Jim <james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> __/ [ Jim ] on Monday 31 July 2006 12:32 \__
>>>
>>>> Tim Smith wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <1154329060.371179.277480@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>>>> nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>>> Want to make sure your operating system isn't pulling any obscure or
>>>>>> undocumented tricks behind your back? Use Linux!
>>>>>
>>>>> If Linux had this feature and Windows didn't, I bet you'd be posting
>>>>> how it is a Linux advantage.
>>>>>
>>>> TBH, I can't see the advantage. Maybe I'm just being blonde. I gotta ask
>>>> though, how many times does one need to tell the file manager that he
>>>> doesn't need the file anymore, that he needs the space for something
>>>> else (think: digital video/DVD images, which takes a LOT of space)?
>>>> I only want to tell it ONCE.
>>>> SHIFT+DELETE (which on my Dell C840 is pretty hard to do by accident)
>>>> gives me my space back. IFAICT, this new feature in Vista doesn't, in
>>>> fact it uses /more/ space than the file itself to store it, hidden away
>>>> somewhere. Not a good situation if you're doing video work on the road
>>>> and you only have a hundred Gig drive.
>>>
>>> Linux can achieve all of this /upon demand/. It just doesn't
>>> do this by default; I am not sure it can present a
>>> simplified UI, either (albeit a day or two with GTK or
>>> Trolltech Qt Designer can 'fix' that). I thought about this
>>
>> So, like any SW : it can be done? But Linux does do all this too through
>> trash cans, Synaptec installed backup managers. All configurable of
>> course.
>>
>>> feature while walking down the street. To be honest with
>>> you, that demo which shows a picture of a flower with some
>>> transitions (that which you see in various articles about
>>> this new feature)... I just can't see how it becomes useful.
>>> My mother, for example, will only ratate an image 90/270
>>> degrees. That's the most she would do. No manipulation of
>>> any kind. So why revert to old(er) versions? For text it's
>>
>> This might surprise you, but your mothers "rotation needs" dont
>> generally guide leading edge OS & GUI desogn decisions.
>>
>>> rather impractical for reasons I mentioned in an earlier
>>> post on the subject.
>>
>> I fail to see how (if disk space is an issue), action rollback can ever
>> be a liability or impractical.
>>
>>>
>>> The idea is neat in theory. What's to gain? To most of us --
>>> nothing. What's to lose: privacy; disk space; performance;
>>
>> How so privacy?
>
> being destruction of data not guaranteed short of a military wipe, maybe?
> OK, other OSen and filesystems share the same risk, but that depends on the
> OS, the filesystem, and the method used to delete the data. Or would you be
> willing to trust national or industrial secrets to a Vista box?
Of course not. But I dont see anything particularly safer on Linux
either to be fair. We all know you hav to do multiple surface blits to
erase the remnant magnetic signals.
>
>> Did I miss something? Its not saving your private info
>> on MS servers is it?
>
> It doesn't have to. Again. WGA already took care of that detail.
>
>> Performance? Nope. There tends to be a lot of spare
>> cpu and disk suage spare when we're typing documents.
>
> Refer to my comment on video editing/rendering. Disk space is precious,
> especially when dealing with DV bitrates, even if you are playing with a
> 250GB stack.
Sure : turn off redundancy then. I dont see how this is a windows v
linus thing. Linux has these features too.
>
>>
>>> complexity. Vista remains "too little too late"^tm. People
>>
>> Complexity is gained not lost.
>>
>>> could find better uses for a rational database-based
>>> fileystem, which Linux has already got (as well as the
>>> semantic one), unlike Windows Vista. Beagle and other
>>> similar tools complement this further.
>>
>> database file system are all well and good in theory : wasnt Vista
>> supposed to feature one and decided that it wasnt viable for real time
>> file access?
>>
>
> Mac OS has had one since version 8.3: HPFS+
> There are others which are live, their names escape me right now.
>
There are loads of such things for loads of platforms. But there is an
overhead. Currnt FS *are* a form of database - albeit not RDBMS -
designed to be fast & efficient. And you can turn it around too. BTrieve
was one such database - a file based DB with file access/read/write for
fast access - no SQL front end.
> <snippage>
>
> --
> When all else fails...
> Use a hammer.
>
> http://www.dotware.co.uk
>
> Some people are like Slinkies;
> They serve no particular purpose,
> But they bring a smile to your face
> When you push them down the stairs.
--
|
|
