Cold storage is dirt cheap, not active/hot storage.
The cost for high-end enterprise storage is around $2,500 per TB according to Gartner. For commodity hardware it's around $30 per TB.
This means that if Microsoft was to shrink their git repo by 1/3, they would save $275 for the gold copy stored on their SAN, and about $3 per developer cloning it.
I don't know where you live but in my book, that's dirt cheap.
Revealing the identity of spies is one of the few things with which the Democrats have more experience than the Republicans. Lying to Congress, declaring war and committing genocide also come to mind.
Truth be told, Microsoft didn't create SourceSafe. They bought it. In some cases, like SQL Server or Visio, their acquisitions have been a success, but more often than not (such as SourceSafe or Dynamics AX) they have gone downhill fast.
Get real. Windows has owned the market for 25+ years already and the Western Civilization has become consistently more computerized during that period, which definitely didn't happen because of OpenVMS or QNX or some other wonder of software engineering.
Besides John Deere or Tupperware, not a lot of products have enjoyed such stability.
If you try to make Git work like Subversion, you're doing it wrong. Stick with Subversion (or cvs for that matter) if that's what makes you comfortable and if you want to obsess about stuff like branches history. Otherwise read a good tutorial and pick a mainstream branching strategy such as Git flow.
Git branches are fantastic. They make life easier by allowing you to focus on the code without having to deal with side effects of Subversion-style branches, such as broken paths in config files. As for directory renames, if you use Git properly there's no problem.
You obviously didn't RTFA. They had to create this GVFS thing because their code base is huge and they don't want to sync hundreds of gigs between remote locations. Also they were not using VSS before switching to Git, they were using Perforce.
It's not a WTF. It's a great achievement and will probably become a standard component of large-scale git repos. If you ever had to deal with huge repos that are used by teams in many timezones you'd understand that.
For reference, the Linux kernel git repo is about 6GB all in. The Windows git repo is 300GB. We can all guess that in that 300GB there's a fair amount of dead wood but still, in an era where storage is dirt cheap, one shouldn't have to trim down a code source repo because the vcs can't keep up.
"revision control system" is not a category, it's a specific utility. Learn the meaning of words, then you can come back and throw in dirty language if you still think that makes you look cool and savvy.
For the most part, the government is not the people that were elected. The government is the cadre of civil servants who keep their jobs no matter who is elected. The lifers who feasts at the public trough and who quietly and relentlessly promote their own agenda with little regard to the nation's wishes. The ones who leak documents to the media or to Wikileaks when they dislike the people in office, or who bury evidence of mischiefs when they do like them.
That's the real government, and no I don't trust them.
If the Internet and the World Wide Web become too dangerous for terrorists to communicate they'll find other ways to communicate their nefarious plans which may be more immune to cracking. This could include face to face meetings in secure venues such as caves or messenger transmissions.
Really. You're not curious as to why after decades of face to face meetings and messenger transmissions they switched to using social media? You don't think that maybe, just maybe, they adopted social media because it allows for a loose, decentralized form of terrorism, as opposed to a complex structure with secret protocols and challenging geographical restrictions that can be more easily taken down?
Bring up privacy issues if you have to, but please, let's not make up absurd reasons for not making it more difficult for those fuckers to recruit and radicalize idiots.
Discrimination is generally legal on any other basis. Some of these class protections are only for employment. For instance, age discrimination is illegal in hiring, but allowed in pricing (hence "senior discounts" and "student discounts").
How can we accept that kind of discrimination as a modern society? Poor people from poor neighborhoods should have the right to pay as much as Silicon Valley startup bros for their Uber rides.
Unless you buy into the efficient market theory, or unless you look at numbers over a very long period, you can't really use any formula that includes the stock price when you want to know how successful a company is. The stock market can just go crazy and prices can go insanely high. For instance, LinkedIn once had a 1,000 P/E ratio, while Google ratio was 30.
at that rate, it would pay back the investment in like.. 15 years?
There's nothing to pay back. Here's how the system works:
1) the VC firms put in a few dollars (in the case of Twitter, about $1.5 billions over 4 years) 2) the company burns through it to build a customer base and create some hype, leading to unrealistic valuation 3) the company goes public without having made a profit yet, and rakes in a fortune (in the case of Twitter, about $24 billions) 4) the VC and founders make a killing, everyone else (i.e. employees) gets fucked because they can't cash in their stock options for a year or two and by then it's worth nothing
That's how the game is played; everyone bets that some other idiots down the road will pay more but at one point someone is left holding the bag.
Wrong. They do make money, just not a lot compared to their market cap. They have a revenue of about $2.5 billions per year and profit of about $100 millions.
It's tiny compared to the other tech companies, but it's still roughly $3.1 billlions more profit than Uber, or $600 millions more than Snapchat.
Also now that they gave up on being a "share your feelings" platform and want to focus more on news delivery, and with the various new services they plan on adding (like premium services to let people monitor their brand), they're likely to become profitable over time.
I'm skeptical of Opera because it's owned by the Chinese. And it's the same reason I don't trust most of the cheap VPN providers: they're all Chinese.
Maybe Opera is a good "nasty stuff" browser, but one thing is for sure, I wouldn't do my taxes on a Chinese browser using a Chinese VPN. I'm not saying that the Chinese spies are involved, but that's a huge country with very little law enforcement for digital crimes; using their VPN sounds to me like using a Russian credit card pin pad.
The guy (and the reader who commented in the summary) uses a Macbook. That machine will die with the already obsolete specs it had when the guy bought it in 2010.
Giving up your privacy is ok, as long as it does not involve Microsoft.
Asking consumers to give their data to a big faceless corporation like Google so it can sell ads is one thing—but asking them to also give all that data to the people who sign their checks is another.
I completely agree with you, and I consider this survey to be worthless. What I disagree with is the summary, which does not reflect the content of the results of the survey.
It would have been so easy to do it right. Something like: "Biased survey fails to convey a clear position of Americans on net neutralty". But no. The propaganda machine of Slashdot had to spin this into a net neutrality win.
More and more this website is becoming a platform for virtue signalling. It reminds me of those videos from North Korea where we see people crying of joy as they stand on the sidewalk to watch a military parade. It's beyond phony.
Slashdot Mirror
Cold storage is dirt cheap, not active/hot storage.
The cost for high-end enterprise storage is around $2,500 per TB according to Gartner. For commodity hardware it's around $30 per TB.
This means that if Microsoft was to shrink their git repo by 1/3, they would save $275 for the gold copy stored on their SAN, and about $3 per developer cloning it.
I don't know where you live but in my book, that's dirt cheap.
Revealing the identity of spies is one of the few things with which the Democrats have more experience than the Republicans. Lying to Congress, declaring war and committing genocide also come to mind.
Truth be told, Microsoft didn't create SourceSafe. They bought it. In some cases, like SQL Server or Visio, their acquisitions have been a success, but more often than not (such as SourceSafe or Dynamics AX) they have gone downhill fast.
Get real. Windows has owned the market for 25+ years already and the Western Civilization has become consistently more computerized during that period, which definitely didn't happen because of OpenVMS or QNX or some other wonder of software engineering.
Besides John Deere or Tupperware, not a lot of products have enjoyed such stability.
It's in the article.
At the time, Microsoft was using SourceDepot, a customized version of the commercial Perforce version control system, for all its major projects.
"SourceSafe" is even funnier than "Microsoft Works"
We should make a pact with Russia that together we will nuke all the muslim countries.
You mean like Syria?
If you try to make Git work like Subversion, you're doing it wrong. Stick with Subversion (or cvs for that matter) if that's what makes you comfortable and if you want to obsess about stuff like branches history. Otherwise read a good tutorial and pick a mainstream branching strategy such as Git flow.
Git branches are fantastic. They make life easier by allowing you to focus on the code without having to deal with side effects of Subversion-style branches, such as broken paths in config files. As for directory renames, if you use Git properly there's no problem.
You obviously didn't RTFA. They had to create this GVFS thing because their code base is huge and they don't want to sync hundreds of gigs between remote locations. Also they were not using VSS before switching to Git, they were using Perforce.
It's not a WTF. It's a great achievement and will probably become a standard component of large-scale git repos. If you ever had to deal with huge repos that are used by teams in many timezones you'd understand that.
For reference, the Linux kernel git repo is about 6GB all in. The Windows git repo is 300GB. We can all guess that in that 300GB there's a fair amount of dead wood but still, in an era where storage is dirt cheap, one shouldn't have to trim down a code source repo because the vcs can't keep up.
Git is a piece of shit revision control system.
"revision control system" is not a category, it's a specific utility. Learn the meaning of words, then you can come back and throw in dirty language if you still think that makes you look cool and savvy.
You should trust your government. You elected it.
For the most part, the government is not the people that were elected. The government is the cadre of civil servants who keep their jobs no matter who is elected. The lifers who feasts at the public trough and who quietly and relentlessly promote their own agenda with little regard to the nation's wishes. The ones who leak documents to the media or to Wikileaks when they dislike the people in office, or who bury evidence of mischiefs when they do like them.
That's the real government, and no I don't trust them.
If the Internet and the World Wide Web become too dangerous for terrorists to communicate they'll find other ways to communicate their nefarious plans which may be more immune to cracking. This could include face to face meetings in secure venues such as caves or messenger transmissions.
Really. You're not curious as to why after decades of face to face meetings and messenger transmissions they switched to using social media? You don't think that maybe, just maybe, they adopted social media because it allows for a loose, decentralized form of terrorism, as opposed to a complex structure with secret protocols and challenging geographical restrictions that can be more easily taken down?
Bring up privacy issues if you have to, but please, let's not make up absurd reasons for not making it more difficult for those fuckers to recruit and radicalize idiots.
Like doing SharePoint backups for $12/hr?
Discrimination is generally legal on any other basis. Some of these class protections are only for employment. For instance, age discrimination is illegal in hiring, but allowed in pricing (hence "senior discounts" and "student discounts").
How can we accept that kind of discrimination as a modern society? Poor people from poor neighborhoods should have the right to pay as much as Silicon Valley startup bros for their Uber rides.
This is not just about phones. It's also about laptops.
Here's a link to a Dell Latitude manual that explains how to replace parts:
http://downloads.dell.com/manu...
Please provide a similar link for a Macbook repair guide. Let's just say I'm not holding my breath.
Unless you buy into the efficient market theory, or unless you look at numbers over a very long period, you can't really use any formula that includes the stock price when you want to know how successful a company is. The stock market can just go crazy and prices can go insanely high. For instance, LinkedIn once had a 1,000 P/E ratio, while Google ratio was 30.
at that rate, it would pay back the investment in like.. 15 years?
There's nothing to pay back. Here's how the system works:
1) the VC firms put in a few dollars (in the case of Twitter, about $1.5 billions over 4 years)
2) the company burns through it to build a customer base and create some hype, leading to unrealistic valuation
3) the company goes public without having made a profit yet, and rakes in a fortune (in the case of Twitter, about $24 billions)
4) the VC and founders make a killing, everyone else (i.e. employees) gets fucked because they can't cash in their stock options for a year or two and by then it's worth nothing
That's how the game is played; everyone bets that some other idiots down the road will pay more but at one point someone is left holding the bag.
In the case of Twitter, all of this is over.
Wrong. They do make money, just not a lot compared to their market cap. They have a revenue of about $2.5 billions per year and profit of about $100 millions.
It's tiny compared to the other tech companies, but it's still roughly $3.1 billlions more profit than Uber, or $600 millions more than Snapchat.
Also now that they gave up on being a "share your feelings" platform and want to focus more on news delivery, and with the various new services they plan on adding (like premium services to let people monitor their brand), they're likely to become profitable over time.
I'm skeptical of Opera because it's owned by the Chinese. And it's the same reason I don't trust most of the cheap VPN providers: they're all Chinese.
Maybe Opera is a good "nasty stuff" browser, but one thing is for sure, I wouldn't do my taxes on a Chinese browser using a Chinese VPN. I'm not saying that the Chinese spies are involved, but that's a huge country with very little law enforcement for digital crimes; using their VPN sounds to me like using a Russian credit card pin pad.
I use Chrome for Chromey things, like Cleanflight Configurator or CHIP Flasher.
I also use Chrome for Chromey things, like a Poser Detector which started beeping like crazy when I scrolled past your post.
Or get more RAM. The sticks are dirt cheap.
The guy (and the reader who commented in the summary) uses a Macbook. That machine will die with the already obsolete specs it had when the guy bought it in 2010.
Giving up your privacy is ok, as long as it does not involve Microsoft.
Asking consumers to give their data to a big faceless corporation like Google so it can sell ads is one thing—but asking them to also give all that data to the people who sign their checks is another.
I completely agree with you, and I consider this survey to be worthless. What I disagree with is the summary, which does not reflect the content of the results of the survey.
It would have been so easy to do it right. Something like: "Biased survey fails to convey a clear position of Americans on net neutralty". But no. The propaganda machine of Slashdot had to spin this into a net neutrality win.
More and more this website is becoming a platform for virtue signalling. It reminds me of those videos from North Korea where we see people crying of joy as they stand on the sidewalk to watch a military parade. It's beyond phony.
Nice cherry picking. I noticed that you skipped the questions that you can't spin to support your own view, just like they did in the summary.
What about this question: "How much have you seen, read, or heard about network neutrality, sometimes referred to as net neutrality? "
A lot: 10%
Some: 27%
Not much: 25%
Nothing at all: 39%
2/3 of the people don't know what net neutrality is. How can you say 60% are in favor.
Even big ISP can't enter the market. Why do you think Google Fiber is dwindling.
But no. Let's add more regulations into the mix. When no ISP is left, maybe a regulation to force ISP to remain in business would work.
Where's John Galt when we need him.