51–60 of 140 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah but the dictionary words are "dropbox" and "infinite", not "dropboxe" and "infinit". If Dropbox was called Dropboxe and Infinit had started a project called "Dropbox" that would have made sense, but like this they are just asking for a lawsuit (but only if this was a real project, of course)...
"infinit" is a dictionary word in the language spoken by the company founders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, we're using FUSE for OS X on Mac and Dokany for Windows
Thanks, will you be open sourcing your FUSE and Dokany bindings? Are you getting any blue screens of death with Dokany? Is it stable enough?
We haven't publicly released our Windows client yet but our internal build hasn't had stability issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both infinite and dropbox are standard dictionary words. Dropboxes are also not limited to the physical world, as many online educational software platforms (that pre-date Dropbox the company) call their shared storage areas for assignment submissions a "dropbox".
Dictionary words can still be trademarked.
So when the train needs to break it generates energy for storage that can be used later uphill etc. Simple and interesting, especially for regions with a lot of variation of heights.
But I did have a moment of joy at the Monty Python-esque comedy it brought on :)
I have to admit the situation is a little funny, but Dropbox will probably have an easier time justifying their use of the word "Infinite" that Infinit justifying "Dropboxe".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That will Streisand on Dropbox very quickly.
Except for that in the post the author acknowledges its basically a parody. It seems like a bit of salt from DB naming their new product in the same sort of space a very similar name, which is kind of a dickish move.
> all mounted file servers export the same file-system-like interface, regardless of the implementation behind them. Some might correspond to local file systems, some to remote file systems accessed over a network, some to instances of system servers running in user space (like the window system or an alternate network stack), and some to kernel interfaces. To users and client programs, all these cases look alike.
And Rob Pike once said[2]:
> When I was on Plan 9, everything was connected and uniform. Now everything isn't connected, just connected to the cloud, which isn't the same thing. And uniform? Far from it, except in mediocrity. This is 2012 and we're still stitching together little microcomputers with HTTPS and ssh and calling it revolutionary. I sorely miss the unified system view of the world we had at Bell Labs, and the way things are going that seems unlikely to come back any time soon.
Both of them remind me Plan 9's "single most important feature"[1]: > all mounted file servers export the same file-system-like interface, regardless of the implementation behind them. Some might correspond to local file systems, some to remote file systems accessed over a network, some to instances of system servers running in user space (like the window system or an alternate network stack), and some to kernel inte…
I've never been entirely clear whether this referred to 'everything within the Plan9 organisation' or 'everything visible from a Plan9 machine including external independent systems'. The former is much easier to achieve. So much of the nonuniformity is because of competing administrative domains.