They should have thought about that before they stuck them together and made one book out of it. After all, they did have a few meetings, and did revise the books some, and didn't allow some of them in the finished work. So they should have caught that error, right?
And you'd better consider if, by quoting that verse out of context, your immortal soul is at risk. It might be safer to just not quote the Bible, and especially don't translate it. You might be damned for your good works. I'm going to stick to Atheism, where it's safe.
I think the clause holds for the whole work, so the churches involved might want to consider releasing an intermediate version with the book of revelations distributed separately until their lawyers can agree on better wording for the license.:) --- pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
Yeah, I think I did that, but it didn't work for me that well... However, I've got a weird installation.
But it looks like the Linux version has a command-line switch to create a new account. I didn't try it, but... that's what I get for not reading the documentation.:) --- pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
I'm gonna have to go to the lab and try to run this thing on NT to make myself an account, and then copy the data file over or something.
The linux version doesn't create accounts, right?
I tried running the Windows version under Wine, but it freezes somewhere around connecting to the server ("Checking Version"). I had to grab some.DLL's, but I got it to run fine up until then. --- pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
On the plus side, run length encoding kicks ass in base zero!
On the minus side, null-terminated strings suck. And terminating everything else is pretty bad too. So find an OS that supports files, and store your numbers in separate files. I'm sure a work-around will be out shortly, but don't switch from your Turing machines just yet... --- pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
If there's a more general solution, I hope it would invalidate a claim like this.
Otherwise, what you're saying is, I can uuencode a jpeg, but I can't uuencode a data file of complex numbers and ftp it to a machine, or something. (okay, the protocols might not be the same, but...) --- pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
Didn't WABI (and now WINE, of course) basically do this? It's a necessary step in displaying the emulated Windows applications on top of X. I mean, *come on*.
And what about Windows Terminal Server, there's a pretty similar product. Heck, Microsoft could just buy these guys, and have (or bury) X support...
Watch everyone release the same thing, with fragmented X protocols to avoid patenting issues. Patents definitely serve to stifle innovation, not help it. --- pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
I thought they already tried this with strings and superstrings and other physics mumbo-jumbo. Wake me up when they verify something interesting. This is on the order of "cosmologists aren't sure about dark matter". Big deal, I thought it was a dumb idea to begin with. Let me know when the headline is "theoretical physicists shut up so we can get work done".
However, if they ever do find out something like this, it'd be nice to use gravity as a constant power source, or something. I suppose the next step would involve converting one form into another... But I'd be happy with something simpler, like cold fusion, say.:) --- pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
:) And at this rate, we'll have The Matrix (no, no, the one in Neuromancer!) soon enough. It'll be a little crystal with a penguin etched on it, with a Transmeta processor. After all, it's small, portable, and contains all the data in the world...
And to answer another thread up top: "It's not like I'm using."... "It's like my body's developed this massive drug deficiency.";) --- pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
However, I was pretty thankful for modules the other day when I needed to add a weird parameter to my ethernet card driver to get it to work better. I didn't know which one it was, but I knew which one I tried that *didn't* work....so I ran 'strings' on the module, looked at the names, and counted up six to the correct option number.....;)
Okay, that was just silly, but I was using stock Red Hat stuff, and didn't have the source installed. What can I say, I deserved it....
But yeah, if you get a good, working monolithic configuration, god don't change it. That's what I had in the early days of Linux 2.0 when I was deciding whether to use modules or not. I'm glad I know how to use them now, but it took me a while to get that #@*&in' sound card to agree with me on that point.:) --- pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
...or almost 250 million lira. Not nearly enough, if you ask me.;)
Seriously, the Universal Currency Converter is very cool, and so is GNU Privacy Guard. In fact, I'm in favor of any drop-in replacement that is either faster, produces a better end result, more free, or has better features. And GNU Privacy Guard meets a few of these requirements, just like bzip2 does... --- pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
I somehow figured that the FSF was still doing the maintaining, but I don't really care as long as the same batch of knowledgeable people keep doing what they're doing.
And yes, that is scary. Although I'd like to see a cool IDE development tool, my visions of it always look like a text-based Borland one, so I end up using RHIDE, or more likely grep and pico.:) --- pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
That's what Microsoft calls "anecdotal evidence"....or what I call "what their customers think". Hmm. I think they're ready for it.
However, I did this a while back. I ran DOS, Windows 3.1, and Linux on my P133, 32MB RAM. DOS sucked, Win 3.1 sucked, Linux ran great. When I put Windows NT 4.0SP1 on the same machine, it was slower than Win 3.1 and far slower than Linux, but still acceptable. When I installed SP3, it was slower. The added ActiveDesktop ate easily another 8MB RAM, and slowed the machine to a crawl.
I formatted it and reinstalled Linux. And now I have better sound support than I used to with the earlier version of Red Hat I had on there.
Linux defragged my DOS partition faster in DOSEmu than DOS did natively.;)
Also... running the BYTEMark under DOSEmu, Linux was slower than DOS by about 3%, but running the same benchmark compiled with gcc, Linux had better integer performance (than Watcom + DOS, I guess). However, the 16-bit version for DOS really sucked.:) --- pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
I saw at least one person mention this, but I'll say it again:
The real problem with the Mindcraft benchmark has nothing to do with most of what they cited: the graphs are painfully clear that the limited resource is network bandwidth. That's why it's so funny when they say "We'd never test a server that's resource-limited. What's the point?" That's what I'd ask them now.
Note that they test with one and with four processors, but do not test with one or two ethernet cards. In fact, they never mention the complete hardware configuration of the machine, so we just have to assume they used the same f*cked-up four ethernet card configuration.
There were actually benchmarks put out by c't explaining this, with graphs, and real tasks. Linux performance generally did much better until that second ethernet card was added. I'll believe them, that it's a software limitation in the TCP stack, but I'll also believe that they were exploiting a known problem in the Linux kernel--that only happens under these strange conditions--to their ends. Until they show some benchmarks with the ethernet cards mentioned as a factor.
NT vs. Linux Server Benchmarks: informative and interesting, but most of all truthful, with a link to the c't article I mentioned, and many other more realistic benchmarks. --- pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
Heh. We'd better get to the point where no OSes ever require maintenance, because we'll never get the users to stop expecting miracles.
However, I'm proud that I can defragment my linux drives, but it really doesn't help that much. And proud that it's faster to defragment a DOS drive under DOSEmu/Linux as opposed to just doing it in DOS.:)
Always remember that all operating systems suck, but for some purposes, some operating systems suck less than others, sometimes vastly so... --- pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
Well, the article describes the process fairly well, that is a way to recompile the linux kernel. But it isn't enough to go through the steps with no understanding of what you're doing.
Maybe if you know what your hardware is, you can take out a few options, and end up with less total modules compiled and installed, and you'll end up with a leaner system. As in, Ooo, I just saved 10MB of valuable disk space. Big deal. You could have done that using 'rm' on some useless modules.
Maybe if you knew what you were doing, you could compile in something you always plan to be using as part of the kernel instead of as a module, and get some speed out of it instead. And maybe if you really knew something about egcs, you could change those silly default compiler options to something useful (-fno-strength-reduce often isn't necessary anymore, I hope!) and get some more performance gains. But this article wasn't about that.
Nope, to get any real speed-up in the kernel, you'd have to already know something, and this article assumes you don't. Why make newbies go through this process when it won't help them any? Either document the whole thing for those who *really* want to learn, or don't bother. But don't confuse the people you're trying to convert. They don't know -ffast-math from xcalc. --- pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
What *are* you talking about? Feel free to compile a monolithic kernel on Linux, it works fine. If you want more than one, use LILO. It's a bootloader, that's what it's there for...
Having modules just means that you save a little memory, and don't have to reboot or recompile to support new hardware. That's why distributions use them. It isn't for speed, it's just more flexible.
And on the "flamebait" topic... I'd move away from OpenBSD in general, just on moral grounds. I'm amazed at all the positive press it's gotten, since it should be known as "the OS by and for 31337 d00dz", with Theo at the helm....:) --- pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
Oh man, Georgia Tech students really have nothing better to do with their time, eh?;)
But how could a Dean of a university, or anyone professing to have a university education, not be able to figure out that the above work was a parody, written for a tune and in a meter, and composed by Eric Lorenzo, about a year ago?
It isn't like they intercepted plans to place a bomb under a building at a certain time, or something actually dangerous. However, schools have always been somewhat slow to figure out that free speech rules apply to their students as well... --- pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
It is pitiful when you have to say that, especially since you end up insulting a lot of people.
First, there are the people who don't agree with RMS about calling Linux "GNU/Linux". Linux has nothing to do with the GNU project, except that it's GPL'ed out of respect for GCC. If Linux were part of the GNU project, it would be called "HURD". Maybe RMS might have a point when he's talking about a "GNU/Linux system", but then don't forget to include MIT/X, BSD, and every other major free software project that's been absorbed into a typical Linux system. It'd almost be worth rewriting utilities just to shut them all up.:)
Next, you have the free software != open source debate. Free software is what the GNU Project does, and again they don't think the term open source is equivalent. And in both cases you have to be very careful about what you say and what you mean, since they also think that "free software" has nothing to do with "freeware", and "open source" has nothing to do with many groups and programs that have "open" in the name. And usually they're right, but boy is that nit-picky. Don't even get me started on comparing licenses for holiness...
Finally, zealots are awesome! They're almost as cool as angels. Or maybe I've been beta-testing Heroes 3 for Linux a bit too long... But some people might object to the terminology. And while we're at it, I thought doctors were supposed to fix open sores. Where do the computers come in?;)
So, yeah, don't make the usual pleas, you might end up starting three or four flame wars. And don't say anything about GNOME, KDE, Microsoft, Windows NT, Window Managers, Editors, etc, etc... --- pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
Maybe, but since io.sys (or earlier msdos.sys, they frickin' merged them in Windows '95) directly looks for command.com, you'd need to get a shell replacement. I mean, come on, DOS had one built-in shell, and without that you couldn't do much, except for replacing that file with the application you wanted to run, or another shell.
It's himem.sys and emm386.exe. They're only needed if you want to use high memory, EMS, or XMS, if I remember correctly. You could find replacements for that too, or for the whole thing, like DR-DOS, or FreeDOS, or OpenDOS (or whatever the hell they call it now). They aren't bug-for-bug compatible with the holy MS-DOS 6.22 (last known good DOS), but they're generally good enough.
I suppose next you'll be telling me that the original Unix operating system consisted only of the kernel, and the rest was just add-ons... That's one point of view, but not a very useful one. You might need those basic system tools that were written in assembler, since the OS was created as a development platform for itself, and therefore it was needed to accomplish its goals.;) --- pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
Frankly, I know Ken Williams, and he's a pretty down-to-earth guy. I don't think he'd put up a set of pages like that unless someone really pissed him off. And with the Harvard site: don't you think he could have simply removed the offending material instead of the entire major security site? That was badly handled at the least, and something definitely smelt fishy about it. (as evinced by the groundswell of community support for good ol' Tattooman)
Who cares if this guy's sister is a minor? She wasn't naked, right? I've got pictures of me from elementary school. They aren't illegal.
Oh, and the "I'm just some guy running for office" story doesn't really hold up well with the "I'm just some guy who got raided by the FBI" angle. Even if all Slashdot readers *were* immature, they wouldn't be stupid enough to believe this drivel, as opposed to the man who posted it. (Either he's a moron for listening to himself, he's lying, or both) --- pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
For example, notice how he never stopped to wonder *why* Word didn't run under OS/2 when Wordperfect worked fine... Hmm, well, OS/2 implements a Windows compatibility layer taken from Windows source code. After IBM and Microsoft split, and especially once that source license ran out (another reason why Win '95 got delayed and the API's got changed) you can bet Microsoft employees were frantically hacking Word code to make sure it broke under OS/2. They're currently accused of doing the same thing, intentionally, for DR-DOS and Windows.
And the other stuff he mentioned, they also crushed Stac, and numerous other vendors by bundling products supposedly "good-enough" into Windows. The same "innovative" products that existed under X, GEOS, MacOS, and easily two other GUIs before Windows ever thought of them. (I have a copy of Windows 1.03, it looks remarkably like GEOS did on my Commodore 64, except that it was released much later and it's easily 5-10 times bigger.)
I think I'll agree with the Judge for a fair and impartial opinion after reading the admissible evidence in court than side with a journalist who has an obvious Microsoft bias. (Read his columns, see what I mean, wonder why Byte isn't on the news stands now, and where the advertising money is coming from, and who owns almost all the other trade rags now.....) --- pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
Slashdot Mirror
They should have thought about that before they stuck them together and made one book out of it. After all, they did have a few meetings, and did revise the books some, and didn't allow some of them in the finished work. So they should have caught that error, right?
:)
And you'd better consider if, by quoting that verse out of context, your immortal soul is at risk. It might be safer to just not quote the Bible, and especially don't translate it. You might be damned for your good works. I'm going to stick to Atheism, where it's safe.
I think the clause holds for the whole work, so the churches involved might want to consider releasing an intermediate version with the book of revelations distributed separately until their lawyers can agree on better wording for the license.
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
Yeah, I think I did that, but it didn't work for me that well... However, I've got a weird installation.
:)
But it looks like the Linux version has a command-line switch to create a new account. I didn't try it, but... that's what I get for not reading the documentation.
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
I'm gonna have to go to the lab and try to run this thing on NT to make myself an account, and then copy the data file over or something.
.DLL's, but I got it to run fine up until then.
The linux version doesn't create accounts, right?
I tried running the Windows version under Wine, but it freezes somewhere around connecting to the server ("Checking Version"). I had to grab some
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
On the plus side, run length encoding kicks ass in base zero!
On the minus side, null-terminated strings suck. And terminating everything else is pretty bad too. So find an OS that supports files, and store your numbers in separate files. I'm sure a work-around will be out shortly, but don't switch from your Turing machines just yet...
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
It says on their page that the CS-Cipher supports 0 bit keys! Woo hoo, no bothersome password to remember! Someone should patent that!
...what do you mean plaintext is prior art?
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
If there's a more general solution, I hope it would invalidate a claim like this.
Otherwise, what you're saying is, I can uuencode a jpeg, but I can't uuencode a data file of complex numbers and ftp it to a machine, or something. (okay, the protocols might not be the same, but...)
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
Didn't WABI (and now WINE, of course) basically do this? It's a necessary step in displaying the emulated Windows applications on top of X. I mean, *come on*.
And what about Windows Terminal Server, there's a pretty similar product. Heck, Microsoft could just buy these guys, and have (or bury) X support...
Watch everyone release the same thing, with fragmented X protocols to avoid patenting issues. Patents definitely serve to stifle innovation, not help it.
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
I thought they already tried this with strings and superstrings and other physics mumbo-jumbo. Wake me up when they verify something interesting. This is on the order of "cosmologists aren't sure about dark matter". Big deal, I thought it was a dumb idea to begin with. Let me know when the headline is "theoretical physicists shut up so we can get work done".
:)
However, if they ever do find out something like this, it'd be nice to use gravity as a constant power source, or something. I suppose the next step would involve converting one form into another... But I'd be happy with something simpler, like cold fusion, say.
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
:) And at this rate, we'll have The Matrix (no, no, the one in Neuromancer!) soon enough. It'll be a little crystal with a penguin etched on it, with a Transmeta processor. After all, it's small, portable, and contains all the data in the world...
... "It's like my body's developed this massive drug deficiency." ;)
And to answer another thread up top: "It's not like I'm using."
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
Ah, no, it's even worse, that might not even be 1/19/00, it could be 1/1/900 (!)
:)
Once you break Y2K compliance, who can trust a two-digit date format?
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
:) I would have to agree.
...so I ran 'strings' on the module, looked at the names, and counted up six to the correct option number..... ;)
:)
However, I was pretty thankful for modules the other day when I needed to add a weird parameter to my ethernet card driver to get it to work better. I didn't know which one it was, but I knew which one I tried that *didn't* work.
Okay, that was just silly, but I was using stock Red Hat stuff, and didn't have the source installed. What can I say, I deserved it....
But yeah, if you get a good, working monolithic configuration, god don't change it. That's what I had in the early days of Linux 2.0 when I was deciding whether to use modules or not. I'm glad I know how to use them now, but it took me a while to get that #@*&in' sound card to agree with me on that point.
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
...or almost 250 million lira. Not nearly enough, if you ask me. ;)
Seriously, the Universal Currency Converter is very cool, and so is GNU Privacy Guard. In fact, I'm in favor of any drop-in replacement that is either faster, produces a better end result, more free, or has better features. And GNU Privacy Guard meets a few of these requirements, just like bzip2 does...
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
Excellent. I stand corrected, then.
:)
I somehow figured that the FSF was still doing the maintaining, but I don't really care as long as the same batch of knowledgeable people keep doing what they're doing.
And yes, that is scary. Although I'd like to see a cool IDE development tool, my visions of it always look like a text-based Borland one, so I end up using RHIDE, or more likely grep and pico.
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
I hope they stay good and give some of that technology back to the community.
I'd love to see some of their development tools and innovations folded back into gcc/egcs et al...
Man, it's nice to see what they do with their IPO money. That's sweet! Keep it up, Red Hat...
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
That's what Microsoft calls "anecdotal evidence". ...or what I call "what their customers think". Hmm. I think they're ready for it.
;)
:)
However, I did this a while back. I ran DOS, Windows 3.1, and Linux on my P133, 32MB RAM. DOS sucked, Win 3.1 sucked, Linux ran great. When I put Windows NT 4.0SP1 on the same machine, it was slower than Win 3.1 and far slower than Linux, but still acceptable. When I installed SP3, it was slower. The added ActiveDesktop ate easily another 8MB RAM, and slowed the machine to a crawl.
I formatted it and reinstalled Linux. And now I have better sound support than I used to with the earlier version of Red Hat I had on there.
Linux defragged my DOS partition faster in DOSEmu than DOS did natively.
Also... running the BYTEMark under DOSEmu, Linux was slower than DOS by about 3%, but running the same benchmark compiled with gcc, Linux had better integer performance (than Watcom + DOS, I guess). However, the 16-bit version for DOS really sucked.
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
The real problem with the Mindcraft benchmark has nothing to do with most of what they cited: the graphs are painfully clear that the limited resource is network bandwidth. That's why it's so funny when they say "We'd never test a server that's resource-limited. What's the point?" That's what I'd ask them now.
Note that they test with one and with four processors, but do not test with one or two ethernet cards. In fact, they never mention the complete hardware configuration of the machine, so we just have to assume they used the same f*cked-up four ethernet card configuration.
There were actually benchmarks put out by c't explaining this, with graphs, and real tasks. Linux performance generally did much better until that second ethernet card was added. I'll believe them, that it's a software limitation in the TCP stack, but I'll also believe that they were exploiting a known problem in the Linux kernel--that only happens under these strange conditions--to their ends. Until they show some benchmarks with the ethernet cards mentioned as a factor.
NT vs. Linux Server Benchmarks: informative and interesting, but most of all truthful, with a link to the c't article I mentioned, and many other more realistic benchmarks.
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
Heh. We'd better get to the point where no OSes ever require maintenance, because we'll never get the users to stop expecting miracles.
:)
However, I'm proud that I can defragment my linux drives, but it really doesn't help that much. And proud that it's faster to defragment a DOS drive under DOSEmu/Linux as opposed to just doing it in DOS.
Always remember that all operating systems suck, but for some purposes, some operating systems suck less than others, sometimes vastly so...
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
Well, the article describes the process fairly well, that is a way to recompile the linux kernel. But it isn't enough to go through the steps with no understanding of what you're doing.
Maybe if you know what your hardware is, you can take out a few options, and end up with less total modules compiled and installed, and you'll end up with a leaner system. As in, Ooo, I just saved 10MB of valuable disk space. Big deal. You could have done that using 'rm' on some useless modules.
Maybe if you knew what you were doing, you could compile in something you always plan to be using as part of the kernel instead of as a module, and get some speed out of it instead. And maybe if you really knew something about egcs, you could change those silly default compiler options to something useful (-fno-strength-reduce often isn't necessary anymore, I hope!) and get some more performance gains. But this article wasn't about that.
Nope, to get any real speed-up in the kernel, you'd have to already know something, and this article assumes you don't. Why make newbies go through this process when it won't help them any? Either document the whole thing for those who *really* want to learn, or don't bother. But don't confuse the people you're trying to convert. They don't know -ffast-math from xcalc.
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
What *are* you talking about? Feel free to compile a monolithic kernel on Linux, it works fine. If you want more than one, use LILO. It's a bootloader, that's what it's there for...
:)
Having modules just means that you save a little memory, and don't have to reboot or recompile to support new hardware. That's why distributions use them. It isn't for speed, it's just more flexible.
And on the "flamebait" topic... I'd move away from OpenBSD in general, just on moral grounds. I'm amazed at all the positive press it's gotten, since it should be known as "the OS by and for 31337 d00dz", with Theo at the helm....
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
Oh man, Georgia Tech students really have nothing better to do with their time, eh? ;)
But how could a Dean of a university, or anyone professing to have a university education, not be able to figure out that the above work was a parody, written for a tune and in a meter, and composed by Eric Lorenzo, about a year ago?
It isn't like they intercepted plans to place a bomb under a building at a certain time, or something actually dangerous. However, schools have always been somewhat slow to figure out that free speech rules apply to their students as well...
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
It is pitiful when you have to say that, especially since you end up insulting a lot of people.
:)
;)
First, there are the people who don't agree with RMS about calling Linux "GNU/Linux". Linux has nothing to do with the GNU project, except that it's GPL'ed out of respect for GCC. If Linux were part of the GNU project, it would be called "HURD". Maybe RMS might have a point when he's talking about a "GNU/Linux system", but then don't forget to include MIT/X, BSD, and every other major free software project that's been absorbed into a typical Linux system. It'd almost be worth rewriting utilities just to shut them all up.
Next, you have the free software != open source debate. Free software is what the GNU Project does, and again they don't think the term open source is equivalent. And in both cases you have to be very careful about what you say and what you mean, since they also think that "free software" has nothing to do with "freeware", and "open source" has nothing to do with many groups and programs that have "open" in the name. And usually they're right, but boy is that nit-picky. Don't even get me started on comparing licenses for holiness...
Finally, zealots are awesome! They're almost as cool as angels. Or maybe I've been beta-testing Heroes 3 for Linux a bit too long... But some people might object to the terminology. And while we're at it, I thought doctors were supposed to fix open sores. Where do the computers come in?
So, yeah, don't make the usual pleas, you might end up starting three or four flame wars. And don't say anything about GNOME, KDE, Microsoft, Windows NT, Window Managers, Editors, etc, etc...
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
Maybe, but since io.sys (or earlier msdos.sys, they frickin' merged them in Windows '95) directly looks for command.com, you'd need to get a shell replacement. I mean, come on, DOS had one built-in shell, and without that you couldn't do much, except for replacing that file with the application you wanted to run, or another shell.
;)
It's himem.sys and emm386.exe. They're only needed if you want to use high memory, EMS, or XMS, if I remember correctly. You could find replacements for that too, or for the whole thing, like DR-DOS, or FreeDOS, or OpenDOS (or whatever the hell they call it now). They aren't bug-for-bug compatible with the holy MS-DOS 6.22 (last known good DOS), but they're generally good enough.
I suppose next you'll be telling me that the original Unix operating system consisted only of the kernel, and the rest was just add-ons... That's one point of view, but not a very useful one. You might need those basic system tools that were written in assembler, since the OS was created as a development platform for itself, and therefore it was needed to accomplish its goals.
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
Frankly, I know Ken Williams, and he's a pretty down-to-earth guy. I don't think he'd put up a set of pages like that unless someone really pissed him off. And with the Harvard site: don't you think he could have simply removed the offending material instead of the entire major security site? That was badly handled at the least, and something definitely smelt fishy about it. (as evinced by the groundswell of community support for good ol' Tattooman)
Who cares if this guy's sister is a minor? She wasn't naked, right? I've got pictures of me from elementary school. They aren't illegal.
Oh, and the "I'm just some guy running for office" story doesn't really hold up well with the "I'm just some guy who got raided by the FBI" angle. Even if all Slashdot readers *were* immature, they wouldn't be stupid enough to believe this drivel, as opposed to the man who posted it. (Either he's a moron for listening to himself, he's lying, or both)
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
Dr. Evil pronounces sh as 'shh!'.
So I guess csh would be 'c - shh!',
and tcsh would be 'tc - shh!'...
(C shh! and Turbo C shh? See Dr. Evil shh?)
Anyhow, that sums up my opinion on the pronounciation holy wars:
SHH!
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.
Jerry is to Byte as Katz is to Slashdot.
Unfortunately, he's a Microsoft fan, too.
For example, notice how he never stopped to wonder *why* Word didn't run under OS/2 when Wordperfect worked fine... Hmm, well, OS/2 implements a Windows compatibility layer taken from Windows source code. After IBM and Microsoft split, and especially once that source license ran out (another reason why Win '95 got delayed and the API's got changed) you can bet Microsoft employees were frantically hacking Word code to make sure it broke under OS/2. They're currently accused of doing the same thing, intentionally, for DR-DOS and Windows.
And the other stuff he mentioned, they also crushed Stac, and numerous other vendors by bundling products supposedly "good-enough" into Windows. The same "innovative" products that existed under X, GEOS, MacOS, and easily two other GUIs before Windows ever thought of them. (I have a copy of Windows 1.03, it looks remarkably like GEOS did on my Commodore 64, except that it was released much later and it's easily 5-10 times bigger.)
I think I'll agree with the Judge for a fair and impartial opinion after reading the admissible evidence in court than side with a journalist who has an obvious Microsoft bias. (Read his columns, see what I mean, wonder why Byte isn't on the news stands now, and where the advertising money is coming from, and who owns almost all the other trade rags now.....)
---
pb Reply rather than vaguely moderate me.