All the articles and PR work that I've seen so far haven't actually described in a complete sense what, precisely, isn't under the GPL *right now*, what *will* be under the GPL come 2007, and *will never* be under the GPL.
So, where can we find actual details instead of people discussing political issues too far above their heads to say anything useful about it?
Skip FC and go straight to CentOS. You get the real bin-compatible RedHat without having pay monstrous money for it, and you don't have to worry about all the little niggling things the FC releases screw up. I gotta say, the first time my newly-installed FC box undid a route I added manually on the command-line, I wasn't a happy camper. The constantly broken package dependencies, the constantly broken upgrade paths, the constant hassles getting video working.. good grief. I really wanted to believe, but it's just too much effort to support you, FC.
So some system daemon thinks it knows better than I do how to route the box. No, thanks, I don't need a "desktop" install that makes the presumption I don't know what I'm doing.
Yea it is. On all machines I use Opera on, it's faster, it gives me more control over the browsing experience, and the only thing it's missing is the integrated dev tools you can get with the plugins.
It was the primary innovator of the ad-killers way back when it initially allowed single-key image toggling and a quick-menu to turn off javascript/java/gif(and svg) animations, and so on.
Why is everyone getting excited about this? Now we're going to have a CPU that's only partially documented, and we lose even moreso to closed-source blobs.
This isn't a good thing unless they also release documentation for it!
Base install for NetBSD is about 23MB, or 47MB with development tools, 55MB with manpages, and 112MB for all the above plus X.
I can get it installed on older hardware in less than 5 minutes, including the boot time for the floppies. I can get it installed on modern Opteron-based badass hardware in about half that. That's pretty cool.
And you're being very short-sighted about other architectures.
Oh yea? Well I get 0 spams a day, no false positive, no filtering, and the effort I expend doing it is less than typing in one line of 10-20 characters of text every two weeks.:P
Sever the nerve associated with the little deposit of magnetic gunk, they still fly home more or less. Sever their olfactory nerve, and they get hopelessly lost.
These days it's just better to upgrade your RAM rather than going much beyond 1.5-2GB swap. Why? Well, the problem I'm seeing with enterprise and high-use database applications is that too much swap becomes extremely counter-productive for large processes or large numbers of processes. "Too much" is often unfortunately defined post-event as "the amount of swap that it takes for the OS to bring your system to its knees long enough to annoy someone important."
In reality, it is better for these high-use users to limit swap enough that an out-of-control process or process group is halted before the system begins swapping so much as to become unusable.
Ah, but sudog, you might be thinking: your users should just be using resource limits per-application!
This is irrelevant, I say: if anything else ever, as a (perversely) cooperating set of processes start being pushed out to swap then we have the same problem and we're screwed again. The real solution is to limit swap, not try to juggle individual processes like a herd of cats.
Hard drives just aren't fast enough to support a large volume of swap; think about it. The HD speeds become a significant bottleneck when swap is busy, and since swap usually takes precedence over normal drive use, your responsiveness in the machine drops to unusable levels. Normal users especially *really* don't have the drive speeds to accommodate a large swap, and it's been my experience with mid-range servers running applications heavily used by hundreds or thousands of concurrent users that even on the big servers, if you set swap too high you get exactly the same problem.
So therefore, let me offer you my answer: calculate the speed of your drives in a MB/sec ratio. Multiply that by about 30-50 (depending on your own tolerances) and set that to be your swap.
I deny nothing, because I never said I was one way or the other. This is my last response to you; this thread is pointless and discussion with you is also pointless. Marinate in your emo-like angst all you like. We both know that unless you carry your apparent misanthropy and self-loathing to its logical conclusion, it's nothing but a cry for help.
Yes I have. I read the thread in the mid-90s. That was a technical merits discussion, and had nothing to do with politics. Additionally, the "ascetic" tone of the thread and the fact that it was a flamewar is direct proof that politics had little to nothing to do with that discussion. If it had, it would have been written in such a way as to persuade and cajole rather than butt heads.
This is my last response to you; this thread is pointless and so is further discussion with you.
Does he actively attempt to try to influence external politics? He simply answers questions in interviews, and is perfectly honest about his opinions. If he were political, he'd be much better at attempting to influence other people. He exists beyond that; what he works on, he works on. What he wants to do, he does. He doesn't have vast wealth, and doesn't appear to be outwardly bitter about how rich everyone else is getting from his work. He is selfless in the best sense of the term, and so far everything I've read about Perelman instills me with the same sense of joy that Linus' effort does.
He collects no royalties; he licenses nothing; he turned down $10mil in options; in these ways, Linus is a great deal like Perelman, and vice versa, and we are all enriched by them both, and owe them both great respect and gratitude.
Finally, a substitute. I'm tired of worrying about whether man-made and therefore harsh and addictive chemicals like morphine are going to turn me into an addict. Bring on nature's own!
I have read it, it's short, it's pointless. You're the one (now) making the claim that it's "landmark." Why don't you put up your argument or STFU.
Meanwhile, allow me to instruct you on the benefits of a simple Google search: "ACLU loses".
They lose. A lot. Not only is their briefing short and pointless, but by sticking their nose into the court case and casting prejudicial aspersions on the plaintiff, I believe they're harming the defendant.
Now, pray tell oh great and intelligent anonymous sniper, why is it a "landmark" briefing?
Landmark generally refers to something which sets precedent or otherwise shakes the legal world to its foundations. I see nothing particularly worthy of the term "landmark." It's just typical ACLU biased prattling. It reads like.. well, like a post you might make.
Slashdot Mirror
All the articles and PR work that I've seen so far haven't actually described in a complete sense what, precisely, isn't under the GPL *right now*, what *will* be under the GPL come 2007, and *will never* be under the GPL.
So, where can we find actual details instead of people discussing political issues too far above their heads to say anything useful about it?
So I don't really know what any of you are talking about.
October was a spammy month? Hrm. My condolences.
No bayesian training, no spam filters, no whitelists, no blacklists, and my MX is wide open: no DNS blacklists either.
Oh well. My condolences for those of you who can't use one-off aliases and keep perfect control over who has which alias and where.
Skip FC and go straight to CentOS. You get the real bin-compatible RedHat without having pay monstrous money for it, and you don't have to worry about all the little niggling things the FC releases screw up. I gotta say, the first time my newly-installed FC box undid a route I added manually on the command-line, I wasn't a happy camper. The constantly broken package dependencies, the constantly broken upgrade paths, the constant hassles getting video working.. good grief. I really wanted to believe, but it's just too much effort to support you, FC.
... moments later... "Gone again! W...T...F...!"
"WTF! My route's gone!" *click click* *clickety* "There.."
So some system daemon thinks it knows better than I do how to route the box. No, thanks, I don't need a "desktop" install that makes the presumption I don't know what I'm doing.
Yea it is. On all machines I use Opera on, it's faster, it gives me more control over the browsing experience, and the only thing it's missing is the integrated dev tools you can get with the plugins.
It was the primary innovator of the ad-killers way back when it initially allowed single-key image toggling and a quick-menu to turn off javascript/java/gif(and svg) animations, and so on.
Why is everyone getting excited about this? Now we're going to have a CPU that's only partially documented, and we lose even moreso to closed-source blobs.
This isn't a good thing unless they also release documentation for it!
Or did you mean a sound chip capable of producing four-voice, quality 8-bit digitized sound?
Base install for NetBSD is about 23MB, or 47MB with development tools, 55MB with manpages, and 112MB for all the above plus X.
I can get it installed on older hardware in less than 5 minutes, including the boot time for the floppies. I can get it installed on modern Opteron-based badass hardware in about half that. That's pretty cool.
And you're being very short-sighted about other architectures.
Oh yea? Well I get 0 spams a day, no false positive, no filtering, and the effort I expend doing it is less than typing in one line of 10-20 characters of text every two weeks. :P
So there.. and stuff.
Hacker is NOT a term merely for skill. Therefore your premise is wrong.
Sever the nerve associated with the little deposit of magnetic gunk, they still fly home more or less. Sever their olfactory nerve, and they get hopelessly lost.
I'd love to offer a deal to some targetting marketers who want to sell some stuff to EA employees.. :)
These days it's just better to upgrade your RAM rather than going much beyond 1.5-2GB swap. Why? Well, the problem I'm seeing with enterprise and high-use database applications is that too much swap becomes extremely counter-productive for large processes or large numbers of processes. "Too much" is often unfortunately defined post-event as "the amount of swap that it takes for the OS to bring your system to its knees long enough to annoy someone important."
In reality, it is better for these high-use users to limit swap enough that an out-of-control process or process group is halted before the system begins swapping so much as to become unusable.
Ah, but sudog, you might be thinking: your users should just be using resource limits per-application!
This is irrelevant, I say: if anything else ever, as a (perversely) cooperating set of processes start being pushed out to swap then we have the same problem and we're screwed again. The real solution is to limit swap, not try to juggle individual processes like a herd of cats.
Hard drives just aren't fast enough to support a large volume of swap; think about it. The HD speeds become a significant bottleneck when swap is busy, and since swap usually takes precedence over normal drive use, your responsiveness in the machine drops to unusable levels. Normal users especially *really* don't have the drive speeds to accommodate a large swap, and it's been my experience with mid-range servers running applications heavily used by hundreds or thousands of concurrent users that even on the big servers, if you set swap too high you get exactly the same problem.
So therefore, let me offer you my answer: calculate the speed of your drives in a MB/sec ratio. Multiply that by about 30-50 (depending on your own tolerances) and set that to be your swap.
I deny nothing, because I never said I was one way or the other. This is my last response to you; this thread is pointless and discussion with you is also pointless. Marinate in your emo-like angst all you like. We both know that unless you carry your apparent misanthropy and self-loathing to its logical conclusion, it's nothing but a cry for help.
End of Line.
Yes I have. I read the thread in the mid-90s. That was a technical merits discussion, and had nothing to do with politics. Additionally, the "ascetic" tone of the thread and the fact that it was a flamewar is direct proof that politics had little to nothing to do with that discussion. If it had, it would have been written in such a way as to persuade and cajole rather than butt heads.
This is my last response to you; this thread is pointless and so is further discussion with you.
Does he actively attempt to try to influence external politics? He simply answers questions in interviews, and is perfectly honest about his opinions. If he were political, he'd be much better at attempting to influence other people. He exists beyond that; what he works on, he works on. What he wants to do, he does. He doesn't have vast wealth, and doesn't appear to be outwardly bitter about how rich everyone else is getting from his work. He is selfless in the best sense of the term, and so far everything I've read about Perelman instills me with the same sense of joy that Linus' effort does.
He collects no royalties; he licenses nothing; he turned down $10mil in options; in these ways, Linus is a great deal like Perelman, and vice versa, and we are all enriched by them both, and owe them both great respect and gratitude.
You have poor reading comprehension; plus, you're classless.
Eliminating politics by refusing to actively participate in them!
What an impressive joy to read about the man. He helps build my faith in humanity.
Finally, a substitute. I'm tired of worrying about whether man-made and therefore harsh and addictive chemicals like morphine are going to turn me into an addict. Bring on nature's own!
Yea. I thought so.
I have read it, it's short, it's pointless. You're the one (now) making the claim that it's "landmark." Why don't you put up your argument or STFU.
.. well, like a post you might make.
Meanwhile, allow me to instruct you on the benefits of a simple Google search: "ACLU loses".
They lose. A lot. Not only is their briefing short and pointless, but by sticking their nose into the court case and casting prejudicial aspersions on the plaintiff, I believe they're harming the defendant.
Now, pray tell oh great and intelligent anonymous sniper, why is it a "landmark" briefing?
Landmark generally refers to something which sets precedent or otherwise shakes the legal world to its foundations. I see nothing particularly worthy of the term "landmark." It's just typical ACLU biased prattling. It reads like
Sweet! Next year! Damn.. that's close.
Every time the ACLU or the EFF get involved in lawsuits, they seem to lose a lot. Why would a brief from them be "landmark"?
Now I have to suffer through lost luggage whether I want to or not?!
Bah!
.. the turbulence of the matter inside his aqueus humour as he looked from spot to spot?
It's beautiful.. start with that as a base and go from there.