The original doom (and I don't know how many of the others) were written on NeXT using objective C
A big [citation needed] there. Doom was written on NeXT, but not in Objective-C, in pure C. Neither NeXT nor StepStone were providing an Objective-C implementation for DOS back then (and StepStone's Objective-C wasn't compatible with Objective-C 3, which NeXT were using).
Truth. The only one who was very vocal about Objective-C back then was John Romero, who was writing all the tools and editors, and he did so in ObjC on NeXT.
The games were written in C, and the tools in Objective-C. Everything was being developed, tested and debugged on NeXT, and then ported to DOS.
If you want the analogy, it's like Microsoft saying "don't use Apache, we've got a webserver too" and pointing to IIS. In theory, true. In practise, bullshit.
I am annoyed at how I have been 'defending' Microsoft lately -- but you might want to revist that analogy since IIS7 is actually a pretty decent web server now:)
On topic, I think it's worth mentioning that the current OpenSolaris codebase doesn't support sparse root zones, which makes me sad. IPS apparently doesn't account for them at this point. Last I checked, they were still discussing wether to implement them or just scrap them in favor of full root zones with ZFS deduplication.
So basically you're lying (in the case of #2,.NET isn't open source, Java is) and making excuses for the rest like "nah ahhhh, Imma gone tell on youuuu."
GG.NET fan boy.
I uh.. what? I'm sorry but you just lost any kind of coherence you previously may have had.
#2: Not lying. Check your shit before your flail your arms around dismissing my point. Standard library is available under the Microsoft Reference license, i.e., you can step into System.console.writeline() if that is your wish, and that is exactly the point that list argues -- i.e. "you cannot see the source to the.NET standard library without resorting to scary evil illegal means". Which can be refuted easily if you spend five seconds on google. It was never argued that.NET isn't open source.
You don't even seem to understand that list fully, don't keep yourself updated on the current state of affairs, you just blindly swallow it and spit it back out on demand, and then resort to calling people fanboys as your only argument when someone challenges them.
I think we're through here. I don't have anything to add.
4. Worthless. MORE PEOPLE USING IT MEANS BETTER RIGHT?
5. No. It is the/more awesomer/ platform for webservices, but most of the webservices I've seen consumed over the past years were.NET junk that failed SOAP standards and killed my cat.
6. That point is highly, highly debatable. I don't like either.
7. Irrelevant to technical merits.
8. I have seen an equal amount of equally shitty programmers in both languages.
9. Codeplex does exist, and I doubt this is still true today, although it is also irrelevant to technical merits.
10. I don't understand this one.
11. You fail to grasp that you/can/ mix managed and unmanaged hybrid code but you don't/have/ to. By the same logic JNI is such a hybrid and is bad because it exists.
12. That was patently wrong before and is only slightly less wrong now.
13. That would be a concern if.net wasn't already installed everywhere or so.
14....
I have up here. I'm annoyed. And I like Java better than.NET, and I argue this point once in a while. But I don't set up a crappy list with lies and fud to do that.
And most importantly you failed to mention the one largest selling point to Java: real multi-platform support. And no, Windows 2000, XP, Vista and 7 don't count as "multiple platforms".
Yeah, saying the durian is a unique food is silly when its mechanics are the same as any other fruit, only it looks and tastes slightly different. You could actually simulate the style of a durian by filling an empty sea urchin with custard and almond, eating it while on the toilet after eating a ton of beef to recreate the pungent smell, etc etc etc.
Seriously, what kind of philistine are you?:(
But I forgot, this is slashdot. We are great at commenting on things we have never tried ourselves.
In the same line of thought, why not use plain sentences? It's what I do. Easy to remember, plenty of characters, and punctuation.
For example "Keanu Reeves is sad, eating a sandwich." Bruteforce that.
I expected to be modded into oblivion, but not as... flamebait? What?
I mean the joke was terrible, of bad taste, and I wonder why I even posted it. But flamebait?
Yes, of course I see now, people will all grab pitchforks and start arguing about how ME did/not/ suck and flamewars will ensue.
Urgh.
It doesn't help that Exchange and IE both scream about SSL Certs - it's just one more thing people ignore.
I wish. Outlook doesn't let you ignore that. At all.
You have to add the CA to your trusted roots, else it will just die noisily and refuse to connect -- at the very least when RPC over HTTP (Outlook Anywhere) is enabled.
Seriously, what is wrong with dump(8)?
It works on ext3. I use it on FreeBSD. It takes snapshots to do the dump, so you can shutdown your database, start the dump and then immediately start your database again.
Of course you have to backup the entire volume, but still...
"Same as sudo."
No it isn't. YOUR privileges are not elevated, you just assume the mantle of a higher privileged other user, along with their documents, locations and so on. Runas does not preserve the user's profile and ownership of created objects
As opposed to sudo which... uh... does the exact same thing? Sudo doesn't temporarily give extra powers to your user account -- it merely runs what you specify as root. It may or may not preserve part of your environnement depending on configuration. (Most default sudo configs drop your env vars as you do this). It will not preserve file ownership either.
sudo and RunAs as more similar in concept than you seem to think. However, sudo is of course better because it allows for very granular configuration and provides copious logging.
While you're doing that "see for yourself" stuff, take a close look at the data on how the files were encoded. I mean a really close look; put on your scientist hat and pay close attention. See for yourself that the test was staged to support the view that they're espousing.
Let's pretend my scientist hat is in the wash right now and not quite dry yet. Would you care to share what makes you believe that? Because I don't call a one kilobit difference in bitrate "staging".
Unless perhaps you mean that equal bitrate doesn't necessarily mean equal quality due to different compression algorithms? That would be true, but it would be irrelevant in this case since I'm fairly sure the purpose of the test is to see which one can deliver the best quality within a certain bandwidth limit.
Seriously, do enlighten us instead of implying we are gobbling the data and aren't "true scientists" if we don't come to the same conclusion. Nice syllogistic fallacy.
Not only that but consumer HP BIOSes are notoriously bad, especially on hardware that was formerly Compaq's line. This laptop I have here has only one configuration option, and it's the date and time. Not that the workstation range is any better either...
Personally, I'm very pleased with Xen except for the qemu IO performance. Setting the host's block device schedulers to noop (for linux guests) or deadline (for Windows guests) helps, but high host IO load still makes it very hard to do advertised features like instant failover using an NFS-hosted container.
The solution to this would be to use PV drivers for HVM DomUs. This effectively closes the gap in performance between Paravirtualized DomUs and Fully Virtualized DomUs. Commercial XenServer provides them, and people routinely Build them. They are a bit of a pain to install on vanilla Xen DomUs, for they are not signed, and require a boot argument to be added to windows (/GPLPV) but they work as advertised.
You do not see this sort of API stability from almost any other vendor. API that worked in Windows 95 still works, more or less.
Solaris has always done great in this regard. Sun in fact has maintained binary compatibility up to Solaris 10, the current production release. It's even a guarantee.
C will be the COBOL of the future. Companies will always have those legacy C applications, just like they still have COBOL ones. And there will be a lack of good, experienced C programmers.
That's not entirely true, system stuff is still being done in C (or sometimes C++). Since everything runs on that, I doubt it will go the way of the dodo, or COBOL anytime soon. As for a lack of good, experienced low level programmers, we already have that today. Java programmers that land at my workplace hardly understand what happens behind the scenes. Most school curriculums today hardly seem to focus in teaching you how computers work inside and out, they seem to focus more on teaching you the language du jour and some basic problem solving skills that are specific to that language in order to manufacture employable programmers. This seems to lead to a lot of cargo cult programming, especially in Java. "Everything must have an interface. I have no clue why, I was just taught to do it".
What I think will happen is rather, there will be two kind of programmers. Low level programmers and high level programmers. System programmers and Application programmers. Just like we currently make a rather strong distinction between a web application developper and someone who writes C on embedded systems. The two have a very vaguely defined common knowledge area, but the skill sets required by either are completely different.
As to the mantra, "A good programmer can learn any language," I think that it is easier to "Move Up" with languages, than "Move Down." By that I mean, it is easier to go from C to Java, than from Java to C.
You get spoiled and lazy with languages that do all the thinking for you. When you move to a language where the memory management isn't all done for you, the austerity is tough and rough. It's like moving from a luxury mansion to a trailer park.
I have done just that, and I disagree. Of course there is a huge culture shock at first, but then you can focus on learning the implementation details, because at that point you are already supposed to understand the abstract programming concepts. Flow control, assignement, types, for loops, problem solving logic, etc etc. All you're uncovering are basically the inner workings of what you already knew. Learning something out of need is normally done bottom up. Learning something out of sheer curiosity and interest seems to be done by moving down.
For instance, when I first got into computers, I began to learn how to use them. Then I dug down. "Mm, I wonder how such and such works? What makes it thick?". It's like having an adventure where you discover how shit works.
Then again, that's merely how I seem to approach things, doesn't mean it works for everyone, but it has certainly served me well so far.
It's difficult for some kids to get their start with C -- it's difficult to wrap their head around. Pointers really mess with some students... You can start with something else and then transition them to C like languages once they have the basics down, and still end up with competent programmers.
If I had mod points I would mod this up.
I am not a professional programmer by any means, I am what my job title pompously describes as a Network Architect or a Network Analyst. However the deeper I got into advanced network design and unix, I realized programming was a skill i'd need, so I began learning a few years ago, and it has indeed served me well and proved to be very useful in my daily job, if not only to get a deeper understanding on how things work.
I started with Java, because I work with Java Application Servers, and turns out you can't really do that without knowing at the very least some Java. I knew some PHP at that point, and some scripting languages, but that did not really count. So I spent a few months intensively teaching myself Java. About four years later, I now grok Java fairly well. Once that was done (well, to a sufficient level at the very least), I moved on to C, which has helped me understand Unix even more thouroughly than I already did. In fact, it helped me understand how computers work at a basic level, which is something I find extremely useful overall.
The point is, transitioning to C is not impossible nor made any harder by knowing a higher level language. In fact, if anything, it is made a bit easier because you only end up uncovering the inner-working of your high level language.
Let's face it, C is hard. Really, really hard.. It's not that hard to get the syntax, it's merely a bit complex to learn the concepts (pointers are difficult to wrap your head around at first with no prior experience) but it still remains extremely difficult to program C properly. It's unchecked, arrays must have a definite size from the ground up, there are no bounds being checked and it's really easy to overlook something and end up with a segfault or worse, a security liability when you program walks right off the buffer and begins clobbering the stack with user provided data. It's not impossible, it's just hard. To this day whenever declaring a char array in C, I still don't know how big to make it instinctively, and I always spend an obscene amount on implementation details -- making sure no bounds are overrun, ensuring allocated memory is released, etc, all the while trying to keep it portable. I always end up with this uneasy feeling in my stomach that while the logic of what I was trying to accomplish is complete, the implementation of these tiny details are probably deeply flawed somehow and I shouldn't trust my code.
I'm not saying, don't program in C or don't bother learning it. I'm saying it's not necessarily the best way to start learning. I'm all for learning the basic concepts using a high level, dynamically typed language like Python, which makes programming fun again. Or Java, which makes you understand Object Oriented programming really well and is strict enough for you to beging dipping your toes in concept like explicit casting, strong typing, etc. Let's keep in mind that CompSci A, as stated multiple times in the comments so far, which is not university level. Starting by learning abstract programming concept and the moving on to C later on makes perfect sense to me.
As I stated earlier, it does make you understand a lot more about your high level language of choice. Now in Java, when I pass an object as an argument to a method, I automatically see a reference being passed around, and I think pointers and memory addresses. Makes it a lot easier to properly understand what the fuck you are doing, and I'm grateful for it. But if I had learned C first, I'm fairly certain I would have given up at some point, or carried over some freak micromanagement fetish, which, knowing myself, I'm sure I would have developped.
I don't get it. How could you hate computers and go in that field? I love computers and everything related to them. I don't find them fragile, broken, or a hodge-podge, rather, I find them fascinating.
Became a network administrator when I was 18. I had been digging into unix until 5am since the age of 16. I then went on to become a network analyst -- which means just the fun parts of network and infrastructure design. I'm now 25, and work as a consultant/contractor and I absolutely love my job, and still think it's the best ever. When I come home after a day of work, I still do what I do at work, but for fun. I never tire of it, or tire of computers. I collect exotic hardware, I set-up overly complex networks for shits and giggles, I dig deeper and deeper because I never tire of learning more subtle details about them.
I don't hate computers at all, I don't hate the concept. I hate shitty software that doesn't work as it should, or fails when it shouldn't.
I feel like I should say "Don't hate the player, hate the game", but that doesn't feel entirely accurate. I sometimes hate a workplace. I sometimes hate some software. I sometimes hate a particular aspect of my work (namely the buisness hierarchy and horrible office politics I have to play into). But I don't see how I could stop finding computers fascinating and suddendly dislike them. Feels like you're not in the right field to me.
That would require packet writing (UDF 1.50+, I believe?), and that feels somewhat tacked on as an afterthought.
Maybe it could indeed be used, but I'm not sure what the limitations and performance issues would be, if any, but perhaps it could be a viable replacement -- only, it's not nearly as universal as you make it sound like, unlike FAT.
Slashdot Mirror
The original doom (and I don't know how many of the others) were written on NeXT using objective C
A big [citation needed] there. Doom was written on NeXT, but not in Objective-C, in pure C. Neither NeXT nor StepStone were providing an Objective-C implementation for DOS back then (and StepStone's Objective-C wasn't compatible with Objective-C 3, which NeXT were using).
Truth. The only one who was very vocal about Objective-C back then was John Romero, who was writing all the tools and editors, and he did so in ObjC on NeXT.
The games were written in C, and the tools in Objective-C. Everything was being developed, tested and debugged on NeXT, and then ported to DOS.
But for a split second there I wax expecting the Python programming language to be mentioned somewhere in there.
If you want the analogy, it's like Microsoft saying "don't use Apache, we've got a webserver too" and pointing to IIS. In theory, true. In practise, bullshit.
I am annoyed at how I have been 'defending' Microsoft lately -- but you might want to revist that analogy since IIS7 is actually a pretty decent web server now :)
On topic, I think it's worth mentioning that the current OpenSolaris codebase doesn't support sparse root zones, which makes me sad. IPS apparently doesn't account for them at this point. Last I checked, they were still discussing wether to implement them or just scrap them in favor of full root zones with ZFS deduplication.
OpenSolaris is still useful, though.
So basically you're lying (in the case of #2, .NET isn't open source, Java is) and making excuses for the rest like "nah ahhhh, Imma gone tell on youuuu."
GG .NET fan boy.
I uh.. what? I'm sorry but you just lost any kind of coherence you previously may have had.
#2: Not lying. Check your shit before your flail your arms around dismissing my point. Standard library is available under the Microsoft Reference license, i.e., you can step into System.console.writeline() if that is your wish, and that is exactly the point that list argues -- i.e. "you cannot see the source to the .NET standard library without resorting to scary evil illegal means". Which can be refuted easily if you spend five seconds on google. It was never argued that .NET isn't open source.
You don't even seem to understand that list fully, don't keep yourself updated on the current state of affairs, you just blindly swallow it and spit it back out on demand, and then resort to calling people fanboys as your only argument when someone challenges them.
I think we're through here. I don't have anything to add.
Not really. Here:
I have up here. I'm annoyed. And I like Java better than .NET, and I argue this point once in a while. But I don't set up a crappy list with lies and fud to do that.
And most importantly you failed to mention the one largest selling point to Java: real multi-platform support. And no, Windows 2000, XP, Vista and 7 don't count as "multiple platforms".
Yeah, saying the durian is a unique food is silly when its mechanics are the same as any other fruit, only it looks and tastes slightly different. You could actually simulate the style of a durian by filling an empty sea urchin with custard and almond, eating it while on the toilet after eating a ton of beef to recreate the pungent smell, etc etc etc.
Seriously, what kind of philistine are you? :(
But I forgot, this is slashdot. We are great at commenting on things we have never tried ourselves.
Ah yes, I remember this. It would display small peppers or a flame (? Can't remember clearly) next to messages it thought were being harsh.
In the same line of thought, why not use plain sentences? It's what I do. Easy to remember, plenty of characters, and punctuation. For example "Keanu Reeves is sad, eating a sandwich." Bruteforce that.
I expected to be modded into oblivion, but not as... flamebait? What? I mean the joke was terrible, of bad taste, and I wonder why I even posted it. But flamebait? Yes, of course I see now, people will all grab pitchforks and start arguing about how ME did /not/ suck and flamewars will ensue.
Urgh.
>Your Feces Is a Wonderland of Viruses
This explains a lot about Windows ME.
(Sorry, sorry. Remain seated, pleased.)
It doesn't help that Exchange and IE both scream about SSL Certs - it's just one more thing people ignore.
I wish. Outlook doesn't let you ignore that. At all.
You have to add the CA to your trusted roots, else it will just die noisily and refuse to connect -- at the very least when RPC over HTTP (Outlook Anywhere) is enabled.
You are right, I researched it a bit better, and it is dependent on the filesystem, and ext3 doesn't do any snapshotting. Oh well :(
Seriously, what is wrong with dump(8)? It works on ext3. I use it on FreeBSD. It takes snapshots to do the dump, so you can shutdown your database, start the dump and then immediately start your database again. Of course you have to backup the entire volume, but still...
I am not the typical idiot user. I'm the guy most people come to when they have a question.
I didn't realize that the circle with the Windows logo in upper left was a menu for almost a month.
Even though it pulses until you first click it?
"Same as sudo." No it isn't. YOUR privileges are not elevated, you just assume the mantle of a higher privileged other user, along with their documents, locations and so on. Runas does not preserve the user's profile and ownership of created objects
As opposed to sudo which... uh... does the exact same thing? Sudo doesn't temporarily give extra powers to your user account -- it merely runs what you specify as root. It may or may not preserve part of your environnement depending on configuration. (Most default sudo configs drop your env vars as you do this). It will not preserve file ownership either.
sudo and RunAs as more similar in concept than you seem to think. However, sudo is of course better because it allows for very granular configuration and provides copious logging.
While you're doing that "see for yourself" stuff, take a close look at the data on how the files were encoded. I mean a really close look; put on your scientist hat and pay close attention. See for yourself that the test was staged to support the view that they're espousing.
Let's pretend my scientist hat is in the wash right now and not quite dry yet. Would you care to share what makes you believe that? Because I don't call a one kilobit difference in bitrate "staging".
Unless perhaps you mean that equal bitrate doesn't necessarily mean equal quality due to different compression algorithms? That would be true, but it would be irrelevant in this case since I'm fairly sure the purpose of the test is to see which one can deliver the best quality within a certain bandwidth limit.
Seriously, do enlighten us instead of implying we are gobbling the data and aren't "true scientists" if we don't come to the same conclusion. Nice syllogistic fallacy.
Not only that but consumer HP BIOSes are notoriously bad, especially on hardware that was formerly Compaq's line. This laptop I have here has only one configuration option, and it's the date and time. Not that the workstation range is any better either...
I would like to return your implicit question: What does KVM has that Xen has not? Why is everyone suddendly switching to it?
Personally, I'm very pleased with Xen except for the qemu IO performance. Setting the host's block device schedulers to noop (for linux guests) or deadline (for Windows guests) helps, but high host IO load still makes it very hard to do advertised features like instant failover using an NFS-hosted container.
The solution to this would be to use PV drivers for HVM DomUs. This effectively closes the gap in performance between Paravirtualized DomUs and Fully Virtualized DomUs. Commercial XenServer provides them, and people routinely Build them. They are a bit of a pain to install on vanilla Xen DomUs, for they are not signed, and require a boot argument to be added to windows (/GPLPV) but they work as advertised.
You do not see this sort of API stability from almost any other vendor. API that worked in Windows 95 still works, more or less.
Solaris has always done great in this regard. Sun in fact has maintained binary compatibility up to Solaris 10, the current production release. It's even a guarantee.
C will be the COBOL of the future. Companies will always have those legacy C applications, just like they still have COBOL ones. And there will be a lack of good, experienced C programmers.
That's not entirely true, system stuff is still being done in C (or sometimes C++). Since everything runs on that, I doubt it will go the way of the dodo, or COBOL anytime soon. As for a lack of good, experienced low level programmers, we already have that today. Java programmers that land at my workplace hardly understand what happens behind the scenes. Most school curriculums today hardly seem to focus in teaching you how computers work inside and out, they seem to focus more on teaching you the language du jour and some basic problem solving skills that are specific to that language in order to manufacture employable programmers. This seems to lead to a lot of cargo cult programming, especially in Java. "Everything must have an interface. I have no clue why, I was just taught to do it".
What I think will happen is rather, there will be two kind of programmers. Low level programmers and high level programmers. System programmers and Application programmers. Just like we currently make a rather strong distinction between a web application developper and someone who writes C on embedded systems. The two have a very vaguely defined common knowledge area, but the skill sets required by either are completely different.
As to the mantra, "A good programmer can learn any language," I think that it is easier to "Move Up" with languages, than "Move Down." By that I mean, it is easier to go from C to Java, than from Java to C.
You get spoiled and lazy with languages that do all the thinking for you. When you move to a language where the memory management isn't all done for you, the austerity is tough and rough. It's like moving from a luxury mansion to a trailer park.
I have done just that, and I disagree. Of course there is a huge culture shock at first, but then you can focus on learning the implementation details, because at that point you are already supposed to understand the abstract programming concepts. Flow control, assignement, types, for loops, problem solving logic, etc etc. All you're uncovering are basically the inner workings of what you already knew. Learning something out of need is normally done bottom up. Learning something out of sheer curiosity and interest seems to be done by moving down.
For instance, when I first got into computers, I began to learn how to use them. Then I dug down. "Mm, I wonder how such and such works? What makes it thick?". It's like having an adventure where you discover how shit works.
Then again, that's merely how I seem to approach things, doesn't mean it works for everyone, but it has certainly served me well so far.
It's difficult for some kids to get their start with C -- it's difficult to wrap their head around. Pointers really mess with some students... You can start with something else and then transition them to C like languages once they have the basics down, and still end up with competent programmers.
If I had mod points I would mod this up.
I am not a professional programmer by any means, I am what my job title pompously describes as a Network Architect or a Network Analyst. However the deeper I got into advanced network design and unix, I realized programming was a skill i'd need, so I began learning a few years ago, and it has indeed served me well and proved to be very useful in my daily job, if not only to get a deeper understanding on how things work.
I started with Java, because I work with Java Application Servers, and turns out you can't really do that without knowing at the very least some Java. I knew some PHP at that point, and some scripting languages, but that did not really count. So I spent a few months intensively teaching myself Java. About four years later, I now grok Java fairly well. Once that was done (well, to a sufficient level at the very least), I moved on to C, which has helped me understand Unix even more thouroughly than I already did. In fact, it helped me understand how computers work at a basic level, which is something I find extremely useful overall.
The point is, transitioning to C is not impossible nor made any harder by knowing a higher level language. In fact, if anything, it is made a bit easier because you only end up uncovering the inner-working of your high level language.
Let's face it, C is hard. Really, really hard.. It's not that hard to get the syntax, it's merely a bit complex to learn the concepts (pointers are difficult to wrap your head around at first with no prior experience) but it still remains extremely difficult to program C properly. It's unchecked, arrays must have a definite size from the ground up, there are no bounds being checked and it's really easy to overlook something and end up with a segfault or worse, a security liability when you program walks right off the buffer and begins clobbering the stack with user provided data. It's not impossible, it's just hard. To this day whenever declaring a char array in C, I still don't know how big to make it instinctively, and I always spend an obscene amount on implementation details -- making sure no bounds are overrun, ensuring allocated memory is released, etc, all the while trying to keep it portable. I always end up with this uneasy feeling in my stomach that while the logic of what I was trying to accomplish is complete, the implementation of these tiny details are probably deeply flawed somehow and I shouldn't trust my code.
I'm not saying, don't program in C or don't bother learning it. I'm saying it's not necessarily the best way to start learning. I'm all for learning the basic concepts using a high level, dynamically typed language like Python, which makes programming fun again. Or Java, which makes you understand Object Oriented programming really well and is strict enough for you to beging dipping your toes in concept like explicit casting, strong typing, etc. Let's keep in mind that CompSci A, as stated multiple times in the comments so far, which is not university level. Starting by learning abstract programming concept and the moving on to C later on makes perfect sense to me.
As I stated earlier, it does make you understand a lot more about your high level language of choice. Now in Java, when I pass an object as an argument to a method, I automatically see a reference being passed around, and I think pointers and memory addresses. Makes it a lot easier to properly understand what the fuck you are doing, and I'm grateful for it. But if I had learned C first, I'm fairly certain I would have given up at some point, or carried over some freak micromanagement fetish, which, knowing myself, I'm sure I would have developped.
Why they are not using the actual REST API provided here?
Sounds like laziness to me, and that they are blaming google for their own shortcomings.
I don't get it. How could you hate computers and go in that field? I love computers and everything related to them. I don't find them fragile, broken, or a hodge-podge, rather, I find them fascinating.
Became a network administrator when I was 18. I had been digging into unix until 5am since the age of 16. I then went on to become a network analyst -- which means just the fun parts of network and infrastructure design. I'm now 25, and work as a consultant/contractor and I absolutely love my job, and still think it's the best ever. When I come home after a day of work, I still do what I do at work, but for fun. I never tire of it, or tire of computers. I collect exotic hardware, I set-up overly complex networks for shits and giggles, I dig deeper and deeper because I never tire of learning more subtle details about them.
I don't hate computers at all, I don't hate the concept. I hate shitty software that doesn't work as it should, or fails when it shouldn't.
I feel like I should say "Don't hate the player, hate the game", but that doesn't feel entirely accurate. I sometimes hate a workplace. I sometimes hate some software. I sometimes hate a particular aspect of my work (namely the buisness hierarchy and horrible office politics I have to play into). But I don't see how I could stop finding computers fascinating and suddendly dislike them. Feels like you're not in the right field to me.
That would require packet writing (UDF 1.50+, I believe?), and that feels somewhat tacked on as an afterthought.
Maybe it could indeed be used, but I'm not sure what the limitations and performance issues would be, if any, but perhaps it could be a viable replacement -- only, it's not nearly as universal as you make it sound like, unlike FAT.