DCs). Then the file system level ACL comes into play again. It's going to be crazy stupid hard to diagnose a claims access issue in a large production environment, no matter what MS has done towards fixing these issues. Somewhat amusingly, dynamic access control isn't supported on ReFS at all [2].
Now normally I'd just trust you that you googled around to find this stuff, but you've got some powershell in your signature, which leads me to believe that you've done a bit more checking than the "stereotypical slashdot linux sysadmin" and this only goes towards scaring me a bit.
Aw crap, you're one of *those* engineers who manage to break their machine every 30 days like clockwork, and who makes the life of everyone involved with fixing PCs in a big corporation miserable.
Two sides to the coin... I'm not saying that any one side is more right than the other, but seriously, two sides to the coin.
I'd also like to see large bodies of water. Right next to Salt Lake City is... the Great Salt Lake, and right there is a massive area where the wind just dies. It makes sense (moisture rising, disrupting the existing airflow), but seeing that defined would be awesome.
It's almost entirely unrelated to virtualization. This is more like highlighting the fact that you can switch browsers by hitting alt+tab, only they built the alt+tab button into the hardware.
It's more complex than that (because every one of those will have a different libc, and android doesn't use the same libc, never mind the rest of the libraries), but functionally that's what userspace switching is. The same kernel (OS) keeps running...
> All OS are running on the 2.6.32 Linux kernel, and got several optimizations to take benefits of the advanced instructions available in the chipset. > > Note that you will not be able to install Windows OS or Mac OS on the Touch Book or the Smart Book.
Yes, you can do some cool things with linux. Including switching out the userspace pretty quickly. That's all that this looks like. The kernel isn't changing, from the looks of it.
Except that as you noted, this prompts for activation. That's the purpose of sysprep -reseal, and I hope that it doesn't present any problems. What you are functionally doing with this is reinstalling the non-core OS components, which is... somewhat higher risk than otherwise....
"When it works" isn't what bothers me. What bothers me is this disclaimer at the bottom of the steam page:
> A PERMANENT HIGH SPEED INTERNET CONNECTION AND CREATION OF A UBISOFT ACCOUNT ARE REQUIRED TO PLAY THIS VIDEO GAME AT ALL TIMES AND TO UNLOCK EXCLUSIVE CONTENT. SUCH CONTENT MAY ONLY BE UNLOCKED ONE SINGLE TIME WITH A UNIQUE KEY. YOU MUST BE AT LEAST 13 TO CREATE A UBISOFT ACCOUNT WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT. UBISOFT MAY CANCEL ACCESS TO ONLINE FEATURES UPON A 30-DAY PRIOR NOTICE PUBLISHED AT http://assassinscreed.com/... which to me says, "we can nuke your access to the game at any point in time, provided we give you 30 days notice on a website you're never going to check."
I own AC1, but I don't own AC2 or HAWX 2 for this very reason.
DRM is likely here to stay, at least to some degree, but this frightens the ever living crap out of me. Why would I throw money at a game where they can cut off access to it at any point in time for ALL of their customers, just because they don't want to pay the bill on those servers anymore?
Just like WoW, with a net benefit in terms of latency. I don't want to hit the ladder button and get get a minimum of 400ms+ of latency (but I would like to be able to at least join a custom game with them).
"connectivity" with social networking sites
Given the SC2 playerbase, there are more people who have a facebook account than otherwise. I hate it personally, but generally speaking, it wasn't a stupid decision on their part.
no chat/clans/channels
All of which are coming in a future patch..
a single character name
While I do wish they had an option to reset your account and generate a new name, I really only see this as a positive change. A massive cut down on trolling, and bans meaning something.
Not that it matters much, SC2 ladder is compromised already due to rampant maphacking.
Sure there are indeed maphacks already, but calling their usage rampant is a bit of a stretch. Blizzard has never instantly banned people for "hacking." It comes in waves, like you know, these banning sprees of 7,700, 350,000, and then 320,000.
Just to reiterate:
Activision has nothing to do with anything they've done recently, and anyone who says otherwise is blaming something they don't like on a company of convinence.
That was WAY before Activision. They report their income on different balance sheets; the only effective change in Blizzard mindset was the part where they went public.
Activision has nothing to do with anything they've done recently, and anyone who says otherwise is blaming something they don't like on a company of convinence.
While that article is just as good at trolling a subject line as the OP is, the part we care about is this:
And, should you exceed the 5GB/month limit on your “unlimited” plan, Verizon will “reduce throughput speeds of any application that would otherwise exceed such speed to a maximum of approximately 200Kbps” – with actual speeds “subject to change.
It remains functionally unlimited, and the same type of cap pre-5GB applies: connection speed. Just a different speed.
It isn't a 5GB cap. You're free to transfer as much as you please.
Anything over 5GB gets rate limited to 56k speeds, though.
They're giving you unlimited data, and past 5GB, you still have unlimited data. It just isn't fast, and nothing in their terms of use prohibits this. You can't really drop a class-action lawsuit against them doing that either.
You're not fined for going over 5GB, just throttled.
Who says that's only 1/3 of the story? When/if they announce SC3 proper, that number changes to 1/4. If you count the original and the expansion, 1/6. The N64 version had extra content that was only on the N64, so 1/7. Then they'll announce the next expansion to SC3, and that will be 1/8.
Saying "I'm getting a fixed portion of the story, where that portion is less than one -- and I don't like paying to get the rest" is meaningless when we don't know what the denominator on that fraction is, when it stops, or if it will stop any time soon.
I disagree with the "but nothing that it unacceptable or even a need for concern" part. If copying the same image to the same disk where the only difference is where the partition begins -- by one sector difference -- will amount to a 2.6x decrease in speed, and where copying a large directory with many subdirectories amounts to a 3.2x decrease in speed... that should qualify as an unacceptable decrease in speed that warrants concern.
While a kernel tweak may help alleviate the issue, it is primarily an issue with our current (userspace) disk partitioning and formatting utilities. I'd also disagree with you on the point where the problem is the drive microcode; drives should do what they are told, and not guess on behalf of the instructions they are given what to do. Admittedly, the microcode tweak would be minor and largely trivial, but I'd rather not fix (primarily) userspace software problems in the kernel, nor the device firmware.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, but at least two of your points are factually incorrect.
* ReFS is lacking a few notable features, including file compression / encryption, sparse files, hard links, extended attributes, disk quotas, and others[1]. You could say that the only notable improvements over NTFS that it has would be much improved resiliency and higher capacity limits. You can't compare this to BrtFS. At all. The two aren't even in the same ballpark. ReFS is there to store millions of large files and managed bad blocks in a smart way without taking the volume offline. It supports little else.
* Dynamic access control can't even be compared to SELinux. SELinux can restrict a program to running from a certain location, it can restrict which ports in the TCP/IP stack it can/can't open, it can restrict which hosts a specific process can talk to, and yes, it can alter the fundamental view of the file system hierarchy based upon access levels granted. Dynamic access control is really just more complexity in the form of an ACL on top of the already present windows file system ACLs, and it impacts nothing outside of files[2]. Now, you can use claims (which dynamic access control is built upon, at least partially) to control other aspects of your environment, but that isn't "dynamic access control" as far as MS is concerned. Further, it really is another layer of complexity -- if your claims server (which is a web server(!)) goes down, you're losing access to stuff (but if you're a decent sized MS shop, this will likely not be an issue, as you're already maintaining decent uptime on your DCs). Then the file system level ACL comes into play again. It's going to be crazy stupid hard to diagnose a claims access issue in a large production environment, no matter what MS has done towards fixing these issues. Somewhat amusingly, dynamic access control isn't supported on ReFS at all [2].
Now normally I'd just trust you that you googled around to find this stuff, but you've got some powershell in your signature, which leads me to believe that you've done a bit more checking than the "stereotypical slashdot linux sysadmin" and this only goes towards scaring me a bit.
[1] http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012/01/16/building-the-next-generation-file-system-for-windows-refs.aspx
[2] http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh831717.aspx
Aw crap, you're one of *those* engineers who manage to break their machine every 30 days like clockwork, and who makes the life of everyone involved with fixing PCs in a big corporation miserable.
Two sides to the coin... I'm not saying that any one side is more right than the other, but seriously, two sides to the coin.
I'd also like to see large bodies of water. Right next to Salt Lake City is... the Great Salt Lake, and right there is a massive area where the wind just dies. It makes sense (moisture rising, disrupting the existing airflow), but seeing that defined would be awesome.
It's almost entirely unrelated to virtualization. This is more like highlighting the fact that you can switch browsers by hitting alt+tab, only they built the alt+tab button into the hardware.
It's more complex than that (because every one of those will have a different libc, and android doesn't use the same libc, never mind the rest of the libraries), but functionally that's what userspace switching is. The same kernel (OS) keeps running...
> All OS are running on the 2.6.32 Linux kernel, and got several optimizations to take benefits of the advanced instructions available in the chipset.
>
> Note that you will not be able to install Windows OS or Mac OS on the Touch Book or the Smart Book.
Yes, you can do some cool things with linux. Including switching out the userspace pretty quickly. That's all that this looks like. The kernel isn't changing, from the looks of it.
Except that as you noted, this prompts for activation. That's the purpose of sysprep -reseal, and I hope that it doesn't present any problems. What you are functionally doing with this is reinstalling the non-core OS components, which is... somewhat higher risk than otherwise. ...
Use at your own discretion.
http://notionink.wordpress.com/2011/01/01/more-in-portrait/
Definitely an option. So yes, you can.
"When it works" isn't what bothers me. What bothers me is this disclaimer at the bottom of the steam page:
> A PERMANENT HIGH SPEED INTERNET CONNECTION AND CREATION OF A UBISOFT ACCOUNT ARE REQUIRED TO PLAY THIS VIDEO GAME AT ALL TIMES AND TO UNLOCK EXCLUSIVE CONTENT. SUCH CONTENT MAY ONLY BE UNLOCKED ONE SINGLE TIME WITH A UNIQUE KEY. YOU MUST BE AT LEAST 13 TO CREATE A UBISOFT ACCOUNT WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT. UBISOFT MAY CANCEL ACCESS TO ONLINE FEATURES UPON A 30-DAY PRIOR NOTICE PUBLISHED AT http://assassinscreed.com/ ... which to me says, "we can nuke your access to the game at any point in time, provided we give you 30 days notice on a website you're never going to check."
I own AC1, but I don't own AC2 or HAWX 2 for this very reason.
DRM is likely here to stay, at least to some degree, but this frightens the ever living crap out of me. Why would I throw money at a game where they can cut off access to it at any point in time for ALL of their customers, just because they don't want to pay the bill on those servers anymore?
Region locks
Just like WoW, with a net benefit in terms of latency. I don't want to hit the ladder button and get get a minimum of 400ms+ of latency (but I would like to be able to at least join a custom game with them).
"connectivity" with social networking sites
Given the SC2 playerbase, there are more people who have a facebook account than otherwise. I hate it personally, but generally speaking, it wasn't a stupid decision on their part.
no chat/clans/channels
All of which are coming in a future patch..
a single character name
While I do wish they had an option to reset your account and generate a new name, I really only see this as a positive change. A massive cut down on trolling, and bans meaning something.
Not that it matters much, SC2 ladder is compromised already due to rampant maphacking.
Sure there are indeed maphacks already, but calling their usage rampant is a bit of a stretch. Blizzard has never instantly banned people for "hacking." It comes in waves, like you know, these banning sprees of 7,700, 350,000, and then 320,000.
Just to reiterate:
Activision has nothing to do with anything they've done recently, and anyone who says otherwise is blaming something they don't like on a company of convinence.
Click the link, read the company name. "Activision" is no longer a company, "Blizzard" is no longer a company, but "Activision Blizzard" is.
When Activision and Blizzard merged, because Activision was a public company, Blizzard effectively went public.
Activision is not a private company.
http://www.google.com/finance?q=activision
Oh they cared before. Remember BnetD?
That was WAY before Activision. They report their income on different balance sheets; the only effective change in Blizzard mindset was the part where they went public.
Activision has nothing to do with anything they've done recently, and anyone who says otherwise is blaming something they don't like on a company of convinence.
http://www.intomobile.com/2007/11/03/verizon-wireless-when-we-say-unlimited-data-we-mean-5gb-worth-of-unlimited-data.html
While that article is just as good at trolling a subject line as the OP is, the part we care about is this:
And, should you exceed the 5GB/month limit on your “unlimited” plan, Verizon will “reduce throughput speeds of any application that would otherwise exceed such speed to a maximum of approximately 200Kbps” – with actual speeds “subject to change.
It remains functionally unlimited, and the same type of cap pre-5GB applies: connection speed. Just a different speed.
It isn't a 5GB cap. You're free to transfer as much as you please.
Anything over 5GB gets rate limited to 56k speeds, though.
They're giving you unlimited data, and past 5GB, you still have unlimited data. It just isn't fast, and nothing in their terms of use prohibits this. You can't really drop a class-action lawsuit against them doing that either.
You're not fined for going over 5GB, just throttled.
Because it does.
That doesn't mean they won't sell minutes and bill by the meg.
Taking away my freedom to even allow someone else to use my work in their work in a manner that they would like isn't my cup of tea, personally.
This is a cyclical argument.
I think you meant: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/2/19/
Who says that's only 1/3 of the story? When/if they announce SC3 proper, that number changes to 1/4. If you count the original and the expansion, 1/6. The N64 version had extra content that was only on the N64, so 1/7. Then they'll announce the next expansion to SC3, and that will be 1/8.
Saying "I'm getting a fixed portion of the story, where that portion is less than one -- and I don't like paying to get the rest" is meaningless when we don't know what the denominator on that fraction is, when it stops, or if it will stop any time soon.
So if they announced SC2, SC3, and SC4, would you be equally as upset? Yes?
What if SC2 has as much content as the original Starcraft? And what if SC3 had as much content as the Expansion?
Guess what?
SC2 "Episode 1" has as much content as the original.
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git/tree/src
Of note, copy.c, copy.h, and cp.c.
Any chance you can post drive model number, output of fdisk -l, and a few similar benchmarks?
I disagree with the "but nothing that it unacceptable or even a need for concern" part. If copying the same image to the same disk where the only difference is where the partition begins -- by one sector difference -- will amount to a 2.6x decrease in speed, and where copying a large directory with many subdirectories amounts to a 3.2x decrease in speed... that should qualify as an unacceptable decrease in speed that warrants concern.
While a kernel tweak may help alleviate the issue, it is primarily an issue with our current (userspace) disk partitioning and formatting utilities. I'd also disagree with you on the point where the problem is the drive microcode; drives should do what they are told, and not guess on behalf of the instructions they are given what to do. Admittedly, the microcode tweak would be minor and largely trivial, but I'd rather not fix (primarily) userspace software problems in the kernel, nor the device firmware.
$ time cp winxp.img /mnt/sdc # ALIGNED
/mnt/sdd # UNALIGNED
/mnt/sdc # ALIGNED
/mnt/sdd # UNALIGNED
real 5m9.360s
user 0m0.090s
sys 0m20.420s
$ time cp winxp.img
real 13m26.943s
user 0m0.110s
sys 0m19.350s
$ time cp -r Computer Architecture/
real 42m9.602s
user 0m0.680s
sys 1m59.070s
$ time cp -r Computer Architecture/
real 138m54.610s
user 0m0.660s
sys 2m15.630s
The first two being a single file, the latter two being multiple files in a larger directory structure.
I would heartily disagree with you on the matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11n-2009
Coupling MIMO architecture with wider bandwidth channels offers increased physical transfer rate over 802.11a (5 GHz) and 802.11g (2.4 GHz).