Network World has a piece on endangered careers in IT. They hit upon various dinosaurs like the UNIX-only type but they could mention the M$-only type both on client and server. One used to see ads than mentioned that other OS only but now one can find ads that mention GNU/Linux only. That’s where the growth is. People and organizations have found that M$’s thick client is a dead weight and there are lighter more flexible ways to do IT:
- web applications,
- cloud services and applications,
- thin clients,
- embedded systems as clients, and
- mobile clients
FLOSS is a huge part of all of these better ways to do IT. GNU/Linux can do the job just as well if not better than that other OS. M$ admits this. That is why M$ now pushes thin clients and mobile devices running their OS but it’s too little too late. For a decade or longer, M$ spread the FUD that “dumb terminals” and mobile devices could not do the job but people found out those were lies and moved on. Now M$ is trying to compete on price/performance but it cannot while still supporting its own bloat with monopoly prices.
M$ is the real endangered species. None of the shifts contemplated by Network World tolerate a monopoly any longer. M$ competing on price/performance will become just another competitor with a fraction of its present share of the IT pie. For instance, with the move to mobile clients, M$ has dropped rapidly from 95% share in early 200X to about 50% of personal computers today. Sure, it has a lock on some retail shelves and lots of businesses but today there are retail shelves full of smart thingies and OEMs are shipping millions of x86 PCs with GNU/Linux. The thing is small cheap computers are out-selling the ones M$ has monopolized for decades.
For example, Walmart in Brazil lists the best-selling desktop (ATX box) PCs. The top 7 run GNU/Linux. 8th is that other OS.
Unfortunately for some, fewer people are going to be hired to support that other OS and its “partners” and better IT needs fewer people. Still, the lowered prices mean many more machines running */Linux for the next decade so FLOSS and */Linux is a growth industry making a much easier environment in which to find work for those able/willing to switch.
56 Comments
Leave a comment
@oiaohm
Now you are just asking for it.
‘ERD does the one call that causes the hive to regenerate so cleaning up deleted entries and cleaning up the search b-tree. Microsoft mention directly registry fragmentation effecting performance.’
Spare me from your tired gobbledygook already.
From Fundamental of Database System by Elmasri, R. and Navathe, S. B., 5th edn., Addison-Wesley, Boston, pp. 61, 65, 70:
This is the entity-relationship (ER) model. An entity-relationship diagram (ERD) is a pictographic representation of an ER model where entity types is represented with rectangles held together by relationship types represented with diamonds and given attributes represented by ovals [1].
This is a ERD.
This, on the other hand, is not an ERD.
I don’t care if you are a pathological liar or just psychotic – you are wasting my time with your garbage either way.
[1] See p. 80 of the book.
odman wrote:
“Nicr try asshole. your still full of crap.”
I’m the only one who will tell you the truth oldman. Actually I don’t really know that. But it’s quite possible that I’m the only one who will tell you to your face, so to speak, what you are really like. And you are right, I am an asshole. Every one is an asshole at some time or another. Some of us are even assholes on a regular basis. But that doesn’t mean we don’t have valid things to offer. And being an asshole does have one important advantage, it makes it brain dead easy to spot another asshole.
I promised Robert that I would curb my use of the word “asshole”, I have regressed here. But the intent of my promise was that I would not call others “asshole” which I believe I have kept (just barely). Also, I did not broach the word in this case. I will endeavor to keep this blog clean. It only takes a little restraint and it’s really only a few of us who stray into the bad language.
So how about it oldman, you want to clean it up a bit?
That Exploit Guy the search b-tree is stored back in the hive.
–nor does an ERD has anything to do with the implementation of a B-tree–
ERD does the one call that causes the hive to regenerate so cleaning up deleted entries and cleaning up the search b-tree. Microsoft mention directly registry fragmentation effecting performance.
The fragmentation that is effecting performance that is not ram cost is the b-tree of the hive not being clean.
That Exploit Guy ERD and other tools like it was a step in the process NT Hive was design and expected to be used with. This would mean the functional requirement to keep the b-tree clean.
ERD is mentioned as solution for windows 2000 to fix the failure of registry hives. It uses an operation on the registry that nothing by default in windows 2000 uses. Interesting enough NT 3.5 has a program using that feature in the default install. It disappears in NT 4.0. Registry problems start from there.
That Exploit Guy this is the problem early NT the registry is operational and safe. Latter generations its not safe by default.
There is a call that causes the library that runs the registry to compact the registry and write a new file clean. That is when it does the b-tree defined concatenation and redistribution. That Exploit Guy. The ERD clean up lists the very function in the library that takes care of the registry that does the concatenation and redistribution.
NT hives has b-tree implemented as a 4 part process not the expected 3 part process.
Microsoft has basically documented the problem and been very vague about it. I suspect they have forgot they made a beast version of b-tree.
@oiaohm
‘Go back and provide that ERD link I provided about windows 2000.’
The only link that I remember from you about Windows 2000 is the Wikipedia one that you claim “most people don’t know”. It’s most definitely not an entity-relationship diagram, nor does an ERD has anything to do with the implementation of a B-tree, nor is the Windows Registry based on an entity-relationship model. I am not inclined to bash you with yet anothor textbook, but if that’s what you demand, I am willing to supply.
That Exploit Guy If you want to see the fact Windows Hive is not your define of b-tree. Go back and provide that ERD link I provided about windows 2000. How did it fragment.
That Exploit Guy I have already show you the operational example. That leads you to the problem.
This is a shocking part. One operation you watch hives reduce in size as the clean is performed.
–Clean.(this being concatenation and redistribution in the leafs)–
Conatentation and redistributation is performed when you backup the registry hive as per b-tree documentation. Not on delete in on a NT regisrty hive. NT Hives supporting library is design to have the backup hive run every so often with the backup becoming the new registry. So keeping it clean.
The problem here That Exploit Guy is a windows registry hive for the ideas behind all operations is basically a b-tree. Only difference is the delete operation has been split in 2. Its a optimisation. The optimisation is a perfectly valid idea. But if you do that optimisation you have to keep on doing the compaction ever so often. Doing so can result in lower cpu usage under heavy load than a normal b-tree would achieve. Reason if you were smart you would schedule dirty b-tree compaction when the cpu,
Interesting enough its all about IO. Microsoft talks about the registry fragmenting causing performance loss. This is the b-tree filling up with blank space. People forget the main hive is fully loaded into ram. So layout fragmentation in a hive is like SSD fragmentation. Layout fragmentation does not alter hive performance major-ally the lost ram might hurt.
If I delete a leaf in a clean b-tree. I have to record that the leaf location is free to be reused or rewrite the file from then on to fill the space.
By never removing a leaf you don’t have to maintain another table saying where the blank space is. The dirty tree will most of the time lead the insert to blank space. Problem is its only most of the time.
Most b-tree math is theory not real world examples where you have to keep track of memory and reuse.
That Exploit Guy dig out the books of b-tree.
concatenation and redistribution can be done before or after delete. Thing is the NT hive b-tree exploits the fact the wording of many of them does not say how far before or how far after.
Yes a NT Hive is b-tree but not a normal b-tree. It doing something a little warped.
You could say NT Hive does the concatenation and redistribution before delete when the Hive is made. So its concatenation and redistribution with many deletes and inserts performed in middle.
That Exploit Guy the NT Hive format is a very interesting form of b-tree.
If you apply the define of a b-tree lossy NT Hives are b-tree. If you apply the define of b-tree strictly. Then NT Hives are using a new form of tree struct. That is only different by one feature. The fact you can perform many deletes and inserts before concatenation and redistribution is even considered.
oldman
–It is also a FACT that one could get information of all types on that internet. One needed to know where to go, and it was not as extensive IT WAS THERE/–
The key point even with Internet before it was commercial you had to know where to go to find all the other variations of b-tree. If you did not you worked without knowing the other variations existed.
The fact you directly admit it was not extensive. Yes there were a lot of b-tree documentation that never was on the Internet until places starting placing there archives on-line.
No. You’re wrong
Nicr try asshole. your still full of crap.
olman wrote:
“More opinion….”
No. You’re wrong. Very wrong. But you are not able to see that you are wrong. You will never be able to see that you are wrong. And that’s not a bad thing oldman. Really, because if you even had a hint of how wrong you are, your brain would melt. Be wrong and be happy that you think you are right. Because in this case, the truth is much worse than the lie.
oldman wrote, “the internet was already well in swing before the advent of HTTP “.
Nope. “Commercial internet service providers (ISPs) began to emerge in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The ARPANET was decommissioned in 1990. The Internet was commercialized in 1995 when NSFNET was decommissioned, removing the last restrictions on the use of the Internet to carry commercial traffic.[18] The Internet started a rapid expansion to Europe and Australia in the mid to late 1980s[19][20] and to Asia in the late 1980s and early 1990s.[21]“
The Internet was not widely accessible until the 1990s. That’s why Lose 3.1 had no networking and no browser. For the purposes of the discussion, that some algorithm was widely known by a certain name by a certain date because of the Internet, this is very relevant. I am a computer geek and I had no connection to the Internet until about 1992. That’s when I bought my 486. Before that I had an 8-bit processor and DOS as did many others. I did e-mail and ftp by e-mail via bulletin-boards but that is not a mechanism to give universal access to the global community. People were doing lots of stuff in print and it took months/years to publish research. I know. I did that.
Do the maths. How many people were there on the planet in 1997? Billions. M$ provided data that they had 95.7% of the top 80 ISPs signed up to promote IE and the number was 17 million. Look at number of PCs sold. Lots of people had better things to do with their money than own a PC and connect to the Internet. The Internet may have been available to some but it was not universal for many years.
ou and I may have been at a university where such technology was potentially available but it certainly was not universal, the crux of the argument between oiaohm and some troll.
At this point this is no longer totally about the discussion between TEG and the Hamster – it is about a factual error that you are adding to because you want to win an argument.
- It is a FACT that the internet was already well in swing before the advent of HTTP ca. 1991.
- It is also a FACT that one could get information of all types on that internet. One needed to know where to go, and it was not as extensive IT WAS THERE/
- It is also a FACT that ListServs in which all sorts of information including that under discussion was discussed.
My strong suggestion is that you stop making a fool of yourself and let this drop.
@oiaohm -> @Robert Pogson
@oiaohm
‘It was a network but it was certainly not a means by which a person could tap into a universe of knowledge on the subject of tree structures.’
Again, you are just digging yourself into the same hole oiaohm has already dug himself into. The Internet itself is an irrelevant tangent to the subject matter as the only thing it could affect was oiaohm’s ability, not the ability of the academia, to research on tree structures. You are basically trying to argue that no one had understood or properly studied, say, Newton’s laws of motion until the telephone was invented, and that, my friend, is beyond ridiculous.
oldman wrote, “In the future I suggest that you do a little more research before you make an ass of yourself.”
That hardly amounts to what is now known as “the Internet”. It was a network but it was certainly not a means by which a person could tap into a universe of knowledge on the subject of tree structures. It certainly was not available to ordinary people in their homes or in many offices. I was at U of Manitoba in the 1980s and no one outside the computer geeks knew anything about ftp etc. Certainly the body of knowledge that was accessible on the Internet a decade later was hit and miss. Mostly miss. Even PCs were very rare then.
So, in the future I suggest that you do a little more research before you make an ass of yourself. You and I may have been at a university where such technology was potentially available but it certainly was not universal, the crux of the argument between oiaohm and some troll.
In 1998 you were not using “the Internet”. You were using point-to-point protocol likely over a phone line.
Pog
In 1988 I was using PC/At class systems equipped with IBM Token Ring cards and TCP/IP stacks. The MAU for the ring was connected to a Token ring to ethernet bridge which was on turn connected to a DELNI which was connected to an Ungerman and Bass baseband to broadband buffered repeater. This connected to a data channel T11/K on our CATV network which was in turn connected to the internet.
I may not have surfed the web, but I used readily available local information to telnet to some sites and to ftp to simtel20 and download all sorts of goodies.
In the future I suggest that you do a little more research before you make an ass of yourself.
oldman pre Internet being a dominate source of reference material. 1988 lot of the reference sources were not search-able or findable quickly on line.
But thats not what you said hammie. As far what was available since you were not there how would you know? I was a lot of information was available, especially if you know where to go,, and not all of what was online is googleable BTW.
@oiaohm
‘oldman pre Internet being a dominate source of reference material. 1988 lot of the reference sources were not search-able or findable quickly on line.’
Of course, also no one would pick up a book and read or go to school or know someone aware of the subject matter until oiaohm discovered the Internet in the 21st century. Do you realised your argument has just gone from false to ludicrous?
‘Then items like Windows Registry Hives are not B-tree. The delete behaviour is wrong. That Exploit Guy because you find leafs in Windows registry with no current entries all entries deleted waiting to be refilled by insert. Should have been concatenation or redistribution out of existence yet they are still there.’
That would be quite fascinating a phenomenon if not for the fact that this is all just another attempt by you to fabricate stories in order to support a faux argument.
Remember – at no time did I make a point without some reference to support it, and I expect you to return to me the same courtesy. I don’t want to hear excuses like “NDA”, “too long”, “forgot where I saw it”, etc. I don’t know you, I have no reason to take your word at face value, and I would be considered gullible if I simply believed you without some evidence that I could see.
In other words, show me the evidence or don’t bother arguing with me on an well-established academic subject; it’s a waste of my time to scroll past your hundreds of words of sweet nothing.
That Exploit Guy the same reason why you did not understand defrag on write is why you don’t understand the existence of dirty b-tree. Its all about the mathematics about IO operations and optimising to reduce that.
Think about it you remove an entry from leaf you only have to write to one block. You perform Clean.(this being concatenation and redistribution in the leafs). How many blocks might you have to write to save that. So one big restructure is better than many small restructures when you are worried about IO operations. Normal b-tree triggers many small restructures.
That Exploit Guy its all about Block based IO. The simple maths you refer to don’t take account of Block based IO.
That Exploit Guy dirty b-tree comes out of what is called over optimisation. You optimise to a point you start breaking the algorithm you are depending on. Its the true here be dragons.
oldman pre Internet being a dominate source of reference material. 1988 lot of the reference sources were not search-able or findable quickly on line.
That Exploit Guy
–By your definition, the very existence of a non-transitional “dirty” state would break the very fundamental rules that govern a B-tree and thus turn a B-tree into not a B-tree. This is not to mention that the idea of a B-tree is to make searching and deleting a key from the data structure easy by means of a sorted arrays in an organised tree structure.–
Then items like Windows Registry Hives are not B-tree. The delete behaviour is wrong. That Exploit Guy because you find leafs in Windows registry with no current entries all entries deleted waiting to be refilled by insert. Should have been concatenation or redistribution out of existence yet they are still there.
This is why I have a issue and what to know what book was used.
–This is not to mention that the idea of a B-tree is to make searching and deleting a key from the data structure easy by means of a sorted arrays in an organised tree structure.–
The base idea in dirty b-trees is to reduce altering, freeing and allocating of disc/memory. IO operation avoiding.
–“Deletion”, namely, concatenation and redistribution– These cleaning steps are what dirty b-trees don’t do constantly. Stable dirty b-trees do it ever so often. Not every delete operation. The concatenation and redistribution is just happening isolated from the delete cycle in stable dirty.
By basic structures the look b-tree. By action they are not clean or correct implemented b-trees. Early NT has a reg clean program. That does the concatenation and redistribution on demand. So these dirty b-trees are 4 processes not 3.
Search
Insert
Delete(this being only remove entries at the leaf)
Clean.(this being concatenation and redistribution in the leafs)
This pattern is digital where vms is from and the lead coder of NT is from for optimised b-tree.
Clean b-trees. Delete and clean are one step. Or what we call a b-tree today.
This is the problem the dirty style b-tree are almost a normal b-tree. So looking at disc struct you can screw up and think you are looking at a normal b-tree.
That Exploit Guy again there is not one technical journal in that time frame and those journals if you pull them out you will find write ups talking about optimising b-tree for performance. Result the optimisations breaking what we call fundamental rules of b-tree today with people experimenting with the cleaning split from deleting.
Coders were still trying to make b-tree faster. That is the problem. B-tree is that effective the only way to make it faster is make it malfunction somewhere.
That Exploit Guy I call them dirty b-tree because they are breaking fundamental rules. Correctly run dirty b-tree breaks the fundamental rules then some time in future when clean is run come back into alignment with rules. As processing goes on drifts away until next clean. So cycling between being a perfect to rule b-tree to breaking rule b-tree and back again. Problem in the Windows Registry hives its being left drift not controlled. Early on it was controlled manually but controlled.
That Exploit Guy yes the reason for dirty b-tree existence is a horible one.
–They are both simple array/pointer operations that any C/C++ beginner can trivially implement without understanding the (also trivial) underlying mathematics.–
All that mathematics does not take account of the IO operations you will cause. You are presuming the existence of dirty b-tree is some trivial change for no gain. Also you are presuming the people who created these horible did not know what they are doing. Its like asm programmers trying to get more cpu processing out a cpu that got no more to give. They end up costing themselves somewhere.
–In general, each node in B-tree of order d contains at most 2d keys and 2d + 1 pointers… Actually, the number of keys may vary from node to node, but each must have at least d keys and d + 1 pointers. –
You must not read. Predelete re-struct. You get to the node with the item to be deleted. d=0 The leaf contain 1. The one entry you are about to delete so its still d+1 so you don’t perform operation on it. Since you don’t check leaf count again nothing happens.
Yes there is a problem setting d to 0 if d is set to 0 you most process concatenation and redistribution after delete or you have bugged you code.
Yes the –Do a single pass down the tree– before delete can have nasty fangs with b-tree if d is 0.
So if windows hive is –Do a single pass down the tree– it is coder error what is going on.
If it is a digital style b-tree its intentional outcome to be dirty and the maintenance step was removed that should not have been.
So one is coder error in the hive code one is something has been removed from windows that should not have been. Without knowing what define of b-tree a Windows hive is meant to be I don’t know what the error is.
oldman wrote, “1991 pre internet? Really? Then what was I using to download from SIMTEL20 from my Network connected PC in 1988.
Oh Yeah…I Know….The internet!
Lying toad.”
In 1998 you were not using “the Internet”. You were using point-to-point protocol likely over a phone line.
“The first documented version of HTTP was HTTP V0.9 (1991). Dave Raggett led the HTTP Working Group (HTTP WG) in 1995 and wanted to expand the protocol with extended operations, extended negotiation, richer meta-information, tied with a security protocol which became more efficient by adding additional methods and header fields.[5][6] RFC 1945 officially introduced and recognized HTTP V1.0 in 1996.”
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP#History
ftp was available from ~1983 with BSD. DNS was also available from that time. However, ordinary users at home never got to use that stuff until the 1990s. I had a text-only Internet connection in 1989 but it was all bulletin-board and storage stuff, way too expensive. I dropped it until dial-up became established a few years later. So, 1979 was certainly pre-Internet by modern standards and guys doing number-crunching and computer-programming certainly did not have access to a global community. The first search engine was just a list on a server in 1992. Real search engines did not happen until 1994. So, 1991 was pre-internet. I remember doing FIDO, Simtel and a few local bulletin-boards for e-mail but that was nothing like the Internet. I used to have to break up attachments into tiny pieces to move a file.
That Exploit Guy remember 1991 is pre Internet. Not everyone in 1991 had the 1979 book on b-trees. They would have a book from one of the many authors.
1991 pre internet? Really? Then what was I using to download from SIMTEL20 from my Network connected PC in 1988.
Oh Yeah…I Know….The internet!
Lying toad.
@oiaohm
You are trying to defend a lie with even more lies. Do you know that it’s only a matter of time before completely lose track of what you have made up? Reading your comment is like watching a re-run of Father Ted, except that Father Ted never speaks in incomprehensible gibberish.
‘That Exploit Guy remember 1991 is pre Internet. Not everyone in 1991 had the 1979 book on b-trees. They would have a book from one of the many authors.’
Interesting argument.
Maybe that was true for some alleged expert allegedly in rural Australia who never had any association with any organisation that could or would afford subscriptions for technical journals, but for every non-pretend experts, that’s hardly even an issue to begin with. Seriously, is this the sort of rubbish that you expect anyone to believe in?
Notice that I said “journals“. You see, Computing Surveys is a periodical, not a book. Maybe you should do a little – I don’t know – Google search before coming up with that bit of nonsense?
‘That Exploit Guy some of the b-tree variants have optimisation turning options. Those options have known side effects if set wrong. Like setting the primary define in 1979 to d=0 + do clean up before delete equals a unstable/unbalanced/dirty b-tree.
d is not an “optimisation turning [sig]” option; it represents the “order” of of the B-tree, i.e. the “MINIMUM” as mentioned in the data structure book I referenced. From that article you cited, Section 1:
It seems that you don’t just suck at writing in English; you suck at reading it, too!
‘Problem is a dirty b-tree does not have the same performance metrics as a clean b-tree. In fact at first it can appear to be running faster due to less operations.’
There is no such thing as a “dirty” B-tree. By your definition, the very existence of a non-transitional “dirty” state would break the very fundamental rules that govern a B-tree and thus turn a B-tree into not a B-tree. This is not to mention that the idea of a B-tree is to make searching and deleting a key from the data structure easy by means of a sorted arrays in an organised tree structure. The article you cited also tells you exactly how re-balancing is done in Section 1 under “Deletion”, namely, concatenation and redistribution. They are both simple array/pointer operations that any C/C++ beginner can trivially implement without understanding the (also trivial) underlying mathematics. The only reason for someone to assume an unmitigable “dirty” state would be the lack of knowledge in the basic principles behind the data structure, i.e. your poor comprehension of the subject matter.
Your web of lies is starting to look really, really shaky, don’t you think?
That Exploit Guy until the Internet takes off people depend on the source books they had. Not all source books that existed were correct some had typos and other errors in them. Now have Internet. We can now read the good source books and see O crud this book over here we learnt from was wrong and we did not have that book in our library that told us other variants existed.
1972-1979-1991 mess because no good communication system for coming up with common define of b-tree.
That Exploit Guy there is such thing a pre Internet take off for general public caused disasters. You are post Internet take off for general public so you think that I could find the 1979 book listing and comparing them all that everyone would have it.
The reality the people making the Windows Hive in 1991 most likely did not have the 1979 book listing the variations. Yes we know that there were 3 books they did have had access to that listed the dirty form of b-tree.
That Exploit Guy unified define only exists once people can know a unified define exists.
The errors over b-tree are all over how poorly information was getting between researches. This why the define of b-tree does evidentially stabilise.
Yes the 1979 book that find a error in a book where people would think b*-tree is b-tree would in fact be believed by groups of programmers working then.
Think of each of the variations listed in the 1979 as isolated pockets of programmers. Even the programmers following that book are a isolated group.
Yes he labels all the variations he finds. You are presuming too much from the books existing. Printing a book does not magically fix fragmentation of define. Yes it proves it existence.
That Exploit Guy
–You have got to give it to the guy. Not many people can show you a paper from 1979 on a well-known algorithm with every variant labelled and discussed in details and then still somehow manage to tell you some imaginary story about the alleged confusion of such variants with a straight face.–
That Exploit Guy the problem is that document was not every variant b-tree even in 1979. That was just the most common variants of b-tree in 1979. That was the first attempt to sort out the variants.
That Exploit Guy remember 1991 is pre Internet. Not everyone in 1991 had the 1979 book on b-trees. They would have a book from one of the many authors.
The variant used in Windows Hives could be about 5 different known variants set particular ways. Primary define in that paper is one of defines that could explain why Windows Registry Hives go off rails.
That Exploit Guy some of the b-tree variants have optimisation turning options. Those options have known side effects if set wrong. Like setting the primary define in 1979 to d=0 + do clean up before delete equals a unstable/unbalanced/dirty b-tree. Since now a leaf containing no entries is no longer removed and the b-tree no longer remains balanced. Its only by pure luck that a b-tree set this way does not run away growing in depth that is deeper than what should have been required.
Problem is a dirty b-tree does not have the same performance metrics as a clean b-tree. In fact at first it can appear to be running faster due to less operations.
That Exploit Guy the tree in dirty stays clean by pure luck. The hope that insert goes back down delete paths and refills them. The shocking part is how long you can get away depending on pure luck of inset refilling the deleted to work. People doing collage courses normally never do dirty b-tree.
That Exploit Guy the main reason I pointed to that paper was the fact that it details 1 variant that the problem could be.
==well-known algorithm=== Its well known and followed for insert and search That Exploit Guy. Delete is where confusion starts. Delete with define tweak for performance is when you start walking into the jaws of hell with a b-tree with long term side effects but short term gains.
In fact in that 1979 paper mentions the b*-tree mix up with b-tree.
That Exploit Guy you argued that since Windows Hive was B-tree it could not go wrong. The simple fact is yes its a variant of b-tree. Problem is what variant is behaviour is that of one of the badly b-tree where particular performance tweak options have been taken. A proper setup b-tree does not fragment in ways killing performance.
2 other b-tree variants Windows Hive could be are IBM variants of b-tree that Microsoft would have seen the book of. And finally and more of a curse is digital has a variant that is dirty and was intended to be. Guess where the primary author of NT is from..
The document you point me to saying that Windows Hive was B-tree. Does it tell what variant it is no it does not.
How does the confusion between b-tree and binary tree start.
http://search.cpan.org/~stevan/Tree-Binary-0.07/lib/Tree/Binary/Search.pm Just look at the example. Not a strange example.
So a binary tree gets demoed with using a variable btree. So someone typos and labels a section of book btree instead of binary tree. Then someone sees btree knows about b-tree and relabels it because they think it a typo. Then that section of book gets indexed and duplicated over and over again. That is borland book error.
That Exploit Guy so you could say the borland book error that people from borland backgrounds have is a case of make sure your editors know the topic of the book they are editing or create a mess.
Chris Weig fsnotify for one. But there are many. Thing is I am game to put forward the idea.
Chris Weig that I have no fear about putting out my point that should tell you particular attacks are not going to work.
No facts in there.
More opinion….
oldman writes:
“As far as I am concerned…”
No facts in there.
oldman contradicts himself in one sentence:
Your opinion nothing more.
oldman contradicts himself in one sentence:
“As far as I am concerned FOSS produces its own uncertainty in spite of the best efforts of commercial entities like Red Hat who have to keep two steps ahead of the community in order to keep it clean enough for organizations like mine to use.”
@Chris Weig
‘I have read some of your mad “Peter Dolding” ravings on some mailings lists, and it dawned on me very quickly that any technical arguments coming from you are useless.’
You have got to give it to the guy. Not many people can show you a paper from 1979 on a well-known algorithm with every variant labelled and discussed in details and then still somehow manage to tell you some imaginary story about the alleged confusion of such variants with a straight face.
@dougman
‘former desktop linux users??’
Is someone talking about me here?
They are now kinda running out of technical arguments. So they have to try to attack the personal style of FOSS.
Oiaohm, technical arguments on this blog are useless because they will be done away with the smug righteousness of the Cult of FLOSS. Yes, that includes you.
I have read some of your mad “Peter Dolding” ravings on some mailings lists, and it dawned on me very quickly that any technical arguments coming from you are useless. Point me to any technical argument on a Linux-related mailing list where you didn’t get your ass kicked.
Chris Weig wrote, “he connected FLOSS with egotism.”
I don’t detect any lack of egotism in oldman, Chris Weig, TEG, etc. naysayers.
Chris Weig and Oldman are running on empty.
They are now kinda running out of technical arguments. So they have to try to attack the personal style of FOSS.
Customer-centric is something that is more and more coming to FOSS as the diversity increases.
Very nice, Bob. But what’s with the rest? Ohloh has 3,273,976,328 lines of C code and 1,568,980,482 lines of C++ code. Extrapolating from data won from “forty-five of the most active open source projects” doesn’t tell you squat about all those other open source projects.
That aside, the love of self-destruction, and therefore the outwardly projection of a bad image, has not so much to do with code quality, but it has everything to do with FLOSS being primarily a programmer’s boys club and not being what one would call customer-centric.
Torvalds had, in fact, the right idea when he connected FLOSS with egotism.
oldman wrote, “FOSS produces its own uncertainty in spite of the best efforts of commercial entities like Red Hat who have to keep two steps ahead of the community”
RedHat gives a lot to FLOSS but receives much more from the community than it gives. That’s the way FLOSS works. RedHat is huge on servers, no doubt and they have done a lot for desktops but almost everything for the desktop comes from outside RedHat. Linux kernel has thousands of contributors and only a small fraction are from RedHat. It’s all good and oldmans characterization of the FLOSS community is warped. Commercial entities are not better than FLOSS when it comes to creating quality software. Coverity has verified that by analyzing code from both.
“SAN FRANCISCO, February 23, 2012 – Coverity, Inc., the leader in development testing, released today the 2011 Coverity Scan Open Source Integrity Report (Scan). This report is the result of the
…
Over 37 million lines of code from forty-five of the most active open source projects in Scan were analyzed. The average open source project in Scan has 832,000 lines of code. The average defect density, or the number of defects per thousand lines of code, across open source projects in Scan is .45.
“
So, get off your high horse, oldman, you are entitled to your prejudices but don’t expect anyone else to accept them as fact.
Around here we just fight off misinformation and the efforts of the Cult of Microsoft to introduce uncertainty about FLOSS.
Actually you fight nothing Mr. K. You just make snarky remarks declare victory and go off smug and satisfied.
IN the meanwhile those of us who live and work in the real world get to deal with FOSS stupidities. As far as I am concerned FOSS produces its own uncertainty in spite of the best efforts of commercial entities like Red Hat who have to keep two steps ahead of the community in order to keep it clean enough for organizations like mine to use.
oldman just forgot everything he’s learned in the last three years and wrote:
“Just as the FOSS community has its bad reputation via perception that they are a bunch of basement welling amateurs. a perception that they help themselves to enforce as well.”
But oldman knows the FLOSS community aren’t a bunch of basement dwelling amateurs. Isn’t that right oldman? He knows that’s just bunch crap foisted on us by the Microsoft Technical Evangelists. Right oldman? I’m not sure what you mean by “help themselves to enforce”. Around here we just fight off misinformation and the efforts of the Cult of Microsoft to introduce uncertainty about FLOSS.
“Linux is a growth industry making a much easier environment in which to find work for those able/willing to switch”
Able or Willing to switch?
LINUX is so much easier that NOT switching when I saw yet more of a learning curve with Vista coming down the pipe would be a masochistic exercise. It was a delight to see that the basics that got you around Slackware 1.0 in the mid-90′s worked with Ubuntu and Puppy; no having to relearn the wheel every release…..Nor do you have to stay brushed up on malware removal or filesystem corruption, did I mention that ext is so much more robust than ntfs?
oldman wrote, “oldman repeated the lie…
Its not a lie Pog, and you’ve just proven it.”
Uhhh, what language are you writing, oldman? Is this some new code? Could you translate to English, please?
oldman repeated the lie…
Its not a lie Pog, and you’ve just proven it.
Re: former desktop linux users?? Never met one in my life, obviously your facilities are amiss again.
Personally, I can attest to a plethora of former M$ users, that for whatever some strange reason (maybe it was the invented Windows maladies), decided to leave the “World of Windows” and enjoy their freedom.
Contrarian I know.
oldman repeated the lie, “the FOSS community has its bad reputation via perception that they are a bunch of basement welling amateurs.”
There are advantages to living in a basement, like heating/cooling, shelter from bullets, tornadoes etc. I’ve even seen a few upscale homes that were nothing but basement.
Further, many FLOSSies are well to do and can afford whatever they want. Linus Torvads was given shares which he sold to buy his house. Mark Shuttleworth is a multi-millionaire. I live well beyond my means but I am not worried. I can hunt and grow a garden if things get tough. I am fat enough I could probably live for years on the food in my home.
spernza = speranza
I have a sign above the door way, “Abandon hope all ye who enter here”
I presume that you know that “lasciate ogni spernza voi che entrate” is the entry over the gates of hell. I could introduce you to several former desktop linux users who would agree with that.
I rather like my man-cave think you.:)
I have a sign above the door way, “Abandon hope all ye who enter here”
Too bad they can’t help themselves from doing things that give them a bad reputation. Oh well.
Just as the FOSS community has its bad reputation via perception that they are a bunch of basement welling amateurs. a perception that they help themselves to enforce as well.
Oh Well.
oldman wrote:
“It matters not a whit what your and the rest of the microsoft haters think, it matters how they are perceived, and that it is not illegal to either use or purchase microsoft software or any software built to run on computers running microsoft’s OS.”
You nailed it oldman. It matters how they are perceived. Too bad they can’t help themselves from doing things that give them a bad reputation. Oh well.
So, repairing Windows failures, in your eyes, is ripping off Windows users? Eh??
Oh, you mean the invented Windows maladies which only the witch doctor can cure?
So, repairing Windows failures, in your eyes, is ripping off Windows users? Eh??
I don’t think the other proprietary vendors, big and small, would go out of their way to be associated with the convicted monopolist.
The problem is that the “conviction” (actually a finding of fact) that you refer to is over 10 years old – Microsoft settled and has successfully passed probation. It matters not a whit what your and the rest of the microsoft haters think, it matters how they are perceived, and that it is not illegal to either use or purchase microsoft software or any software built to run on computers running microsoft’s OS
World is beginning the process of rejecting Microsoft. Microsoft specifically. You’d have to be kind of delusional at this point not to see it.
See what? A new market for a type of computing device that didn’t exist 3 years ago?
Meanwhile people who use classic computers are still using them and still upgrading them. Meanwhile more people in the world make use of pirated closed source commercial software than they do FOSS, or if they run FOSS do so on a pirated copy of closed source commercial OS.
What we have here Mr. K. is a classic case of blind man and the elephant. You see the demise of microsoft, and I see new markets growing that at worse microsoft is not really in at this time.
All the while screwing over its user-base.
How so? Can you finally back up your mystic accusation that all Windows users secretly or not so secretly hate Microsoft and their products? No, you can’t. You simply extrapolate from your glorious hate.
But let’s talk about how you screw over your customers by selling them useless tools for Windows. Why don’t you put your money where your mouth is? Give up supporting Windows, then only earn money by supporting Linux. Can you do that, Dougie?
oldman wrote:
“Microsoft is the tip of the iceberg of an entire ecosystem. That ecosystem has proven itself to deliver function and feature that people are willing to meet the terms of licensing on to use.”
While Microsoft was a thriving monopoly, people were not willing to meet the terms of licensing to use, they didn’t believe they had any other choice. Now that they do believe they have a choice, things are different.
Do you really think that ecosystem wants Microsoft to be their representative? I don’t think so. Not with their track record. The World is beginning the process of rejecting Microsoft. Microsoft specifically. You’d have to be kind of delusional at this point not to see it.
I don’t think the other proprietary vendors, big and small, would go out of their way to be associated with the convicted monopolist.
All the while screwing over its user-base.
Spoken by the “gentlemen” who admits to ripping off windows users.
Well, it’s good to know that the die-hard FLOSS cultists will never die out. No, that’s not because they’re loved by the evolution! And it’s also not because they’re useful in themselves! It’s because, just as society needs the criminal as a counterexample to keep the others from committing crime, the consumer world needs the clownesque die-hard FLOSS cultist to remind them that FLOSS isn’t worth the hassle.
And it works. Just. Fine.
Consumer IT changes, FLOSS always remains behind.
Re: That ecosystem has proven itself to deliver function and feature that people are willing to meet the terms of licensing on to use.
All the while screwing over its user-base.
Will Microsoft and its proprietary lock-in continue its slow slide into just-another-competitor, or will the scales flip like an iceberg at some point? If it’s going to flip I would think it would do it somewhere around the 50% point. Which would be just about now.
A better question would be to ask if closed source commercial software is ever going to go away, because no matter how you slice it. Microsoft is the tip of the iceberg of an entire ecosystem. That ecosystem has proven itself to deliver function and feature that people are willing to meet the terms of licensing on to use.
I would say that there is a far bigger picture to be considered here. commercial software users that dont give a crap about the bogus software 4 freedoms or all of the IMHO ideological crap about ebil microsoft spewed here.
If you dont take them into account, then you speculation will be moot.
Will Microsoft and its proprietary lock-in continue its slow slide into just-another-competitor, or will the scales flip like an iceberg at some point? If it’s going to flip I would think it would do it somewhere around the 50% point. Which would be just about now.
We live in interesting times. Especially if you are Microsoft.