Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re: regulation (Score 3, Informative) 401

Yes. The battery is alot more dense than a bird. If a fan blade is even chipped, it can crack and splinter, in which case the entire engine breaks apart internally. There's a recent model simulating this floating around, and it shows the engine fan blades disintegrating in less than one revolution after impact.

Comment Re: MS is still hostile to open formats (Score 2) 178

Correct. This is the commit that fixes the problem. The patch actually goes back farther than it was merged, and then after merge it was two years until another stable release that had it appeared. And still many distros use a version of parted that predates this patch including RHEL 7 and openSUSE 13.2. The only distro I know off hand that uses the correct GUID is Fedora.

I don't know why it took so long. My soapbox version is I think there's a history of partition types being unreliable and pointless because in the MBR scheme there were so few of them that collisions were a given. So on Linux there's the expectation to check the actual contents of the partition to know what it is. libblkid can identify practically anything, and it doesn't care what the partition type is. Because of this, I think the Linux ecosystem has just gotten lazy. And so now on GPT scheme, they just grabbed the existing "basic data" GUID, rather than follow the UEFI spec which says "Each filesystem must publish its unique GUID." So technically the Linux ecosystem still has it wrong by using one Linux partition type GUID rather than one per filesystem; whether using GUIDs in such a granular fashion is helpful, I'm not sure.

Anyway, given the essentially infinite number of GUIDs available, using an existing one was just an extension of this mind set. Plus, parted isn't well suited for being patched to enable arbitrary GUIDs. So anytime there's a new GUID it's like pulling teeth to get the parted folks to add it, and often they actively resist while claiming there's no use case for X GUID.

Comment Lotus (Score 5, Insightful) 178

Microsoft remembers how they took over Lotus' market share for spreadsheets. Lotus had no obscurity with their file format. Excel could read and write it perfectly. Open formats means the product must be as good or better for the price or users can jump ship. Closed formats are a buffer for mistakes or resting on laurels.

Comment Re: MS is still hostile to open formats (Score 4, Informative) 178

If the partition type is set to Linux, Windows won't offer to format it. Problem is the common parted tool wrongly uses the Microsoft partition type GUID, thinking it was a generic "basic data" type rather than a Microsoft specific one. Windows assumes such partitions aren't properly formatted if it can't read them. Patches took forever to be merged upstream and another forever for downstream distros to use. It's still being done wrong today. OS X will only ignore unrecognized partition type codes on disks containing recognized ones. Otherwise it too actively encourages the user to format, of course resulting in data loss.

Comment Re:Linux distros (Score 2) 189

You're confused. Bugzilla bugs endure forever, they don't get deleted. Even a developer doesn't have an option in the UI to delete a bug, they can only close it. I've filed bunches of systemd bugs. They've always been professionally responded to, and many of those bugs were in fact considered bugs and have been fixed. The rest either were user error, dracut, udev or kernel bugs.

Comment Re:It's the contents of the files... (Score 1) 396

OK so you're saying that manufacturer's are wrong by f'n 15 orders of magnitude when they say "less than 1 uncorrectable error for every 10^14 bits read". That's such an immense amount of error that you're basically accusing them of being incompetent, possibly even of fraud. Next you're also proposing that consumer hard drives have a bit error rate 13 orders of magnitude less than that claimed by LTO tape manufacturers. You're like the drunk guy running into walls, tripping over himself, shouting and pissing himself, while bitching about everyone else have craptastic balance and smelling like alcohol and urine and talking way too loudly.

Comment Re:Legacy file systems should be illegal (Score 1) 396

On both 10.8 and 10.9 computers, Disk Utility's default format option is "Mac OS Extended (Journaled)" and this translates into a signature on disk of:
00000400 48 2b 00 04 80 00 20 00 48 46 53 4a 00 00 00 75 |H+.... .HFSJ...u|

From hfs_format.h says this is version 4.

When choosing either of the case sensitive options, I get:
00000400 48 58 00 05 80 00 20 00 48 46 53 4a 00 00 00 75 |HX.... .HFSJ...u|

If journaling is disabled they become (respectively):
00000400 48 2b 00 04 80 00 00 00 31 30 2e 30 00 00 00 75 |H+......10.0...u|
00000400 48 58 00 05 80 00 00 00 31 30 2e 30 00 00 00 75 |HX......10.0...u|
So internally it's H+ or HX, and both can be HFSJ. For whatever reason, by default we still get version 4 (H+).

Comment Re:Ambitious but not much has happened in 6 yrs (Score 1) 121

What blogs discuss btrfs features that should never be used under any circumstances?

Could you elaborate on your example? I not understanding what commands make it possible to mount a volume "under multiple parents" how this differs from shared or bind mounts. I can mount an XFS volume on two separate mountpoints, not a big deal. Btrfs volumes can't be snapshot, just their subvolumes, maybe that's what you're referring to? The lack of recursively snapshotable nested subvolumes?

Btrfs and ZFS are different when it comes to snapshots. In Btrfs snapshots are subvolumes that are "prefilled". They aren't otherwise unique like they are on ZFS. And that means there isn't really a parent child relationship on Btrfs, you can delete "parent" subvolumes that have "child" snapshots, unlike on ZFS.

Comment Re:Pedestrian or Vehicle: Pick one. (Score 1) 490

I'd be all for more enforcement of the rules already on the books. For example, cyclists should be fined $100 for each 1 mph over 15mph (the posted limit) on multi-use bike/dog/pedestrian paths. Motorists running red lights, the fine should make them wonder if they'll be able to make rent for the next two or three months. Really red light running by cars should be something like a $5000 fine. It should be really painfully obscene. SUV's have a 2x surcharge, so $10,000 fine.

Cyclists get a $100 fine for darting in and out of cars, when instead they should hog the whole lane just like a car does. Motorists get a $100 fine for not stopping 5 feet before a crosswalk or blocking it, or blocking any intersection. And both need $100 fines for not signaling. I think it's worse for cars to not signal, because cyclists actually really depend on this notification more than motorists. For cyclists it's really precarious to brake and do a sustained hand signal, but something is better than nothing.

And with all this fine money I want better road paint from the government.

Oh and the angry cyclist? Realize he's angry because he just soiled his pants because a motorist scared the crap out of him.

Comment Re:Stopping and thinking (Score 1) 490

No it's stupid people such as yourself who make it dangerous. You're not even aware of the law, by your insistence that they are "your roads" and that we should get off of them. C.R.S. 43-1-120 They are not only your damn roads.

"It is in the best interest of all Coloradans to promote transportation mode choice by enhancing safety and mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians on or along the state highway system... The department and its subdivisions shall provide transportation infrastructure that accommodates bicycle and pedestrian use of public streets in a manner that is safe and reliable for all users of public streets..."

Slashdot Top Deals

When you are working hard, get up and retch every so often.