"What the hell would I want a hot chick for? At least my computer comes with documentation. These hot chicks have too many undocumented features and there's just not enough time in my high school career to figure it out!"
My memory is foggy, but IIRC NTFS was stable from day one. NTFS lies somewhere between a journaled filesystem and a database, if you read the posts on the linux-NTFS devel list. I don't see WinFS as all that much different than NTFS. NTFS is transaction based and already works like a database at the lower levels. WinFS is just expanding NTFS to the user level, taking advantage of its database-like indexing features.
If MS truly innovated NTFS, I think it's the only thing they've ever done well. They really have a good filesystem going for them, and I would expect the same kind of stability our of WinFS.
Now, can anyone tell me where NTFS came from? If MS developed it in their labs, I can say that WinFS will be fine product. If they stole it from somewhere, and now think they can build their own (WinFS), RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!!!!!
OK, after a brief discussion with a few truckers (helps to live.5 mile from a truck stop) I got the facts straight. Either someone got confused and misinformed me or I got confused and mixed things up.
Back in the day, starting the engine of a truck was the equivelent of driving 2,000 miles in terms of WEAR ON THE ENGINE. Somewhere between the amount of oil on the pistons and whatnot, it was very harsh to start the engine. Nowadays this is no longer a problem with some of the advances that have come out of super lubricants and whatnot.
Anyway, with that I officially call this thread dead, 19 replies to a well written troll with a final moderation of (-1, Informative). I can't think of a better way to spend an afternoon.
Since people are questioning my numbers, I've done some research to back up my statements.
According to a bulletin published by the EPA in 2002, newer diesel engines consume significantly less fuel on startup. When I was told of the startup problems many years ago, starting an engine was absolute hell on it so truckers avoided it whenever possible. With the newer engines, idling is actually worse for it. According to the EPA starting a modern diesel engine consumes as much fuel as 30 seconds of idling.
I'm trying to find when this changed, because older engines (older being the word in question) were better off idling all night than being turned off and restarted. If I can dig up the documentation I'm looking for, I'll post links here.
Funny it mentions truck idling. Ever wonder why truckers leave their trucks idling over night? It's because, believe it or not, they use less fuel idling the truck all night than if they stop the truck and start it the next morning. The amount of fuel needed to start the truck is about the equivelent of 2,000 miles of driving.
Just an interesting tidbit. Since these bays require you to shut off the engine, they actually cost more than the wirless option.
Ok, to make a serious point, is there a QBASIC interpretor for linux? I have some code that I don't want to bother re-writing in C, and I want to first get it working on linux then re-write it as I have time.
In my lifetime I've seen two space accidents. I've seen hundreds of missions flown. I'd say our percentage is pretty good (99% if they've flown only 200 missions in my lifetime, which I find hard to believe). How often does Russia fly? How many astronauts per flight? How do their numbers stack up against ours?
I can't agree more. I think these guidelines are shoddy at best. Their approach is fixing things that have gone wrong before. They don't seem to be taking into consideration other scenarios. If a piece of foam can damage the shuttle, there have to be much bigger problems that haven't been looked at yet. A teardown and redesign of the shuttle should be the next logical step. Finding potential problems and fixing them before they happen is the step to take, logically.
What they've basically done is walked up to the shuttle, added duct tape to the foam, then pointed a camera at it so that WHEN (??) it falls off, they know about it.
I can't even begin to count the ways. Portable TVs? No more. My parents live 20 miles from the nearest cable provider, so they'd have to get a dish. Oh wait, they don't have a view to to the south. Oh, and it costs $40/mo for channels you didn't want in the first place.
How the hell is this a GOOD thing? In ANY way???
Re:Idiots at Novell
on
Latest SCO News
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
So far Novell has played their cards right. They have documentation to back up every claim they've made, and they haven't given me one reason to doubt them. The fact that SCO has a document that no one else does, and the fact that they just suddenly discovered it makes me point fingers at SCO before pointing at Novell.
The reason Linus won't sign is that every piece of code he works on from that point is either scrutinized by SCO or banned altogether. If any linux coder signs this NDA, the proper thing to do would be to ban them from contributing code to the kernel. They are now contaminated with the knowledge of SCO's code, which could actually lead to a new problem: knowly adding SCO code to the kernel.
It's a messy proposition, which is why SCO can't find anyone to sign their NDA.
I think the purpose is twofold. For one, SCO thinks they have a claim, and want people to able to back them up. Let's say Linus looks at the source and says that indeed, SCO has a case. SCO now has the re-affirmation from Linus himself that they have a case, and Linus can now publicly say "watch out, they have a case". He can't do anything more than that, but he can at least strengthen SCO's point. Also, they can then subpoena Linus in court.
The second reason is to find out if they really have a case. If Linus can prove to SCO that they're full of BS, SCO can back out now before they lose everything they have in legal fees. They'll need that money, since no one on Slashdot will pay SCO for anything ever again.
Yes, I realize that Linus has already stated that he won't look at the code, for good reasons, I just used him as an EXAMPLE.
I'm pissed that the springboard slot has been discontinued from Handspring models. I bought mine specifically because of the slot, and I've got several attachments for it. It's by far the most economical way to upgrade a PDA, and they scrapped it. My hope would be that Palm returns the Handspring slot, but I kind of doubt they will.
Sorry. There's no mention of linux, free software, or any software for that matter.
2 guys from MS don't like the fact that money is being spent on Supercomputers when it should be spent on x86 clusters.
Depending on how you interpret the story, you could think that the researchers are promoting money for ANY OS based x86 cluster. If you read it with scrutiny, it kind of sounds like MS wants to put an end to non-MS capable boxen and wants money spent to encourage a market that MS doesn't own yet.
Since this is a technical piece and not a marketing piece, draw your own conclusion.
Well, here's where I see things clearing up. Let's say Lindows grabs a virgin kernel and releases it untouched. Their licensing agreement now says that any code in their release is free of SCO issues.
What about the code that's already existing? It's the same code, so if Lindows pronounced it GPL, it's all taken care of for everyone.
Lindows joins the fight
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Since the editors didn't find this interesting enough to include, I'll post it here.
Lindows has claimed that their SCO license allowed them to relicense SCO kernel code as GPL. See here for the article. Basically it either means that Lindows has cleaned the offending kernel code or they're about to get sued off the face of the earth.
Slashdot Mirror
School nerds:
"What the hell would I want a hot chick for? At least my computer comes with documentation. These hot chicks have too many undocumented features and there's just not enough time in my high school career to figure it out!"
We hate spammers.
We hate Microsoft.
Microsoft sues spammers.
Dangit.
Where's my pitchfork?
:-)
Wrong OS
New FS = New corruption?
My memory is foggy, but IIRC NTFS was stable from day one. NTFS lies somewhere between a journaled filesystem and a database, if you read the posts on the linux-NTFS devel list. I don't see WinFS as all that much different than NTFS. NTFS is transaction based and already works like a database at the lower levels. WinFS is just expanding NTFS to the user level, taking advantage of its database-like indexing features.
If MS truly innovated NTFS, I think it's the only thing they've ever done well. They really have a good filesystem going for them, and I would expect the same kind of stability our of WinFS.
Now, can anyone tell me where NTFS came from? If MS developed it in their labs, I can say that WinFS will be fine product. If they stole it from somewhere, and now think they can build their own (WinFS), RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!!!!!
OK, after a brief discussion with a few truckers (helps to live .5 mile from a truck stop) I got the facts straight. Either someone got confused and misinformed me or I got confused and mixed things up.
Back in the day, starting the engine of a truck was the equivelent of driving 2,000 miles in terms of WEAR ON THE ENGINE. Somewhere between the amount of oil on the pistons and whatnot, it was very harsh to start the engine. Nowadays this is no longer a problem with some of the advances that have come out of super lubricants and whatnot.
Anyway, with that I officially call this thread dead, 19 replies to a well written troll with a final moderation of (-1, Informative). I can't think of a better way to spend an afternoon.
Jeff Bezos tries to patent a method of riding the segway where the rider does not fall off.
Since people are questioning my numbers, I've done some research to back up my statements.
According to a bulletin published by the EPA in 2002, newer diesel engines consume significantly less fuel on startup. When I was told of the startup problems many years ago, starting an engine was absolute hell on it so truckers avoided it whenever possible. With the newer engines, idling is actually worse for it. According to the EPA starting a modern diesel engine consumes as much fuel as 30 seconds of idling.
I'm trying to find when this changed, because older engines (older being the word in question) were better off idling all night than being turned off and restarted. If I can dig up the documentation I'm looking for, I'll post links here.
Those who know, post.
Those who don't, post AC.
Funny it mentions truck idling. Ever wonder why truckers leave their trucks idling over night? It's because, believe it or not, they use less fuel idling the truck all night than if they stop the truck and start it the next morning. The amount of fuel needed to start the truck is about the equivelent of 2,000 miles of driving.
Just an interesting tidbit. Since these bays require you to shut off the engine, they actually cost more than the wirless option.
but does it run (on) linux?
Ok, to make a serious point, is there a QBASIC interpretor for linux? I have some code that I don't want to bother re-writing in C, and I want to first get it working on linux then re-write it as I have time.
I'm curious, how DOES Russia handle things?
In my lifetime I've seen two space accidents. I've seen hundreds of missions flown. I'd say our percentage is pretty good (99% if they've flown only 200 missions in my lifetime, which I find hard to believe). How often does Russia fly? How many astronauts per flight? How do their numbers stack up against ours?
I can't agree more. I think these guidelines are shoddy at best. Their approach is fixing things that have gone wrong before. They don't seem to be taking into consideration other scenarios. If a piece of foam can damage the shuttle, there have to be much bigger problems that haven't been looked at yet. A teardown and redesign of the shuttle should be the next logical step. Finding potential problems and fixing them before they happen is the step to take, logically.
What they've basically done is walked up to the shuttle, added duct tape to the foam, then pointed a camera at it so that WHEN (??) it falls off, they know about it.
Disagree all you want to, I'm just happy that the space program was not ended.
Fly on, NASA.
I can't even begin to count the ways. Portable TVs? No more. My parents live 20 miles from the nearest cable provider, so they'd have to get a dish. Oh wait, they don't have a view to to the south. Oh, and it costs $40/mo for channels you didn't want in the first place.
How the hell is this a GOOD thing? In ANY way???
So far Novell has played their cards right. They have documentation to back up every claim they've made, and they haven't given me one reason to doubt them. The fact that SCO has a document that no one else does, and the fact that they just suddenly discovered it makes me point fingers at SCO before pointing at Novell.
The reason Linus won't sign is that every piece of code he works on from that point is either scrutinized by SCO or banned altogether. If any linux coder signs this NDA, the proper thing to do would be to ban them from contributing code to the kernel. They are now contaminated with the knowledge of SCO's code, which could actually lead to a new problem: knowly adding SCO code to the kernel.
It's a messy proposition, which is why SCO can't find anyone to sign their NDA.
I think the purpose is twofold. For one, SCO thinks they have a claim, and want people to able to back them up. Let's say Linus looks at the source and says that indeed, SCO has a case. SCO now has the re-affirmation from Linus himself that they have a case, and Linus can now publicly say "watch out, they have a case". He can't do anything more than that, but he can at least strengthen SCO's point. Also, they can then subpoena Linus in court.
The second reason is to find out if they really have a case. If Linus can prove to SCO that they're full of BS, SCO can back out now before they lose everything they have in legal fees. They'll need that money, since no one on Slashdot will pay SCO for anything ever again.
Yes, I realize that Linus has already stated that he won't look at the code, for good reasons, I just used him as an EXAMPLE.
Yes, but can you add a GPS and a back massager to a compact flash slot? :-)
I'm pissed that the springboard slot has been discontinued from Handspring models. I bought mine specifically because of the slot, and I've got several attachments for it. It's by far the most economical way to upgrade a PDA, and they scrapped it. My hope would be that Palm returns the Handspring slot, but I kind of doubt they will.
Everyone already thinks you're gay.
:-(
That's what Jr. High does to a person
Now mass marketers will think I'm Gay.
OK, go ahead and mod parent down and troll me into oblivion. I walked right into that one.
The second page of the article explains linux, beowulf, and sounds like a pretty neat step for clustering projects.
Sorry. There's no mention of linux, free software, or any software for that matter.
2 guys from MS don't like the fact that money is being spent on Supercomputers when it should be spent on x86 clusters.
Depending on how you interpret the story, you could think that the researchers are promoting money for ANY OS based x86 cluster. If you read it with scrutiny, it kind of sounds like MS wants to put an end to non-MS capable boxen and wants money spent to encourage a market that MS doesn't own yet.
Since this is a technical piece and not a marketing piece, draw your own conclusion.
Well, here's where I see things clearing up. Let's say Lindows grabs a virgin kernel and releases it untouched. Their licensing agreement now says that any code in their release is free of SCO issues.
What about the code that's already existing? It's the same code, so if Lindows pronounced it GPL, it's all taken care of for everyone.
Since the editors didn't find this interesting enough to include, I'll post it here.
Lindows has claimed that their SCO license allowed them to relicense SCO kernel code as GPL. See here for the article. Basically it either means that Lindows has cleaned the offending kernel code or they're about to get sued off the face of the earth.