I love this place. I remember the first time ever learning about it, in some book I had as a child. Such an interesting history and fascinating that so many people lived in such cramped density.
In a Digimon game on the switch there’s a level called Kowloon. It is represented as what is described here and I’m grateful to have learned the real world connection
You talking about Cyber Sleuth? It’s available on PC, PS4, Vita (which I think is where it first launched), along with the switch you mentioned.
Please be aware that plenty of games on the switch are actually multiplatform. We don’t want people not checking out a game because they think it’s only on the switch.
We don’t want people not checking out a game because they think it’s only on the switch.
We? Is there some secret Game Reccomendation Governing Body in charge of how to recommend something properly?
If someone wants to play a game, it’s on them to research the game and how they can play it on their own consoles. It’s unfair to put the responsibility on the recommender for knowing every single possible platform a game could be played on.
I appreciate that you commented and provided extra information for other potential players. But IMO, your tone implies that OP provided this recommendation incorrectly, which I don’t think is justified.
I most recently encountered this fact from the game, Stray! You know, the recent game with the cat and all the robots. Apparently their city design was heavily inspired by the Kowloon Walled City.
Curiously, in cyberpunk media this sort of mega-slum is often portrayed as an excess of capitalist urbanization, whereas in historical reality it was an exclave of “communist” China inserted into “capitalist” British Hong Kong, wherein the “capitalist” authorities had no jurisdiction.
(Edited: Sounds more like the point was that it was effectively nobody’s jurisdiction.)
What the fuck are you talking about? In actual reality it was a product of capitalism. Specifically British imperialist capitalism in China. It took until the mid 80’s (40 years after the Communists came to power) for the British to allow China to have control over the area and it was turned in to a park less than a decade later, clearly indicating that the Communists were in no way interested in continuing the existence of the dystopian walled city.
With no government enforcement from the Chinese or the British aside from a few raids by the Hong Kong Police, the walled city became a haven for crime and drugs. It was only during a 1959 trial for a murder that occurred within the walled city that the Hong Kong government was ruled to have jurisdiction there.
The KMT repeatedly sent requests to reclaim the entire region but Imperial Britain pretty much refused (they proposed a ton of alternative solutions) and didn't govern it either. So yes, it's Imperial Britain's fault. Since the day Britain agreed to transfer the territory to the CCP there was a declared intent to demolish the place.
It’s more accurate to say that the British prevented either themselves (through inaction) or China (by treaty/law) from having any practical control. If you’d bother to read the wiki article OP linked you’d know. China should have had jurisdication, but Britain techincally had (imperialist) jurisdication. The result was a no-man’s land until Britain finally gave up.
Can you walk me through how you arrived at the idea that Kowloon was a product of communism, and explain when and why the Chinese decided to insert it into Hong Kong? Sorry if I'm a bit slow, but what you wrote runs counter to everything I thought I knew about the topic.
XFS is more like ext3 or ext4 than zfs. It has now COW, snapshots, although it is very performant and can handle very large volumes. It’s a pretty good all around filesystem. I trust it more than ext4, but you also can’t shrink it, like you can ext4.
I wouldn’t really say so. Of course it’s not a good idea take the absolutely latest system as your daily driver since it’s propably not bugproof yet but also you don’t want to use something extremely old just because it’s been tested much more because then you’re just trading away perfomance and features for nothing. For example ext4 is extremely reliable and the stable version is 15year newer than NTFS.
I’m a client-side technician working in a predominantly Windows environment for the last 8 going on 9 years.
Out of all the issues I have seen on Windows, filesystem issues is rather low on that list as far as prevalence, as I don’t recall one that’s not explainable by hardware failure or interrupted write. Not saying it doesn’t happen and that ext4 is bad or anything, but I don’t work in Linux all that much so me saying that I never had an issue with ext4 isn’t the same because I don’t have nearly the same amount of experience.
Also ext came about in 1992, so 31 years so far to hash out the bugs is no small amount of time. Especially in terms of computing.
I use both. I like Linux better, even more since W10. It’s spyware, crap, all those nasty things. But hey, I’m a pc gamer and, sadly enough, my games (80% of them) all get funcky in Linux (wine, playonlinux,… I tried it all), so guess I’m stuck with the crap. But again, Linux is far better and superior
It is weird to me that Microsoft hasn’t updated the file system in so long. They were going to with Longhorn/VIsta but that failed and it seems like they’ve been gunshy ever since.
You don’t sound like you weren’t around the Windows Vista/Longhorn development days when they promised a successor to NTFS and then over the course of the next couple of years, would bail on that (and nearly every other promise made).
And FWIW, they are developing ReFS, which looks like it will finally supplant NTFS, but given MS’ business model, don’t expect NTFS to ever really disappear.
Yeah, I definitely was. I think that gave them PTSD or something because they haven’t even tried to make moderate changes to NTFS since. And besides ReFS which I hadn’t heard about until this thread, they haven’t even done something as minor as give you an option to use different file systems like ext4.
NTFS has evolved over the years, but the base structure is mostly unchanged. Things have changed, but not the name. I think they’ve been using NTFS v3 for a while now…
Yeah, that’s what I mean. There have been small changes, but nothing major and if the other poster was right, even minor changes haven’t been made since 2004.
Meanwhile Apple has come out with APFS and *nix variants have multiple file systems, each more modern than NTFS.
It is weird to me. Here’s hoping reFS or some other file system comes out.
ReFS is out. But only specific revisions of Windows, notably Windows server, can use it for specific use cases.
I tried setting up ReFS on a disk for a cluster of hyper-v systems… I couldn’t because they were using a cluster shared DAS, and in that version of Windows server or ReFS there was no support for cluster access to the FS, it should have otherwise worked, it just seems a bit incomplete at the moment. If I had been using it for cifs access for a single server, then yeah, it probably would have been fine, it was just the clustered direct access that wasn’t yet supported.
Windows desktop is unlikely to get ReFS support until the fs is more mature, and it’s likely that will be limited to non-os disks for a while.
It’s pretty far along right now, it’s just that MS isn’t going to pop open any Champaign until the fs can hold its own as a direct replacement and upgrade from NTFS, with all the capabilities and features required (and more).
I’ll note that the vast majority of systems running some kind of *nix are generally using either ext2 or ext3. Where ext3 is essentially just ext2 with journaling (which is something NTFS has, AFAIK), and ext2 is just as old as NTFS.
We can argue and complain all we want, but these are tried and true, battle tested file systems that do the job adequately for the demands of systems, both in the past, and now. They do one fairly simple thing… Organizing data on disk into files and directories, and enabling that data to be written, updated, read from, and otherwise retrieved when needed.
I know in IT we don’t go by the saying “if it’s not broken don’t fix it”, since all of us have horror stories of when you don’t fix something that’s not broken and something very bad happens… But I would say that systems like ext2/3 and NTFS have achieved the coveted goal of RFC 1925, rule 12: In protocol design, perfection has been reached not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
There’s no fat in these file systems. Everything in them generally exists for good reason, the fs is stable and does the required job.
Does that mean we should pack it up, we’ll never need another fs again? Absolutely not. We will hit the hard upper limits of what these file systems can do, eventually; probably fairly soon, but that doesn’t mean that either is bad simply because they are old.
It is weird to me that Microsoft hasn’t updated the file system in so long.
Honest question: why? NTFS isn’t great, it isn’t terrible, it’s functional. I don’t really spend any time thinking about my filesystem. I like having symbolic links on my Linux boxes, but aside from that I just want it to work, and NTFS does.
Honest answer: it’s fragile. There are many cases of media durability being an issue and there will be going into the future. Adding a layer of ecc in the fs goes a long way.
WinFS wasn’t a replacement of NTFS as much as it was a supplement. Documents could be broken apart into atomic pieces, like an embedded image and that would be indexed on its own. Those pieces were kept in something more like a SQL database, more like using binary blobs in SharePoint Portal, but that database still was written to the disk on an NTFS partition as I recall. WinFS was responsible for bringing those pieces back together to represent a compete document if you were transferring it to a non-WinFS filesystem or transferring to a different system altogether. It wasn’t a new filesystem as much as it was a database with a filesystem driver.
I may as well make myself unpopular with some context…
Some here have compared NTFS with ZFS, which is unfair as ZFS is over 12 years younger. In 1993 machines had an average of less than 4Mb of RAM, and the average disk size was probably somewhere in the 80-100Mb range. NTFS required more RAM - if you wanted to run it I think you had to have 12Mb of RAM minimum, maybe even 16Mb. If you didn’t have that you had to install your Windows NT 3.1 copy with FAT…
A better comparison filesystem would be XFS, which was developed at around the same time and saw its first release in 1994.
XFS has had a lot more development of late than NTFS has, and it could be argued that because of that it now has the edge. But both are venerable survivors of that era. Both are reliable, robust, feature-rich and widely deployed.
A lot of problems that people have with NTFS are to do with the way Windows handles disk access rather than the filesystem itself. A filesystem is more than just an on-disk layout and a bit of code to read or write from it, it also has to interact with OS disk buffering systems, security systems, caching mechanisms, and possibly even things like file locking and notification mechanisms.
Windows has a concept of the “installable file system” - these days it’s primarily a way to load filter drivers that can inspect all I/O operations. It’s how Windows security programs like antivirus work, but also how Windows prevents writes to its own folders by ordinary users. As you can guess, that slows things down. On the boot/OS drive of a Windows machine there are a lot of filter drivers. Android developers know this from how long some build operations take, and have often cursed at NTFS for it. Yet if you move the project onto a non-OS NTFS drive, suddenly it’s much faster - because that drive lacks many of those filter drivers, as there is no OS to protect on that drive.
The point here being that NTFS often gets slammed for issues which aren’t its fault, and it has no control over.
NTFS is probably in the top ten most-installed filesystems ever. And high on that top ten. (I wonder what that top ten would look like? I think that embedded use of ext2 probably places it near the top, but then you have wildcards like the Minix file system… anyway, back on track!)
Filesystems are one of those things that everyone takes for granted, yet are incredibly important. NTFS may not be native to Linux, and may come from somewhere that many see as “the enemy”, but I think 30 years of tireless work deserves some recognition.
tbf, he was part of it. That was one of the weakest performances he’s ever phoned in. His Mace Windu barely feels like he even actually cares. Some of his line deliveries too, are kinda … odd?
Yeah, it didn’t hurt many careers at all, now that you mention it. Catapulted Natalie Portman’s, even. Though she actually did do a pretty good job as Padme.
He should have been cast as one of the roughest, toughest, meanest drifter/scoundrel type characters ever. It would have been amazing if he was the grittier, menacing Han Solo character who protects anakin at all costs.
Wesley Snipes could’ve pulled off Windu. He brings the energy, and has the martial arts background to help convincingly pull off the tranquil master trope when he wants.
I think all of that was him being directed to playing out a role as a Master Jedi. You have to remember before those movies the only actors that were able to really flesh out how a Jedi acts is Alec Guiness as obi wan and a puppet name Yoda. It was new territory. So you get this plain mannerism that is calm but absolute. Samuel was trying to convey that somehow and it just came out odd, probably partly because it was motherfukkin Samuel L Jackson doing it. Where as when Alec Guiness did it, the oddness just worked with the actor.
It also just doesn’t play to Jackson’s strengths at all, which are mostly in his skill with dialogue and emotion. I don’t blame him exclusively for it, but it was unquestionably a terrible acting performance that was delivered.
It was probably dozens of people’s faults, of which he is just one.
No, they are definitely significantly better than something like Battlefield Earth. There’s also a key difference between liking something, and acknowledging it as “good”.
I like the movie Sucker Punch, but can still admit it is a bad film. Horrible acting, terrible CGI, nonsensical plot, etc etc etc. I just like it anyway.
XFS, the default filesystem in Red Hat, is older than NTFS. Released 1994.
I’ll say this, the previous admin of one of the Linux servers I support set up RAID-0 striping for the main data slice (must have been dropped on their head as a child or something). Two drives, and one of the drives developed bad sectors, but I was still able to recover 95% of the data before it shit the bed completely. So, XFS is apparently quite resilient, or I got lucky.
en.wikipedia.org
Newest