Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:The problem with FreeDOS... (Score 4, Insightful) 211

Have an old legacy proprietary DOS program that you need for your business? Then throw it into /dev/null, and hire some talented programmers to write a modern free open-source replacement for GNU/Linux, that will get published on github.

Why, that just sounds like an absolutely wonderful idea. Why would anyone insist keeping on using some old software that has been paid for many moons ago, and we all by now know exactly where and when it does and doesn't work because it's been doing the same task for 20 years? Why not instead pay thousands and thousands of dollars for someone to attempt to write a replacement for it, possibly reverse-engineering a proprietary and undocumented hardware interface (costing thousands and thousands of dollars more more in time) only to give it all away to the handful of other people on the planet who also use the same version of WHATEVER.EXE that I'm using?

Yep, what a smashing idea!

Comment Re:Why? (Score 3, Informative) 207

Modern drives will silently remap sectors without telling you (unless you look at the SMART status).
Once they exhaust their pool of spare sectors, then they start telling things higher up the chain that there are bad sectors.
By the time a disk is reporting bad sectors to the OS (as a bad sector, instead of incrementing a SMART counter and silently carrying on) it has remapped so many bad sectors that it can no longer automatically remap them and is now telling you there is a problem.

In my experience, every single drive that I've seen reporting even a single bad sector will soon go pear-shaped and shouldn't be used.

Comment Re:Compression (Score 1) 295

Yeah, but then you can't accurately know the cost of de-duplication, additionally you're doing work against already committed files which is a big no-no if you want stable storage. If I commit a file, I don't want a background process to read/write it and a software bug to screw it up years down the road.

Additionally, you're taking away resources from a system that will already be taxed. My file server has a load of 1.2-2.5 on an average day (because I'm running against the IOPS limits on my 5-year old SSD's), doing ANYTHING (even streaming a backup) has to be meticulously planned so as not to affect the system.

Wow, what are you doing on your server that you're thrashing your SSDs with 500+ IOPS 24/7?

Comment Re:Transparent decompression through OSXFUSE (Score 1) 295

You have inordinately cheap disk

Because of Apple's tendency to solder the SSD to the mainboard in the Mac Pro and all current MacBook laptops other than the non-Retina MBP, an upgrade requires replacing the whole computer at a substantial cost. Only external storage is "inordinately cheap" on a Mac, and not all laptop use cases make external spinning rust practical.

I don't know what Mac Pro you're looking at that has the SSD soldered to the mainboard, but in the one on my desk, the SSD is a PCIe interface that's plugged into a socket on the back of one of the graphics cards. There are even third party replacements for them: https://eshop.macsales.com/sho...

Sure, you could find lots of value in compression.... and you can get it with file compression utilities.

That's fine, so long as these utilities can let the user mount an archive read-only as a folder and thereby let other applications see the archive's contents as files in as a folder. Does macOS Sierra introduce anything that interferes with OSXFUSE?

You mean like creating a compressed .dmg disk image (a capability that's existed all the way back to 10.0.0) that (by default) is mounted in /Volumes/[disk name] but from the Terminal can be mounted anywhere you like?

Comment Re:Sierra with Siri (Score 1) 249

Exactly.
On one side of the camp we have Mac OS X (and later just OS X) 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, 10.6, 10.7, 10.8, 10.9, 10.10 & 10.11 with minor updates coming out at 10.x.x
On the other side of the camp we have Windows 95, Me, 2000, XP, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1, 10 with some of them receiving service packs, some receiving rollups and some getting service releases.

Comment Re:Somewhat off-topic: embedding video in email (Score 1) 294

Aside from the fact that I don't think this is a very good idea (video tends to be large, email attachments shouldn't be large) Mail on OS X (and iOS for that matter) does this. If someone sends me an email and they've attached an MP4 file, it shows in my mail client and I click play and it plays in-place.

Comment Re:Copyright (Score 2) 25

Some of it was likely legal, some of it was likely to be illegal torrents...
From the actual article:

And then the downloads began: 14 seasons of MythBusters; 24 seasons of The Simpsons; the entire Wikipedia database; Microsoft software for his job; updates for his Xbox games; and "a lot of random other stuff". He also synced all his Spotify playlists offline.

Now, I'm sure it's possible to get some of that content legally, but at around $30/season for TV content through iTunes (just as an example, not saying this is where it came from), you're looking at over $1000 worth of content there.

As an amusing fact, the free data Sunday ran on the same day that Daylight Saving time ended, meaning he actually had 25 hours in which to suck down unlimited 4GX mobile data...

Comment Re:Analogy (Score 1) 177

The impression I got was that Pinboard doesn't use IFTTT's API; IFTTT uses Pinboard's API but wants Pinboard to start using IFTTT's API for reasons that are only good to IFTTT.

What seems to be happening is that IFTTT is using Pinboard's API, or performing scraping of their HTML. IFTTT want to make all their "partners" provide an API for IFTTT to use, so it is easier for IFTTT to scrape their content. Some of their "partners" don't want to spend the time and money to write an API for their site to IFTTT's specifications, and don't want to sign a very one-sided legal contract with IFTTT.

IFTTT are then going out and telling their users that their "partners" no longer want to work with IFTTT and any channels (aka connectors) that link to their "partners" will stop working. They are neglecting to tell their users that the sole reason that these channels will stop working is because IFTTT are actually shutting them down and instead are implying that it's due to actions on the part of their "partners" that are stopping their channels from working. IFTTT already have the code in place, and working, to scrape content from their "partners" but they are shutting this down and will only work with partners that provide the API for IFTTT to use in the future.

Slashdot Top Deals

Your good nature will bring you unbounded happiness.

Working...