Arguably, especially in the 8/10/11 era, few of these features are things that meaningfully enhance the user experience. Incredibly, we're still running NTFS and dealing with hacks on hacks on hacks. In the 8 era, a huge number of massive projects were started, promoted, and mothballed.
> It still has a far more capable permissions model than any Linux filesystem.
And every time I format a new NTFS, the first thing I do before puting any files on it is set the drive root permissions Everyone = Full control + Replace child permissions with inheritable permissions.
Because I absolutely hate being denied access to my own files.
So? Linux is still mostly on ext4, and even though there's theoretically zfs/btrfs, most people are still using ext4. Debian installer still only supports ext4. ext4 might be "newer" than NTFS (2006 vs 1993), but that's a purely naming thing. If you map ext2 and ext3 as NTFS versions[1], they have similar age. Moreover from a feature set perspective they're mostly equivalent. Both support journaling and various features like sparse files and resource forks.
>Incredibly, we're still running NTFS and dealing with hacks on hacks on hacks.
It's the painful cost of maintaining backwards compatibility.
For context, I can still install and use Winamp 2.5 from 1999 on Windows 11. That's over 25 years of backwards compatibility. Not something most people need on a daily basis but still very cool.
I 100% agree. Just wait until you hear about NYPD challenge coins. [1] Pg. 21 shows us a coin that celebrates an absolutely despicable story where the NYPD forcibly committed a whistleblower to a mental hospital.
100%. Flow always had some great safety features and some complex type combinators. But the churn in the project and lack of non-FB participation made it hard to recommend.
Huh, nice! Looking at the documentation[1], I assume this is the difference between "exact object types" and "inexact object types". I though about bringing this up for Python TypedDict, so I'm glad there is an actual precedent.
Your comment is mostly on point, but the download speeds are way off. By the time Flash was really getting big, everyone was on 56k, (rarely) ISDN, or ~1mbps broadband of one type or another. But even with 56k, you're getting 5kBps. So a 45-100kB download was 20sec at most, and 500kB was about 2 minutes.
That said vector graphics and extreme sound compression was just how shit got done. In those days gaming and entertainment online was all about CD deployment, extreme delta patching, low bit rate audio (Teamspeak et al) and vector graphics when possible.
I miss those days. On top of it not yet being spoiled by billion dollar businesses, the extreme constraints meant that creative minds could excel far above and beyond corporate types. And that's why the internet had the reputation it did. The ones who were making waves were individuals and small development houses that were founder-driven. It's nothing like today.
> By the time Flash was really getting big, everyone was on 56k, (rarely) ISDN, or ~1mbps broadband of one type or another.
From my memory¹ the big flash days in terms of my interaction with stuff created with it, started as I was upgrading from 36k6 to 56k at home (though I had faster access at University sites) and ended around the time I bumped up from 512kbit to 2mbit downstream.
*> But even with 56k, you're getting 5kBps.
Usually less. It was rare to connect faster than 45k on most lines, 42k on some.
Of course once upgraded (first from ~56k modem to 512kbit ADSL), and before upgrading at home but using faster connections at uni/work, there were other issues: often the sites we were getting the flash content from would not deliver nearly as fast as the new line could receive²³ so a ½Mbyte+ flash app could still take a noticeable time to arrive.
----
[1] UK here, landline internet tech rollout progress varied a lot between territories
[2] again, UK: some other-end bandwidth issues (and latency issues) might have been experienced differently where you are due to differences in [inter]national peering arrangements
[3] or if they did, there was enough latency to mask a chunk of the bandwidth benefit
It's a good exercise to try to spot when you're accidentally spreading disinformation. We'd all be better off if we took a second before posting something we think we know, to ask: wait, is this a real thing or is this bullshit?
Here we have the idea that you can do the secret handshake incorrectly and thereby invalidate what most countries view as an automatic right (copyright usually doesn't even require any notice) and that adjudicating judges would shrug and say "Sorry, you used parentheses: my hands are tied. They're free to copy you", based on some random book from the 90s that was likely also full of bullshit. Does that sound right to you?
It's a good exercise to try to spot when you're accidentally spreading disinformation.
You might want to ask yourself that very question.
based on some random book from the 90s that was likely also full of bullshit
Nah, it was an excellent book that I pored over.
I don't understand why you guys are so confident with zero basis for your position other than "I'm so used to seeing it that I assume it's legally valid".
As I explained already, "(c)" is gibberish. Go ask a lawyer if you should put meaningless gibberish in the middle of legal disclaimers.
We have a unique one: back before the z1d launched, we had a critical system that was very single-threaded and its performance drove revenue in an extremely direct way.
So we were, deep in the shit, fighting fires due to our systems being in a perpetual state of DoS, and we asked if they would rack a machine with a certain overclocked Skylake chip in it. We offered 7 figures to do it. It was worth that much to us to get ~40% more capacity without having to migrate off AWS. They said no :)
