Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MassiveProng on 9 Mar 2007 20:08 On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 14:47:37 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >MS-DOS did this with the "join" command. When Windows 95 was brought out, >the "join" command went away. On Linux and OS-X, the command is "mount". No. It was the SUBST command. Also... it is STILL in use. http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/subst.mspx?mfr=true JOIN was for taking multiple drives and creating one drive letter to hit them with. JOIN was for assigned drive letter redirects, and SUBST was a redirect which could be used for ANY path to be assigned a drive letter.
From: MassiveProng on 9 Mar 2007 20:12 On Fri, 09 Mar 07 11:29:43 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >In article <n7a1v29gv894uc76qtgn35j56hl2fflu5e(a)4ax.com>, > MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>On Thu, 08 Mar 07 11:54:26 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >> >>>Is this because disk capacities are larger than most needs? With >>>the habits of downloading music and videos, etc. won't there be >>>another capacity problem fairly soon? >> >> >> TeraByte drives are looming on the horizon as we speak. >> >> And those are in 2.5" form factor. >> >> Keep up much? > >And will they survive being set next to TV or a vacuum cleaner? > What? That is just plain retarded. They are no different than any other hard drive for their shielding from external influence. Do you always ask such utterly stupid questions? Were hard drives EVER subject to being affected by nearby TV or vacuum cleaner? None that I am aware of. Sheesh! If anything the data stored on them is MORE resilient. They are perpendicular recording technology, and THAT has a BETTER retention factor than the current horizontal method.
From: jmfbahciv on 10 Mar 2007 06:39 In article <esrqvn$n5i$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <esrg7f$8ss_001(a)s842.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <2v91v2pjpp3qdcn8mv70t5rk21t7g1oeem(a)4ax.com>, >> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>>On Thu, 08 Mar 07 11:48:40 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >>> >>>>As I said above, our OS philosophy was to provide multiple pathways. >>>>Multiple pathways...do you understand what that means? So why >>>>are you demeaning the OS philosophy with an argument about networks? >>> >>> >>> Networking is a MAJOR part of a modern OS, dingledorf. >> >>It shouldn't be. Routing should be kept off user machines. > >If more effective ways of breaking up the routing problem were found, >routing could be spread across the user machines. Why? Most user machines are used essentially as end nodes, especially the systems used as a TTY hosted into an ISP. These should never be doing routing. Contention and pathway changes are too high and would be a waste of overall routing CPU time to deal with. > With the current >situation, I agree with you that it needs to be kept on a special box just >for that purpose. It's easier to fire wall also. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 10 Mar 2007 06:40 In article <oo04v2d5ubfqmd07mgaqe6fssbav3g66th(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 14:29:11 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken >Smith) Gave us: > >>In article <esrg7f$8ss_001(a)s842.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>In article <2v91v2pjpp3qdcn8mv70t5rk21t7g1oeem(a)4ax.com>, >>> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>>>On Thu, 08 Mar 07 11:48:40 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >>>> >>>>>As I said above, our OS philosophy was to provide multiple pathways. >>>>>Multiple pathways...do you understand what that means? So why >>>>>are you demeaning the OS philosophy with an argument about networks? >>>> >>>> >>>> Networking is a MAJOR part of a modern OS, dingledorf. >>> >>>It shouldn't be. Routing should be kept off user machines. >> >>If more effective ways of breaking up the routing problem were found, >>routing could be spread across the user machines. With the current >>situation, I agree with you that it needs to be kept on a special box just >>for that purpose. > > Funny... I said NETWORKING, NOT ROUTING. > > Do you two have reading comprehension issues or what? Which layer of the NETWORKING were you talking about? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 10 Mar 2007 06:45
In article <esrr8b$n5i$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <esrgdi$8ss_002(a)s842.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <esp7m9$hni$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>In article <esothi$8ss_002(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>In article <esmj7c$bj2$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>>In article <esm9f6$8ss_002(a)s1012.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>>>In article <esju3h$1a4$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>>[.....] >>>>>>>Having multiple disks connected to a single disk drive controller >>>>>>>electronics gives absolutely no advantage and a few disadvantages. >>>>>> >>>>>>I know that one can have multiple structures on one drive. Has >>>>>>the need of having one structure on multiple drives gone away? >>>>> >>>>>No, it hasn't gone away completely. There is a lot less need for logical >>>>>volumes to span multiple disks today. >>>> >>>>Is this because disk capacities are larger than most needs? With >>>>the habits of downloading music and videos, etc. won't there be >>>>another capacity problem fairly soon? >>> >>>This may happen some time in the slightly distant future. Modern OSes >>>allow what the user sees as a directory to be a different disk drive. >>> >>>MS-DOS did this with the "join" command. When Windows 95 was brought out, >>>the "join" command went away. On Linux and OS-X, the command is "mount". >>> >>>It isn't much of a stretch of the imagination to see some OS automatically >>>assigning an entier drive to things like videos. >> >>These used to be called private packs. The concept has existed since >>the 60s. > >They weren't assigned automatically though. That is all a small matter of organization sometimes coupled with some programming. > The operator allocated them >after you paid large amounts of money. That depended on the site. You seem to be talking from an IBM operational POV. Ours was designed differently. It was easy to redirect any spooling to a pack reserved for that purpose. Video downloads, etc. could be in a similar category. > >[....] >>>>The last reason was valid in the olden days. JMF visited an insurance >>>>company site and saw a disk farm of [can't remember the number] >>>>hundreds, I think. He was awed because it was all one file. >>>>There was no way our products could deal with >>>>that kind of a data base. IBM knew how to handle those. >>> >>>IBM's design of the logical structure was very good from this point of >>>view. The Volume Table Of Contents told you where the Data Extent Blocks >>>were. The DEBs formed a chain. Extending this chain to include which >>>physical drive the next things were on wouldn't be hard to do. >> >>IBM evolved based on data base usage. We didn't. Our trade offs >>were guided by delivering computing to people who did science and >>engineering. > >Where you evolve to depends a lot on where you start. In this case, there >is a large factor from the seemingly unimportant choices made in the early >days. Those weren't unimportant choices. They were deliberately made with certain goals and non-goals in mind. No development was an accident. /BAH |