The sad thing is that you probably don't know whether your PC is infected or not (and it most probably is). It's dumasses like you that make life so difficult for sysadmins who have to battle the attacks from zombie PCs.
If you want to sell me your E500H real cheap I'll gladly take it off your hands!
I'm amazed by your argument that the 77 hours worth that you've got recorded on your hard disk would be better off on VHS (26 tapes?). I'd also contend that you'd get 184 hours worth at VHS quality. Have you ever thought that maybe you're recording way too much TV?!
If you pay $600 dollars for that model you've been overcharged.
It's a hard disk + DVD recorder; and no, I don't throw away the hard disk when it's full.
Don't tell me you've never wanted to record something only to find that you've no blank tapes, or you don't know whether you can over-record an old tape. With a hard-disk recorder you don't get that problem as you've got about 35 hours (or 70 hours at VHS quality) worth of storage to play with. I've never come near to filling it before I have time to erase old stuff or transfer it to DVD.
You really can't appreciate how much easier these recorders are until you try them. And you get an index of thumbnail movies of everything that's on the disk.
Copy the recording to a DVD - absolutely no problem. The Panasonic is a hard disk and DVD recorder. The hard disk is so convenient that I rarely need the DVD facility, but it's there for just that sort of purpose (and of course for long-term storage).
It seems to me that a lot of people think they can easily set up a Windows box. The high number of Windows zombie PCs bombarding my mail server indicates to me that perhaps it's a little too easy.
Perhaps the difference is that you know that you need someone with a certain amount of knowledge to set up a Linux box. But in reality you need just as much expertise to set up a Windows box (properly!).
If the manufacturers purposely make devices that only work on Windows we don't have to buy those devices! For every ATI there's an NVidia who is only too happy to be able to sell their products to a wider audience. It's not a problem - it's just what's called market forces.
Sure. Pay my air fare, train fare, whatever (I live in the UK) and I'll gladly come and install Linux for you. Might be a distribution of my choice, but it shouldn't be too difficult.
You're quite right. Linux is too difficult for some users. (To be fair most of them wouldn't be able to install Windows from scratch either.) But don't expect to find it any easier to install OS X on unsupported hardware.
As I advised the parent, stick with Windows. You're happy to pay for good software - I'm happy to use the equally good (I've taken the time to learn how to use these things) open source software. Each to his own.
You stick the CD in the drive, you wait 15-20 minutes whilst it installs, you use it. How simple do you want? (OK, there's a little bit more to it than that - just as there is with Windows.)
Modern distributions (Linux in particular) are as easy to install, if not easier than Windows (and - I expect - OS X). Don't repeat the hoary old "Linux is difficult to install" myth!
I'm afraid that if you can't find "a good assortment of software..." for Linux or BSD then you definitely shouldn't wander far from Windows. These OSes have the greatest variety of good software (apart from FarCry, Battlefield, etc., etc.) that you are likely to find anywhere.
I doubt that you would find OS X any better for your uses than BSD or Linux. I can only assume that the reason that you couldn't get on with either of these is because it wouldn't run {insert name of favourite Windows application here}. (Although of course it would if you tried hard enough.)
You'll have exactly the same problem with OS X, so don't bother.
Now I love BSD and Linux, so I would drool at the prospect of running OS X on my Intel (well AMD really) box.
I think that this dichotemy between those who like hierarchical folders and those who like some more abstract way of filing/finding files is a bit akin to the command line vs. GUI argument.
Some of us (self included) like to control the computer and work in our own way - we tend to like command line over GUI, emacs (or perhaps vi) over Word, etc. Others - dare I say the more arty, Mac types! - like the computer to do the organizing for them. They'll tend to like GUIs rather than command lines, mouse-clicking on menus rather than keystrokes, etc. It's no coincidence that this debate is provoked by a feature of the Mac OS.
It's a bit of a religous argument in the end. No one is right and no one is wrong. I only hope that future OSes give us the choice of working in the way that we wish to. That's what's so good about Linux - you can configure it to behave in the way that you are comfortable with. At one extreme command line only, at the other a complete mouse-driven GUI. Most of us are happy somewhere, of our own choice, between the two extremes.
But what about the naming problem? Are you suggesting that we just do away with file names, or use random ones. I certainly couldn't invent enough meaningful, distinct and, preferable, succinct file names to account for all the files on my computer(s). The namespaces provided by a hierarchical filing system solve this problem in a logical and intuitive way.
"And rather than having to make a duplicate copy of each file, one file can appearin multiple folders."
Haven't you heard of "links" (as in UNIX, Linux, and - yes - even Windows)?
Hierarchical Folders Are Still Useful
on
The Death of Folders?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It's all very well to talk about the death of folders because of intelligent indexing and searching of file systems, but this is in the context of retrieving data. Where a hierarchical structure is so useful is when you are saving information in the first place. It's important to remember that a hierarchy divides the file system into a number of logical namespaces.
A completely flat filesystem sounds all very well in principle, but how do you find names for all of those files? I have loads of files on my computers with the same names but in different namespaces. Or are we going to throw away filenames as well?
Slashdot Mirror
The sad thing is that you probably don't know whether your PC is infected or not (and it most probably is). It's dumasses like you that make life so difficult for sysadmins who have to battle the attacks from zombie PCs.
If you're a decade older than me that makes you 70+. At 60 I don't have any trouble with DVD recording.
Yes - it's still recording 32 hours after I hit record. How about your VHS?
We didn't lose the blueprint, we just lost the will to do it.
And the Health and Safety issues are so much more stringent nowadays.
... I guess my definition of "good" would include the software that runs most of the Internet.
If you want to sell me your E500H real cheap I'll gladly take it off your hands!
I'm amazed by your argument that the 77 hours worth that you've got recorded on your hard disk would be better off on VHS (26 tapes?). I'd also contend that you'd get 184 hours worth at VHS quality. Have you ever thought that maybe you're recording way too much TV?!
Whatever - each to his own.
If you pay $600 dollars for that model you've been overcharged.
It's a hard disk + DVD recorder; and no, I don't throw away the hard disk when it's full.
Don't tell me you've never wanted to record something only to find that you've no blank tapes, or you don't know whether you can over-record an old tape. With a hard-disk recorder you don't get that problem as you've got about 35 hours (or 70 hours at VHS quality) worth of storage to play with. I've never come near to filling it before I have time to erase old stuff or transfer it to DVD.
You really can't appreciate how much easier these recorders are until you try them. And you get an index of thumbnail movies of everything that's on the disk.
Oh, very right.
Or, on my Panasonic DMR-E85H, hit record, done. Seriously, until you've tried a hard-disk recorder you don't realize what a drag tapes are.
No free media - no problem, there's always space on the hard disk. Want to record more than a tape's, or DVD's, worth - no problem.
No. It's just that they can't get hold of Betamax tapes any longer.
Perhaps the difference is that you know that you need someone with a certain amount of knowledge to set up a Linux box. But in reality you need just as much expertise to set up a Windows box (properly!).
I guess if we're lucky Longhorn might be out by then, but I'm not too keen on running 1.0 releases.
Have you actually tried Solaris on x86? I have, and there's no reason anyone would prefer it over Linux or FreeBSD.
I also tried to evaluate the x86-64 version but it wouldn't install on my Athlon 64 setup.
If the manufacturers purposely make devices that only work on Windows we don't have to buy those devices! For every ATI there's an NVidia who is only too happy to be able to sell their products to a wider audience. It's not a problem - it's just what's called market forces.
Sure. Pay my air fare, train fare, whatever (I live in the UK) and I'll gladly come and install Linux for you. Might be a distribution of my choice, but it shouldn't be too difficult.
You're quite right. Linux is too difficult for some users. (To be fair most of them wouldn't be able to install Windows from scratch either.) But don't expect to find it any easier to install OS X on unsupported hardware.
As I advised the parent, stick with Windows. You're happy to pay for good software - I'm happy to use the equally good (I've taken the time to learn how to use these things) open source software. Each to his own.
You stick the CD in the drive, you wait 15-20 minutes whilst it installs, you use it. How simple do you want? (OK, there's a little bit more to it than that - just as there is with Windows.)
Modern distributions (Linux in particular) are as easy to install, if not easier than Windows (and - I expect - OS X). Don't repeat the hoary old "Linux is difficult to install" myth!
I'm afraid that if you can't find "a good assortment of software ..." for Linux or BSD then you definitely shouldn't wander far from Windows. These OSes have the greatest variety of good software (apart from FarCry, Battlefield, etc., etc.) that you are likely to find anywhere.
I doubt that you would find OS X any better for your uses than BSD or Linux. I can only assume that the reason that you couldn't get on with either of these is because it wouldn't run {insert name of favourite Windows application here}. (Although of course it would if you tried hard enough.)
You'll have exactly the same problem with OS X, so don't bother.
Now I love BSD and Linux, so I would drool at the prospect of running OS X on my Intel (well AMD really) box.
Yeah, but it's fun isn't it.
Couldn't agree more. Why the fsck do I need to know that Mr New Toy sent me an e-mail from his Blackberry.
And the BES server is a pain in the ass to administer.
Sent from my Dell OptiPlex GX1 - I'm not proud.
I think that this dichotemy between those who like hierarchical folders and those who like some more abstract way of filing/finding files is a bit akin to the command line vs. GUI argument.
Some of us (self included) like to control the computer and work in our own way - we tend to like command line over GUI, emacs (or perhaps vi) over Word, etc. Others - dare I say the more arty, Mac types! - like the computer to do the organizing for them. They'll tend to like GUIs rather than command lines, mouse-clicking on menus rather than keystrokes, etc. It's no coincidence that this debate is provoked by a feature of the Mac OS.
It's a bit of a religous argument in the end. No one is right and no one is wrong. I only hope that future OSes give us the choice of working in the way that we wish to. That's what's so good about Linux - you can configure it to behave in the way that you are comfortable with. At one extreme command line only, at the other a complete mouse-driven GUI. Most of us are happy somewhere, of our own choice, between the two extremes.
But what about the naming problem? Are you suggesting that we just do away with file names, or use random ones. I certainly couldn't invent enough meaningful, distinct and, preferable, succinct file names to account for all the files on my computer(s). The namespaces provided by a hierarchical filing system solve this problem in a logical and intuitive way.
"And rather than having to make a duplicate copy of each file, one file can appearin multiple folders."
Haven't you heard of "links" (as in UNIX, Linux, and - yes - even Windows)?
It's all very well to talk about the death of folders because of intelligent indexing and searching of file systems, but this is in the context of retrieving data. Where a hierarchical structure is so useful is when you are saving information in the first place. It's important to remember that a hierarchy divides the file system into a number of logical namespaces.
A completely flat filesystem sounds all very well in principle, but how do you find names for all of those files? I have loads of files on my computers with the same names but in different namespaces. Or are we going to throw away filenames as well?