For years, Microsoft has been bundling a well-known microsoft product: The Windows Operating System, with its flagship product: The Windows Operating System. Clearly consumers who purchase Microsoft Windows will be less likely to purchase alternatives from competators, such as Apple. When will the EU step in and quash this clearly anti-competative behavior??
for situations where I'll _never_ have high-speed or (more importantly) lots of hard disk space, this doesn't work. Can I only check out certain branches without getting every branch it's related to? (or even "those which aren't technically related, but are in the same repository"?)
Being an SVN user I am probably stuck in the mindset of not distinguishing much between branches, revisions, and directories, as far as relationships go. If I could check out only a certain "branch" without checking out what it's related to, git/could/ work for me (potentially), so long as I re-branched every now and then.
This was very quick googling, of the type "I think I remember reading something like...", typing "linus git kernel import", and clicking until I found something similar to my memory, total time 20 seconds: http://kerneltrap.org/node/5014
Just because I'm the type of person who uses version control and often have access to high-speed internet and large hard drives doesn't mean I'm/ALWAYS/ in a situation where I have a lot of bandwidth and hard disk space at my disposal. When I'm in a resource-limited situation, I still like to be able to check in/out, do other "what went wrong?" type of things without using a second system.
As for "give it a try", I did, but very early in its history so I don't think enough niceties were there at the time. Mostly, it comes down to: sometimes my SVN repository grows very quickly due to all the sometimes unneeded history. There's no "svn obliterate", so we just put up with it. This causes (actual, not hypothetical) storage issues even with centralized version control. I wouldn't want to multiply this problem by the number of developers, while adding bandwidth issues previously not dealt with because some things they just didn't care about, just to allow them access to histories/when they wanted it/.
a brief googling reveals hard drive space was not the issue - it was bandwidth. My point is more related to archives in general, not the linux kernel itself, though (that Linus chose not to put the whole tree into git I still think is very telling, though). My primary concern is: if it wasn't worth it to have 3-year-old history THEN, why not three years from then? It just seems like a fundamental design issue that I've never heard explained other than "hard disks are cheap and bandwidth is infinite nowadays!", which is an outright lie and pretty much just says "git: not meant to be portable" Perhaps I use SVN in situations where something simpler would suffice, but I/like/ to be able to check out/in from resource-limited systems without resorting to YetAnotherTool.
mostly, though, it's just the idea of "we don't want to import 3 years of history, it's not worth it right now" + "And this is good for the long term!"
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but when I first looked into git, I was left with the impression that there was/no way/ to use git as if it were centralized: every user had to have the full history, even if 99.99% of that history was irrelevant. I recall reading something where Linus noticed that if everyone used git with full history, they would all wind up with needlessly huge local copies. His solution: rather than fixing this obvious flaw in git, he chose instead to simply not import old version information. Did I read this wrong? Has something changed? These are not rhetorical questions, I have asked them previously and have yet to receive an answer. I just don't know. Why is git superior when it seems that it was fundamentally incapable of handling the full depth of the very project for which it was written?
My goal of a "perfect" version control system is one that is decentralized, but lets me decide how much history I want, and lets me decide if something is so old as to be irrelevant, not worth having locally. If older versions can be discarded without impacting day-to-day work, why have I not seen this as an option for any decentralized systems? It is one of those "seems obvious enough to me that I am probably just using the wrong keywords in Google" things.
SVN lets me check out just the "most recent" copy, and I can pull whatever I need from the remote repository if I need it. git, from what I've read, does not.
I am not trying to be arrogant here, I would love to be corrected. Given history of other times I've asked this question, I don't expect to.
Except the post you replied to. My post too, of course, made no mention of disagreeing with you. This is likely since I don't think humans have had much of an impact on climate change, which as far as I know would be/agreeing/ with you.
I don't have a right to stop you from saying anything you choose to say. I do have an interest in keeping nutjob wackos from making all rational discussions about what is or isn't going on into an opportunity for political preemptive strikes.
There were plenty of posts which/did/ mention human impact on climate change. You chose one that didn't. I suggest you aim better in the future, or you'll just appear like a wacko, instead of actually doing anything potentially informative.
If you're not denying that climate change is occurring, only the likelihood that man has caused it, why did you choose to reply to a post that only mentioned climate change, not man's potential influence on it?
Phone companies don't want to charge less for bandwidth, consumers don't want to be confronted with the fact that they're currently paying 1 cent per byte for some things.
I read and re-read the gp, and nowhere did it imply that its writing was somehow "superior" to the article in question's. ("superior" in quotes because I'm quoting you). The poster seems annoyed by assholes, and doesn't at all bring up whether or not/he/ may be an asshole, as it is not strictly relevant to his annoyance.
It's hard to explain to/others/ what is meant by "nothing existed, then everything existed". What is really meant is: "everything existed", which sounds like "oh, nothing caused the universe because it always existed", which is not only not what/I/ mean, but is fallaciously causal, and pretty fucking stupid.
The problem is thinking of time as a unifying all-encompassing axis through which all possible states exist. There's a separate two-point axis of "existing" and "not existing" which presumably is one that exists purely as a logical construct. They could be thought of as disconnected states with no axis between them, but in summary: State 1: Non-existence. Rules do not exist here. This would be chaos, except that doesn't exist here either. State 2: Everything.
Existence springs forth spontaneously from non-existence. The interesting part, to me anyway, is that while at least/I/ exist, there are plenty of things which, even with the option of existence available, still are in the realm (at least from our perspective) of not-existing. Therefor, they also exist.
Quite a huge obvious one: Even if the universe is caught in a big loop of time, why bother with all that instead of not existing at all? State A may be caused by State B and state B by state A, but that doesn't explain why/both/ state A and state B exist. Your idea is simply a restating of the Necessary Being argument: "God must exist in order for Absolute Good to exist!" -> presupposes absolute good exists. "The big crunch must exist in order for the universe to exist!" -> presupposes that the universe exists.
The universe, as a whole, fundamentally, exists because nobody told it not to. Through strict (and liberally asshole-ish) reading of the first bits of Genesis, this is consistent with Jewish/Christian tradition.
Account 1: "Nothing existed. Then something inconceivably complex existed. That something willfully created us, specifically."
Account 2: "Nothing existed. Then through sheer logical necessity, everything else existed. Everything. Those parts of everything which were capable of contemplating existence posted on message boards. The rest were not aware that they should be doing so."
Why do you feel there should be an explanation for what caused causality?
What you listed serves no[/little] purpose other than entertainment. It is precisely because these things serve no other purpose that they become candidates for "you're doing it too much". Do you deny some people become obsessed with football? with classical music? do you deny some people drink too much?
If I was utterly "addicted" to mining coal, nobody would care because what I was doing was/useful/. If I spend all of my time, money, and effort, on something which does not produce a tangible benefit to society (referring to collection, not production), then yeah, I have a problem. Do you? Then yeah, you have a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone care to tell me what flame I'm supposedly baiting by pointing out that this ruling goes against all forms of logic?
For years, Microsoft has been bundling a well-known microsoft product: The Windows Operating System, with its flagship product: The Windows Operating System. Clearly consumers who purchase Microsoft Windows will be less likely to purchase alternatives from competators, such as Apple. When will the EU step in and quash this clearly anti-competative behavior??
the service which updates every other component in the OS... I wonder what sort of permissions it has?
Make a caves of steel movie.
for situations where I'll _never_ have high-speed or (more importantly) lots of hard disk space, this doesn't work. Can I only check out certain branches without getting every branch it's related to? (or even "those which aren't technically related, but are in the same repository"?)
/could/ work for me (potentially), so long as I re-branched every now and then.
Being an SVN user I am probably stuck in the mindset of not distinguishing much between branches, revisions, and directories, as far as relationships go. If I could check out only a certain "branch" without checking out what it's related to, git
Give us some numbers.
This was very quick googling, of the type "I think I remember reading something like...", typing "linus git kernel import", and clicking until I found something similar to my memory, total time 20 seconds:
/ALWAYS/ in a situation where I have a lot of bandwidth and hard disk space at my disposal. When I'm in a resource-limited situation, I still like to be able to check in/out, do other "what went wrong?" type of things without using a second system.
/when they wanted it/.
http://kerneltrap.org/node/5014
Just because I'm the type of person who uses version control and often have access to high-speed internet and large hard drives doesn't mean I'm
As for "give it a try", I did, but very early in its history so I don't think enough niceties were there at the time.
Mostly, it comes down to: sometimes my SVN repository grows very quickly due to all the sometimes unneeded history. There's no "svn obliterate", so we just put up with it. This causes (actual, not hypothetical) storage issues even with centralized version control. I wouldn't want to multiply this problem by the number of developers, while adding bandwidth issues previously not dealt with because some things they just didn't care about, just to allow them access to histories
a brief googling reveals hard drive space was not the issue - it was bandwidth. My point is more related to archives in general, not the linux kernel itself, though (that Linus chose not to put the whole tree into git I still think is very telling, though). My primary concern is: if it wasn't worth it to have 3-year-old history THEN, why not three years from then? It just seems like a fundamental design issue that I've never heard explained other than "hard disks are cheap and bandwidth is infinite nowadays!", which is an outright lie and pretty much just says "git: not meant to be portable" /like/ to be able to check out/in from resource-limited systems without resorting to YetAnotherTool.
Perhaps I use SVN in situations where something simpler would suffice, but I
mostly, though, it's just the idea of "we don't want to import 3 years of history, it's not worth it right now" + "And this is good for the long term!"
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but when I first looked into git, I was left with the impression that there was /no way/ to use git as if it were centralized: every user had to have the full history, even if 99.99% of that history was irrelevant. I recall reading something where Linus noticed that if everyone used git with full history, they would all wind up with needlessly huge local copies. His solution: rather than fixing this obvious flaw in git, he chose instead to simply not import old version information. Did I read this wrong? Has something changed? These are not rhetorical questions, I have asked them previously and have yet to receive an answer. I just don't know. Why is git superior when it seems that it was fundamentally incapable of handling the full depth of the very project for which it was written?
My goal of a "perfect" version control system is one that is decentralized, but lets me decide how much history I want, and lets me decide if something is so old as to be irrelevant, not worth having locally. If older versions can be discarded without impacting day-to-day work, why have I not seen this as an option for any decentralized systems?
It is one of those "seems obvious enough to me that I am probably just using the wrong keywords in Google" things.
SVN lets me check out just the "most recent" copy, and I can pull whatever I need from the remote repository if I need it.
git, from what I've read, does not.
I am not trying to be arrogant here, I would love to be corrected. Given history of other times I've asked this question, I don't expect to.
If you want to do something for free, go out and do it for free! Don't wait for someone to ask!
Except the post you replied to. My post too, of course, made no mention of disagreeing with you. This is likely since I don't think humans have had much of an impact on climate change, which as far as I know would be /agreeing/ with you.
/did/ mention human impact on climate change. You chose one that didn't. I suggest you aim better in the future, or you'll just appear like a wacko, instead of actually doing anything potentially informative.
I don't have a right to stop you from saying anything you choose to say. I do have an interest in keeping nutjob wackos from making all rational discussions about what is or isn't going on into an opportunity for political preemptive strikes.
There were plenty of posts which
Wasn't that the plot of Mission Impossible 2?
If you're not denying that climate change is occurring, only the likelihood that man has caused it, why did you choose to reply to a post that only mentioned climate change, not man's potential influence on it?
The sound of the phone ringing. So long as I'm not /delayed/ by the ads, I don't care.
A great way to avoid bug-filled pieces of shit is to not play them.
Fixed:
"Most of these people probably bought mod chips to backup or steal games!"
I remember how batman defeated this one...
Phone companies don't want to charge less for bandwidth, consumers don't want to be confronted with the fact that they're currently paying 1 cent per byte for some things.
more importantly: fine those who do not attempt to comply 1/365th of the estimate.
I read and re-read the gp, and nowhere did it imply that its writing was somehow "superior" to the article in question's. ("superior" in quotes because I'm quoting you). The poster seems annoyed by assholes, and doesn't at all bring up whether or not /he/ may be an asshole, as it is not strictly relevant to his annoyance.
I defend because I can sympathize.
It's hard to explain to /others/ what is meant by "nothing existed, then everything existed". What is really meant is: "everything existed", which sounds like "oh, nothing caused the universe because it always existed", which is not only not what /I/ mean, but is fallaciously causal, and pretty fucking stupid.
/I/ exist, there are plenty of things which, even with the option of existence available, still are in the realm (at least from our perspective) of not-existing. Therefor, they also exist.
The problem is thinking of time as a unifying all-encompassing axis through which all possible states exist. There's a separate two-point axis of "existing" and "not existing" which presumably is one that exists purely as a logical construct. They could be thought of as disconnected states with no axis between them, but in summary:
State 1: Non-existence. Rules do not exist here. This would be chaos, except that doesn't exist here either.
State 2: Everything.
Existence springs forth spontaneously from non-existence. The interesting part, to me anyway, is that while at least
Quite a huge obvious one: Even if the universe is caught in a big loop of time, why bother with all that instead of not existing at all? State A may be caused by State B and state B by state A, but that doesn't explain why /both/ state A and state B exist. Your idea is simply a restating of the Necessary Being argument: "God must exist in order for Absolute Good to exist!" -> presupposes absolute good exists. "The big crunch must exist in order for the universe to exist!" -> presupposes that the universe exists.
The universe, as a whole, fundamentally, exists because nobody told it not to. Through strict (and liberally asshole-ish) reading of the first bits of Genesis, this is consistent with Jewish/Christian tradition.
Account 1: "Nothing existed. Then something inconceivably complex existed. That something willfully created us, specifically."
Account 2: "Nothing existed. Then through sheer logical necessity, everything else existed. Everything. Those parts of everything which were capable of contemplating existence posted on message boards. The rest were not aware that they should be doing so."
Why do you feel there should be an explanation for what caused causality?
I win
"work and entertainment are 2 counterparts. each of them is for each other, without the other cant exist and be meaningful."
You seem to be implying that is some sort of counter-argument, as opposed to complete agreement with, what I said.
.. you disagree??
/useful/. If I spend all of my time, money, and effort, on something which does not produce a tangible benefit to society (referring to collection, not production), then yeah, I have a problem. Do you? Then yeah, you have a problem.
What you listed serves no[/little] purpose other than entertainment. It is precisely because these things serve no other purpose that they become candidates for "you're doing it too much".
Do you deny some people become obsessed with football? with classical music? do you deny some people drink too much?
If I was utterly "addicted" to mining coal, nobody would care because what I was doing was