Bah don't be insulting. Chances are I know as much or more about Unix than you.
I happen to take a cosc course at a strictly unix only university, and I've been using Linux for 4 years. And I wouldn't trust any admin (NT or Unix) to write any script that involves the crtitical files.
This hasn't exactly grabbed the attention of the mnedia, only the attention of/. cause someone read the first line and didn't think before they posted the story.
My point was, I would not trust any administrator to implement anything like this himself. If you've taken a course in software engineering, you'll see what I mean.
No, that be like crediting Ritchie every time some one created a C rip-off.
Like Java?;) The syntax is very similar. ...were brainstorming technology advances when an idea occurred to them -- why not save operating system disk space by storing duplicate files as links
I think that should of read, why not save os disk space by automatically detecting and storing duplicate files as links.
Amiga copied a process that has been around for thousands of years, it's called reading.
Anyway, I said nothing about Microsoft being the first to implement such a thing. It's innovative non the less. Did the amiga text to speech engine read out the UI to you? (and save the 'but i can see the UI for myself', it's more disabled people and people who need more usability). I also doubt the amiga text-speech was extendable with plugins.
That's be like crediting Ritchie every time they wrote something in C.
They never tried to take credit for symlinks, they're saying the idea of creating links automatically (and solving the problems associated with that) innovative. Something doesn't have to be new to be innovative. Softdrink was an innovative invention, but that's not to say that Coke isn't innovative just cause it's a softdrink.
I haven't read anything on that page that says they've invented symlinks, speech recognition or anything else like that.
Maybe the KDE team should create Microsoft for their.kdelnk files, and the "K" button, and the "Taskbar" (amongst other things).
And the MOZILLA team should credit Microsoft for xpCOM (designing something is 900% mroe difficult than implementing it). I don't think there was much designing required for symlinks compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of hours designing OLE/COM as it evolved over the past 9 or so years.
Well EVERYTHING done in Unix can be implemented in Windows, and most prolly vice versa. The point is whether it's done or not.
And what's wrong with the OS doing these things for you? Would you rather have the filesystem do this auto symlinking automatically or a perl script your hacker administrator wrote up?
And it's obvious that this is not a simple symlink in the unix sense. Obviously if you change one file, then they will no longer be linked and will get split up into two different files.
And maybe you should try out the Windows 2000 troubleshooter, it's quite good. Especially when it says something like "open up network properties" or something, it'll have a hyperlink to network properties. Much easier than having to follow instructions on how to open up network properties (or even worse, not being told at all where it is).
Windows 2000 help is not has "heavy" as unix man pages usually (that's what MSDN is for), but it's certainly much more useful and handy for the average joe, and even the more experienced jack.
Well read the rest of it. Firstly Symlinks and the Distributed File System was the plan in NT for a long time. Secondly, the technology is NOT just about symlinks, it's about figuring out what to automatically symlink, and handling when linked files change etc. Unix DOES not do this, and neither does Linux.
They never said they invented text to speech. Adding text to speech in an OS for accessibility is in their minds innovation. And besides, they were mentioning it as one of the developments contributed by their research division.
I don't think it's as simple as that. If the user changes priceless.doc, then it will be stored in a different 'store' than the backup.
The only problem you'd have is if there was corruption in that area, then both files would be lost. Ofcourse, there's also a chance that both files could have been corrupted at once anyway. Backing up on the same harddrive is usually to make sure changes can be undone, not to make sure the file is lost, so it's not a "big" problem.
Ahh, I see, so unix has these smart auto symlinks, inbuilt text-speech, inbuilt smart troubleshooters etc?
Um no.
Microsoft invents Office with shitloads of extra features, "ha, that's not innovation, that's been done thousands of years ago, it's called stone tablets".
This isn't just symbolic links, it's smart automatic dynamic symbolic links. There's a lot of computer science and mathemetics going into getting something like this to work efficiently.
If you're going to go around saying everything Microsoft doesn't innovation cause something similiar has been done before then at least actually make sure it hasn't been done before.
For anyone curious about (normal) symbolic links in Windows 2000, you can get the source example for making links from www.sysinternals.com.
Um, my point was just to say that there's really no difference between OCX and EXE except the methods of which they are distributed. OCX ofcourse more commonly comes with apps, but their distribution from websites is a bit of a worry if people don't understand the security model of explorer.
Hrm, just curios, I don't know much about the Newton (except that it was supposed to be really good "ahead of it's time" and that apple made it and then disolved it).
Did newton have sound, ODBC (or any kind of advanced data access), infrared, 16bit sound, 16bit colour, 32MB memory, Macromedia Flash support, full Java 1.1 support (not that silly picoJava stuff)? Windows CE has a heck of a lot stuff more than the newton - but then it depends on what you want out of a handheld i guess. I like toys:)~~, if i wanted something to write notes on, i'd get a (paper) notebook.
wanna give examples of these unfounded FUD stories?
Perhaps Mindcraft? Oh wait, Linus alread acknowledge the problem (about the same time he announced 2.4 would fix all this and would finally be the killer kernel).
Personally, I would like to see a nice, quick, and STABLE browser. Who needs Java to surf the web? If you want Java, just use Netscape.
Heh, if you want Java use IE. Netscape will crash and burn on you. Besides, Mozilla still isn't stable yet. And besides, it should support java and still be stable don't you think?
Well, you get the source to MFC, so if Microsoft stop supporting it, you can continue to extend it. That said, it's very unlikely that MFC will be dumped any time soon. Almost everything written in windows is based on MFC.
Well GNOME is more than a desktop, and is much more adequate than twm olvwm etc.
And XML support in Linux is pretty lame, but you can always use Java, then you have access to all kinds of XML resources. Ofcourse Linux needs a decent browser (like ie:P) that supports XML/VML etc so it becomes a bit more useful.
BTW, doesn't KDE use XMLRPC, I might be mistaken:) If they do, they would have needed to write at least a simple XML parser.
mySQL, KFM, KOM etc all really need to support XML IMHO. XML is the future of cross platform communication (which IMHO will be far more important than java).
KDE uses QT which is a set of C++ classes. That's why I personally prefer KDE over Gnome.
BTW, give KDevelop a go, it rocks, not up to the level of VC++ (which was the insipiration) but it has made AMAZING strides in catching up in a short amount of time, and in some areas, it is even better:)
But KDE isn't an OS, and neither is Gnome. They're "window managers", and nowdays, usually a bit more. Both of them also define methods of component reuse (a bit like COM on windows) and also their name generally also implies the software they ship with (kedit etc).
Slashdot Mirror
Bah don't be insulting. Chances are I know as much or more about Unix than you.
I happen to take a cosc course at a strictly unix only university, and I've been using Linux for 4 years. And I wouldn't trust any admin (NT or Unix) to write any script that involves the crtitical files.
This hasn't exactly grabbed the attention of the mnedia, only the attention of /. cause someone read the first line and didn't think before they posted the story.
My point was, I would not trust any administrator to implement anything like this himself. If you've taken a course in software engineering, you'll see what I mean.
It's smart. If you have 10 files the same, and change one, it's hardly going to change the other 9. Think about it.
Just cause you think of symbolic links from your perspective, doesn't mean Microsoft's "links" and "Single Object Store" is the exact same thing.
No, that be like crediting Ritchie every time some one created a C rip-off.
;) The syntax is very similar. ...were brainstorming technology advances when an idea occurred to them -- why not save operating system disk space by storing duplicate files as links
Like Java?
I think that should of read, why not save os disk space by automatically detecting and storing duplicate files as links.
Amiga copied a process that has been around for thousands of years, it's called reading.
Anyway, I said nothing about Microsoft being the first to implement such a thing. It's innovative non the less.
Did the amiga text to speech engine read out the UI to you? (and save the 'but i can see the UI for myself', it's more disabled people and people who need more usability). I also doubt the amiga text-speech was extendable with plugins.
look at microsoft's enable site if you want
That's be like crediting Ritchie every time they wrote something in C.
.kdelnk files, and the "K" button, and the "Taskbar" (amongst other things).
They never tried to take credit for symlinks, they're saying the idea of creating links automatically (and solving the problems associated with that) innovative. Something doesn't have to be new to be innovative.
Softdrink was an innovative invention, but that's not to say that Coke isn't innovative just cause it's a softdrink.
I haven't read anything on that page that says they've invented symlinks, speech recognition or anything else like that.
Maybe the KDE team should create Microsoft for their
And the MOZILLA team should credit Microsoft for xpCOM (designing something is 900% mroe difficult than implementing it).
I don't think there was much designing required for symlinks compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of hours designing OLE/COM as it evolved over the past 9 or so years.
Well EVERYTHING done in Unix can be implemented in Windows, and most prolly vice versa. The point is whether it's done or not.
And what's wrong with the OS doing these things for you? Would you rather have the filesystem do this auto symlinking automatically or a perl script your hacker administrator wrote up?
And it's obvious that this is not a simple symlink in the unix sense. Obviously if you change one file, then they will no longer be linked and will get split up into two different files.
And maybe you should try out the Windows 2000 troubleshooter, it's quite good. Especially when it says something like "open up network properties" or something, it'll have a hyperlink to network properties. Much easier than having to follow instructions on how to open up network properties (or even worse, not being told at all where it is).
Windows 2000 help is not has "heavy" as unix man pages usually (that's what MSDN is for), but it's certainly much more useful and handy for the average joe, and even the more experienced jack.
Well read the rest of it. Firstly Symlinks and the Distributed File System was the plan in NT for a long time. Secondly, the technology is NOT just about symlinks, it's about figuring out what to automatically symlink, and handling when linked files change etc. Unix DOES not do this, and neither does Linux.
Uh huh, and name me something that isn't based on something else.
They never said they invented text to speech. Adding text to speech in an OS for accessibility is in their minds innovation. And besides, they were mentioning it as one of the developments contributed by their research division.
I don't think it's as simple as that. If the user changes priceless.doc, then it will be stored in a different 'store' than the backup.
The only problem you'd have is if there was corruption in that area, then both files would be lost. Ofcourse, there's also a chance that both files could have been corrupted at once anyway. Backing up on the same harddrive is usually to make sure changes can be undone, not to make sure the file is lost, so it's not a "big" problem.
Uh, Windows 2000 does have symbolic links (yes you can mount disks to directories too).
Just cause THAT article didn't say so, doesn't mean it can't do it.
Ahh, I see, so unix has these smart auto symlinks, inbuilt text-speech, inbuilt smart troubleshooters etc?
Um no.
Microsoft invents Office with shitloads of extra features, "ha, that's not innovation, that's been done thousands of years ago, it's called stone tablets".
This isn't just symbolic links, it's smart automatic dynamic symbolic links. There's a lot of computer science and mathemetics going into getting something like this to work efficiently.
If you're going to go around saying everything Microsoft doesn't innovation cause something similiar has been done before then at least actually make sure it hasn't been done before.
For anyone curious about (normal) symbolic links in Windows 2000, you can get the source example for making links from www.sysinternals.com.
Um, my point was just to say that there's really no difference between OCX and EXE except the methods of which they are distributed.
:P
OCX ofcourse more commonly comes with apps, but their distribution from websites is a bit of a worry if people don't understand the security model of explorer.
OLE OLE OLE OLE OLE OLE OLE OLE OLE OLE
mm
Hrm, just curios, I don't know much about the Newton (except that it was supposed to be really good "ahead of it's time" and that apple made it and then disolved it).
:)~~, if i wanted something to write notes on, i'd get a (paper) notebook.
Did newton have sound, ODBC (or any kind of advanced data access), infrared, 16bit sound, 16bit colour, 32MB memory, Macromedia Flash support, full Java 1.1 support (not that silly picoJava stuff)?
Windows CE has a heck of a lot stuff more than the newton - but then it depends on what you want out of a handheld i guess. I like toys
wanna give examples of these unfounded FUD stories?
Perhaps Mindcraft? Oh wait, Linus alread acknowledge the problem (about the same time he announced 2.4 would fix all this and would finally be the killer kernel).
Whoops, that should have read:
You mean like embedded NT?
You mean like embedded NT?
:P and better browser than Linux has.
Hell, even Windows CE (Based on NT) has a webserver
Personally, I would like to see a nice, quick, and STABLE browser. Who needs Java to surf the web? If you want Java, just use Netscape.
Heh, if you want Java use IE. Netscape will crash and burn on you. Besides, Mozilla still isn't stable yet. And besides, it should support java and still be stable don't you think?
Well, you get the source to MFC, so if Microsoft stop supporting it, you can continue to extend it. That said, it's very unlikely that MFC will be dumped any time soon. Almost everything written in windows is based on MFC.
Well GNOME is more than a desktop, and is much more adequate than twm olvwm etc.
:P) that supports XML/VML etc so it becomes a bit more useful.
:) If they do, they would have needed to write at least a simple XML parser.
..
And XML support in Linux is pretty lame, but you can always use Java, then you have access to all kinds of XML resources. Ofcourse Linux needs a decent browser (like ie
BTW, doesn't KDE use XMLRPC, I might be mistaken
mySQL, KFM, KOM etc all really need to support XML IMHO. XML is the future of cross platform communication (which IMHO will be far more important than java).
Oh well, give it time I guess
that's why i suggested that today kde is usually a bit more than a window manager. certainly kwm is an important part of kde.
KDE uses QT which is a set of C++ classes. That's why I personally prefer KDE over Gnome.
:)
BTW, give KDevelop a go, it rocks, not up to the level of VC++ (which was the insipiration) but it has made AMAZING strides in catching up in a short amount of time, and in some areas, it is even better
But KDE isn't an OS, and neither is Gnome.
They're "window managers", and nowdays, usually a bit more. Both of them also define methods of component reuse (a bit like COM on windows) and also their name generally also implies the software they ship with (kedit etc).