Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Submission + - The Ponds to leave Doctor Who (bbc.co.uk)

BigZee writes: Terrible news for Doctor Who fans everywhere, the Ponds (Amy and Rory) are to be written out of the series during the 2012 season. Although Steven Moffat has commented that change is an important part of the series, it's still going to be sad to see a character such as Amy being written out, particularly as her character has added a great deal to recent Doctor Who lore. Details are yet to be revealed but the end is said to be 'heartbreaking'. Could this be yet another unfortunate ending for an assistants time with the Doctor?

Comment Re:Not necessarily. (Score 1) 1040

I'm not sure I'd use a word processor as an example of a GUI application. The first word processors I used were character based (although not true command line). They were incapable of showing text in a format appropriate for the attribute applied. That didn't stop them from producing documents that contained multiple fonts, italics, bold etc. They simply tagged anything that was non-standard so that you could see that they had an attribute applied. Now WYSIWYG was clearly a step forward but even a modern word process isn't really that much different to the character based processors I first used. Perhaps the only innovation present today that couldn't have been achieved would be to embed graphics and images. As with other similarly minded people I've seen responses to, I don't see this as an issue regarding your choice of interface. I like GUIs. One of the biggest benefits I first got from such an interface was the ability to have far more terminal windows than I'd been able to use with a real terminal. Even today, I don't think I work so differently from the day I first got Windows 3.11 on my desk. I like what a GUI gives. I'm also prepared to consider that new innovations could improve the way I do my work. Certainly I use more genuinely GUI tools than I did with 3.11. The main problem I see, as has been pointed out, that these new GUIs are somewhat revolutionary. Gnome 3 looks little like Gnome 2. You could not say the same thing when transitioning from Gnome 1 to Gnome 2. I happen to like Gnome which is one of the reasons I adopted Ubuntu. Given what I've read today, it seems I might finally be convinced to go toward KDE as it provides an interface I'm more likely to be comfortable with. I've only just started using Gnome 3 but it does seem to be geared toward closing off functionality. Why for example would you want more than one terminal window open? Sure, it can do it with a middle click but why should the default behavior be to only allow one window. I'm prepared to be convinced. Smartphone interfaces are something I'm impressed with and happy to use. I just don't do the same things on my phone as I do on my workstation.

Comment AOS/VS? RDOS? (Score 1) 763

How can the greats of mini computing be missing! Although I wouldn't want to be without *NIX today, I had more than a few troubles moving from a well organised O/S to the somewhat chaotic world of UNIX. No surprise from that my UNIX teeth were cut on MV/UX and DG/UX. To be honest, they should be on the list to as I still think that DG/UX was better than Solaris.

Comment Re:Huh (Score 1) 750

Not sure that it's valid to equate states with countries or countries with states. I know where the USA is and although I realise that there is government at the state level don't see any particular reason to recognise much distinction between any of them. It's not as if there are communist of facist states in the US. I'll be prepared to find out more than I currently do when I know that the people of the USA know a bit more than the location of one or two European nations such as maybe a reasonable knowledge at county level.

Comment Re:What they mean: (Score 1) 343

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. To some extent it also shows that sighting an analogy doesn't always work. In reality, the ISP's know that certain times of the day they will have more demand than they can fill. Rather than ensure they can fill the peak demand, they simply don't buy the necessary bandwidth for the peak. I think that internet service is much better compared to other utilities such as electricity or gas. These companies have to be able to ensure that they are able to cope with the peak demands. At least, they have to be able to deal with the regular peaks and this is what the ISP's are failing to do.
Microsoft

Submission + - An Open Letter to ISO (freecode.no)

An anonymous reader writes: From the letter: In light of the recent events relating to the standardization process of EOOXML, it seems appropriate to look into possible standardization of the process itself.... The intent of this letter is to safeguard future standardization and to ensure that the processes scale in the face of increased pressure from large commercial interests.
Microsoft

Submission + - Vista's Little-Known Recovery Strategies

An anonymous reader writes: Amid the debate about just how robust Vista's security really is, it's clear that Microsoft has amply outfitted the OS with lots of backup and recovery tools. Perhaps most useful is an update of the Bootcfg command-line utility from Windows XP. In Vista, it's called Bootrec and it can rebuild a bad BCD (boot configuration data) store, obviating the need for a time-consuming reinstall. How do you think Microsoft's recovery strategies compare to those in Mac OS X, which seem to be less available to the user, but also less necessary?

Comment Re:...what? (Score 1) 555

RAID5 can work with 3 disks. What was described however was the use of 3 disks, 1 of which was a dedicated parity disk. In other words, 2 disks are data and 1 is partity for the 2 disks. That is a RAID3 configuration. Note that it's not that there are 3 disks that makes it RAID3, it's the configuration (dedicated parity disks) that makes it so. You can use RAID3 for any number of disks above 2 in fact. You could have 5 disks that use RAID3 - 4 data disks and 1 parity disk. Anything above 5 requires more than one parity disk however (in principle you get nothing for using 6 disks). RAID3 does have it's uses but I personally think (and I'm sure do many other people) that it's not the best use of your group of disks because of the potential performance problems. It's not so pronounced with a 3 disk config but if you took a 5 disk config, it would mean that any data write would always require the dedicated parity disk to be writen to as well. In other words, the parity disk is 4 times busier than any other disk in the array. It's probably for this reason that RAID5 was introduced. RAID5 has virtually all the same constraints as RAID3 except that the parity data is deliberately distributed to all disks in the array. The available storage from the array is the same and the raitio of parity to data is the same but the hot parity disk is eliminated. RAID5 is still not optimal for performance but it's a good deal better than RAID3.

Slashdot Top Deals

All Finagle Laws may be bypassed by learning the simple art of doing without thinking.

Working...