I have both / and
I have both / and
Sure, 5-10 are pretty okay but it's really basic kindergarten-level bantering.
I don't think any rational person would ever say "Gee, I felt like cheating, stealing, and killing today, but I'm so glad we have those COMMANDMENTS to tell me not to!"
It used a file called --linux-.--- in each directory. In a way, it was better backwards-compatible with FAT/MS-DOS than even VFAT was.
I did some disecting of how they worked a while ago expecting that I'd reimplement it with FUSE, which I never got down more than a couple trivial files (like the base-32 representation stuff...). I'll just put up the format notes on a Gist if anyone's interested
It was rather common back in the Windows 9x days to still be using floppy disks, of which were formatted with FAT12. LFNs were fully supported on it too for this reason.
These days, kids will relate every first-number-before-the-dot version increase with Chrome and Firefox.
Quite honestly, their versioning schemes wouldn't even be all that bad for Linux, the "3." or "4." are totally meaningless numbers anyway. At the same time, it provides some buffer zone for people that expect X.Y schemes represent significant new versions whenever Y is increased.
It requires a system capable of VT-x/AMD-v and enabled as well.
When XP launched everybody in business always set the classic theme to make it look more like Windows 2000. by 2005 that practice was long dead...
I don't know about you, but I never stopped that practice. You can still make Windows 7 look like Windows 2000 (it's a massive improvement IMO).
TeXmacs is pretty great; the UI has a lot of issues (menus are a mess, keyboard shortcuts are really unusual, too many damn preferences...), but the core functionality is solid.
As much as the joke doesn't really apply to Trek movies, it doesn't really apply to Windows versions either.
Far as I'm concerned, on the DOS side, anything before Win95 was worthless. Windows 95 was alright for what it was, and I avoided W98 like the plague because of its instability. ME never saw enough adoption for it to have actually meant anything; and it really wasn't as bad as people make it out to be. Windows XP garnered a lot of flack for not being anywhere near as good as Win2K, but it went on for years without Longhorn being released and a couple service packs made it decent enough. Vista also has a reputation it frankly doesn't deserve, and W7 is just a renamed Vista.
Yeah and GTK+ 2.x was API/ABI incompatible with GTK+ 1.x, pretty much setting an expectation that the whole thing will be overhauled approximately once a decade. So whenever GTK+ 4.0 is out, your 3.x apps likely won't just compile+run as-is in the new version, but there's no reason you can't have all the older libraries installed at the same time.
GTK+ 2.x apps aren't magically breaking and GTK+ 3.x apps won't magically break either.
Why keep that in version control though?
The tried-and-true method of just keeping around stuff like zip/tar.gz/exe files in a directory of every binary released should be fine... never delete the old releases.
For a pure open source solution, using a git repository is good enough for the same purpose, Mercurial includes a very mature bidirectional Git importer/exporter (their concepts are all mappable to each other, there shouldn't be any downsides to it). Git is missing the opposite direction, but someone can always step up and allow Mercurial to be cloned from Git.
10. Windows lacks a good, advanced file system like ZFS.
NTFS is a pretty decent filesystem. It doesn't have flashy features and it's not hip, but it gets the job done, it's reliable and you know what... those are the two primary considerations for a filesystem. At least for most people.
Considering that NTFS has absolutely no way to guarantee data integrity, the reliability claim is dubious at best. The guy's talking about ZFS; NTFS is already pretty poor compared to traditional-model stuff like XFS or ext4, but for as far ahead as ZFS is with checksums, redundancy, copy-on-write, etc, NTFS is stone age.
NonCommercial is going to make it useless as a textbook. It can't even be included in, for example, Debian or other Linux distributions.
Thanks, you're right. Misread it on account of not being awake for long