Yeah, that was a bit of a rant. I was pissed off, I just didn't want to see another silly religion comment in a topic that doesn't need it... unfortunately I might have made a few myself, but I try to give facts rather than opinions or speculation.
Sure, it's open. My point was that it's *so* open that anyone can use the code, for any purpose, and make it proprietary, like MacOS X. But that isn't even a big deal, compared to the attitude of their users who post (stupid stuff) on slashdot. They don't need support like that...
On the machines I use, Solaris is inferior to Linux. I've never used a machine running Solaris with more than one processor, nor am I prepared to pay for one. At my university, we use Solaris and NT for desktops. The Solaris machines range from Sparc 4 to Ultra 10, and I've used Sparc 1+, Sun 4, and Sun 3 machines. (they ran SunOS, but... well, close enough for my purposes)
If I replaced any of the NT boxes with Linux, it would be a beautiful machine. All-SCSI hardware, PII-400s, at least 128MB of RAM in each of them. The SPARCs are friggin UltraSPARC 300's with floppy drives (no CDROM), IDE harddrives, and an equivalent amount of RAM. They are, of course, still faster than the NT machines for most tasks, and don't waste as much memory, but aren't what I call efficient, either. Blame RISC architecture or shoddy hardware, but they also cost about as much as the NT boxes. The actual processor speed, by the way, is about equivalent to my K6/300 running Linux, so I got a machine that's, say, 4 times cheaper and runs things at the same (or better!) speed.
I don't think Solaris boxes could beat Linux boxes from a price/performance point of view, (which is what I care about) and although Solaris boxes may do SMP better (that's what I've heard, I haven't tested it) I'm sure they are very expensive, and Linux clusters very well. (64-processor SMP == 16 boxes clustered with 4-processor SMP, assuming you have enough bandwidth. Which is most of what people do, POVray, web servers, everything except for the most high-end and esoteric simulations. And some people still do that on Linux for the price/performance ratio!:)
...and my argument against Sun hardware is: you get what you pay for. You can run Linux on the same hardware, and even get the same parts for an x86 machine or an Alpha... Some of the SPARCs here use IDE harddrives, heck, I used a PowerMac that did too, one time. So the PC hardware is crappy argument doesn't work, especially since Linux runs on most hardware *and* processors.
(unlike Solaris, NT, AIX, etc, etc. This is actually one area where the *BSD's also do better than the commercial equivalents, too. I could just do without their supporters, if I want that, I'll read User Friendly.:)
The topic of the article is "Why is Microsoft worrying about Linux?", so don't be surprised if the author talks about it and not your favorite server OS... All he said was that "Hotmail originally ran on Sun SPARCStations and Solaris", which is true, he mentions that Microsoft failed in moving it to NT, and then he says:
(If you just can't believe Microsoft runs Hotmail on Unix, see the recent Bull Software press release, "Bull awarded major contract from Microsoft for system management software," which states that:
The initial order is for OpenMaster to manage the hundreds of servers and network connections of Hotmail, the world's leading e-mail service, which currently provides worldwide e-mail services to more than 35 million users.
OpenMaster runs on and manages AIX and Solaris, not Windows NT.)
That is it. Maybe hotmail didn't originally run on FreeBSD. Hotmail's site doesn't say *anything* about AIX or Solaris or FreeBSD, and he only cites one source which doesn't mention any *BSD. Maybe this wasn't the topic of the article anyway. He doesn't rule out the possibility, because he says that "hotmail runs on Unix", more than one, and doesn't list them all.
I'm sorry to rant off-topic, but the backlash against Linux from the *BSD crowd around here is really starting to piss me off. I don't use *BSD, but I am somewhat impressed at what they've managed to do, since they have a Linux emulator which apparently runs well, and are also generally renowned for stability. However, it's just another Unix, and not an incredibly popular one at that. Linux is popular, Solaris is well-known but inferior, *BSD is still good, but generally works and rots in a corner. Why? Maybe their development model doesn't work as well with a free community. Maybe if the kernel development were less tight-knit, you'd see more interest, or maybe if it were GPL'ed, instead of stolen by any commercial interest and then re-released proprietarily (read: Apple, for one:) and marketed better. I could see how users of such an OS would get to feel somewhat inferior, but this isn't *my* problem, and I don't care. I try to post informative comments, and I don't need stupid ones cluttering up the place.
Someone mentioned earlier about how Solaris ran on x86 hardware when we had a small flamewar about server/operating systems, and I had a *one-line* post about how Linux also runs on SPARC hardware. What response did I get?
Not on all hardware and not very well, don't let your religion pull the wool over your eyes.--I didn't say that Linux was GOD, I just mentioned that it ran on the same friggin' hardware. I could have mentioned that it was also faster, in, say, kernel latency, or cheaper, or runs on *better hardware* (this UltraSPARC has a friggin' IDE drive in it, it's still expensive, and it doesn't run as well as my K6/300 which has crappier hardware and runs Linux) because that is a *documented fact*, but I didn't, and the bastard read into my post that *didn't* have any hidden meaning. (but I wish it had now...)
...if you want a definitive answer to your question, write to the author, don't whine to us, and I hope he slams you as hard as any of us can for acting like a moron and assuming things that you don't know.
exactly, and even using Wine it should be as fast, or faster.
I wouldn't be surprised if the underlying calls were better written, and faster, on Linux, due to the compiler, lack of API coverage, (stub calls are faster, when they work:) and better-written underlying OS.
I remember when I'd defragment my DOS partition under DOSEmu because it was faster, Linux would cache that space and DOS would just churn the HD. Those were the days, now everything is ext2.:)
Yeah, a lot of boxes don't accept finger queries these days anyhow, and we've got the friggin' proprietary chat programs instead (which run on everything, including Windows) and I'm sure they're just as bad...
It's not hard to set the size of the process table, anyhow, whenever something forks too much you'll get errors, but it won't usually crash a box.
Even NT doesn't always crash in low memory conditions, but good luck getting that memory back!:)
If what you are saying is that your perl scripts are just as fast as your C programs, then I must ask you:
what the hell are you talking about?
Write this in Perl for me, or write it in shell, and tell me which is fastest. I bet it's C.
#include <stdlib.h> #include <stdio.h> int main(int argc, char * argv[]) { int l, h, s, i; if (argc>=2) { l = atoi(argv[1]); h = atoi(argv[2]); if (l>h) { s = l; l = h; h = s; } s = 1; if (argc>=3) s = atoi(argv[3]); for (i=l;i=h;i+=s) printf("%d ",i); } return 0; }
The name is "Linux", no one is changing it now. It refers to the kernel, do whatever you want to the system, including using lcc and lsh, and rewriting ed to be edlin-compliant, I don't care, it doesn't mean we're changing the name of the OS to "Lindos", or "Lindows", and if we use the GNU tools, it won't be "LiGnux"...
RMS's idea of a "GNU/Linux" system is okay, except that (a) of course he wants "GNU" first, and (b) what's to stop us from calling it a "GNU(GPL'ed) X11(X11/MIT) Wine(Artistic) INSERT_APP_HERE(LICENSE) etc. etc. Linux" system?
I gotta say that post was really lame, it opens up about a million places where you can be flamed. I use Netscape on a Solaris box. I have no choice in the matter because IE[4|5] for Solaris never works, so I do not appreciate your bullshit "[Linux] is not the end-all of OS excellence."
BTW: NT in this lab leaks memory to the point where any machine is unusable after 10 days (300MB of memory used, swap is full, 100MB kernel memory) and needs to be rebooted after 5 days. This is NT4SP4, with all kinds of extra stuff (AFS, NDS) to attempt to make it into a working system. Muhuhahaha! I've seen Linux run for that long without using 20MB of RAM!
Face it guys, Slashdot is fun. I like Slashdot. But KlomDark is not the end-all of OS excellence.
But, a big FUCK YOU to KlomDark. What an imbecile.
The Creationist Theory. There was nothing, which was God. And he made everything.
The applications are there, if you look for them. No, not MS-Office. Unfortunately, WINE will run some versions of that beast, but at least it won't bring your system down like Office does under Windows.
I really like the bit about the "weak anti-trust defense". Poke, poke...
It isn't like you don't have any choices, unless you install windows. (let me know when windows comes with multiple, independent editors and e-mail servers, and everything else. Then let me know when you find a good *text* editor for it, and a good e-mail server, etc, etc. Then let me know if you had to port UNIX to do it.:)
As for the article, it was completely wrong. Testing programs for errors has nothing to do with how long their source code is. Seeing as how Linux is currently *the* *dominant* *unix* in the market, I don't see how the other players could do any better. Linux may not scale quite as well on other people's specific enterprise hardware configurations, but it can't do worse than NT. Therefore, Microsoft also fails the acid test.
What was the test again?
please now, no GPL is not the end of the world
on
Rumours
·
· Score: 1
No, you moron, it doesn't say "compiled", it says "used in the production of services".
By this reasoning, writing this line of shell script wouldn't be allowed (if I wrote and executed it, say, on a linux box)
grep -v ^# stupid.file > stupid.uncommented.file
However, writing this line of code on this NT machine and running it would be fine:
find/v "#" stupid.txt > stupid.sh
However, find and grep are not the same. Specifically, find is a proprietary cheap ripoff of grep. This is why find has no equivalent to ^# (matching strings starting with #) and therefore I would have to write a proprietary replacement to find, or find a grep that isn't GPL'ed.
How does using a GPL'ed utility hurt Sprint? It doesn't. There are no licensing issues for using GPL'ed software for the production of anything. There *are* licensing issues for modifying GPL'ed software, and recompiling it. (or, for that matter, stealing code, which you can't really do in the proprietary programs anyhow.)
Solution? Treat a GPL'ed binary like a proprietary binary. Don't read source unless you're going to use the GPL.
Basically, this contract needs to be more specific, and you need to figure out what a derivative work means. (I read the GPL, and it's not as broad or as boneheaded as that snippet from the Sprint license. (Specifically, if you need *more* explanation, the Sprint license is talking about use of programs, the GPL is talking about source code. Got it?) )
Example: a simple phrase, some mixed case, and punctuation. No matter how simple it is, if you brute-force it, you have to scan all the possibilities. Even using dictionary look-ups, you're still looking at combinations of words and punctuation.
For instance, if you wanted to brute-force my PGP-key, with, say, a 64-digit character set, you would have to look through at least roughly 10^38 character combinations.
Assuming you made a lot of assumptions about dictionary words, capitalization, and punctuation, you'd still be looking at (at least) 10^25 different phrases, and there's no guarantee you'll find it that way.
Each lookup will take some time to compare, unless you really hack PGP. And by then, it would have been easier to make a fake key to impersonate me, or threaten me at gunpoint, or make a fake identity, or accomplish cold fusion, or just about anything else.
In fact, he mentions the meaning he's using... "sissy". If I say people are gay, that can also mean they're joyful. If I say people are "faggy", that can also mean they're sissies. Learn to properly interpret connotations.
Mark Twain called black people niggers because that's what everyone called them. It was common speak for "negroid", which was the politically correct term then. Because people today can't interpret what he was saying then, Huckleberry Finn is sometimes banned. Because you can't interpret what this author is saying now, you're upset and calling him names.
Try to understand what people mean before you slander them.
Nope, you're right, they were trying to say that applications won't benefit from the new capabilities, when it's obvious that they will, if they are properly written.
Examples:
glibc (threads)
make -j (fork:)
The Gimp (plug-ins are separate processes)
graphical mp3 players (fork off the GUI, the player, and sometimes even the oscilloscope)
Compare to Photoshop on the Mac, the only application that supported *any* kind of extra processor usage for a long time.:)
Or, for that matter, NT, which has much the same problem, actually, apparently unless you configure it properly and say the magic words and stuff... (I have yet to see this)
But seriously, I don't have a whole lot of experience with graphics (drawing or code, but less with drawing) but I'd love an Ultima 6-style game for Linux, multiplayer or no...
(in fact, isn't there a project like that already? I guess we're not the only ones, then...:)
Yeah, I'm sure that in 1985 *everyone* had their hardware-accelerated 3d stuff working... Besides, DOS is older than 1985, and based on work that was older still.
Just as DOS (or CP/M) is the basis for what is today Windows, UNIX is the basis for Linux. (they weren't *finished* in 1960, you freak...)
If you've ever read his books, you know he must have been a UNIX dude from way back, and his comments on Linux are pretty intelligent, too.
Sure, there isn't a whole lot of new stuff here, but the strategy looks sound, like what RedHat as a commercial firm is currently trying to do... (and winning:) This is fine with me, because Caldera overcharges, and basically just wants to be another Microsoft.
The chances of there being exactly *one* UNIX in the far future are about as likely as MacOS replacing Windows with all future computers looking like iMacs on steroids.
(and a commercial UNIX? Get real... Like anyone will want to buy a source license again after Microsoft fades out.)
First, I would like to say that John Carmack (& id) is the god of all 3d-shooter-PC-game programming. Why? Because each time he releases a 3d-shooter it is better than all the ones before it on the same platform. Period.
(This is also why Linus (& friends) is the god of all Operating System design. Each time a stable port of Linux is released for a new platform, it is faster than the old OS on the same hardware. (provided it doesn't use Mach, for a fair comparison, both OSes would have to use it))
Second, I have read rants like this before. Low-level weenie? Hey, I resemble that remark! My computer is x86 based, it's an AMD K6/300. The whole package, including the 17" monitor was under $1100, cheaper, faster, and generally superior than the iMac offerings around the same time. And it has a mouse with two mouse buttons, emulating three. I like my "features". And toasters are easier to "learn" how to use than are computers. But I'm not going to try to run a web server off of a toaster...
And notice that Carmack didn't bash the hardware, but the OS. This is the real issue. If it had been cheaper, I would have gotten a PPC-based computer, and put PPCLinux on it... but the offerings from Apple are too expensive, and I prefer having compatibility with at least one other native OS. (I use DOSEmu and WINE as it is, maybe if SheepShaver gets ported I'll switch hardware platforms)
And why does Carmack bash the MacOS? Because it sucks! This is not a GUI argument here, people. This is about the underlying OS. It's supposed to provide file services, access to RAM, etc, etc. And that sucks. If you want a unified look-and-feel, then you have to convince all app developers to only use your API the way you intended (which Apple does) but that is *not* an OS issue, it's a friggin' user interface issue.
Therefore, this article was off-topic, which is pretty bad considering...
HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 22:33:13 GMT Server: Apache/1.2.5 FrontPage/3.0.4 Last-Modified: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 20:10:05 GMT ETag: "3b815-2d9-3692719d" Content-Length: 729 Accept-Ranges: bytes Connection: close Content-Type: text/html
Incidentally, it looks like Microsoft *does* provide these server extensions, but I'd rather use the GPL'ed version... (provides source, isn't as slow as ftp.microsoft.com, etc...:)
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that was a bit of a rant. I was pissed off, I just didn't want to see another silly religion comment in a topic that doesn't need it... unfortunately I might have made a few myself, but I try to give facts rather than opinions or speculation.
:)
:)
Sure, it's open. My point was that it's *so* open that anyone can use the code, for any purpose, and make it proprietary, like MacOS X. But that isn't even a big deal, compared to the attitude of their users who post (stupid stuff) on slashdot. They don't need support like that...
On the machines I use, Solaris is inferior to Linux. I've never used a machine running Solaris with more than one processor, nor am I prepared to pay for one. At my university, we use Solaris and NT for desktops. The Solaris machines range from Sparc 4 to Ultra 10, and I've used Sparc 1+, Sun 4, and Sun 3 machines. (they ran SunOS, but... well, close enough for my purposes)
If I replaced any of the NT boxes with Linux, it would be a beautiful machine. All-SCSI hardware, PII-400s, at least 128MB of RAM in each of them. The SPARCs are friggin UltraSPARC 300's with floppy drives (no CDROM), IDE harddrives, and an equivalent amount of RAM. They are, of course, still faster than the NT machines for most tasks, and don't waste as much memory, but aren't what I call efficient, either. Blame RISC architecture or shoddy hardware, but they also cost about as much as the NT boxes. The actual processor speed, by the way, is about equivalent to my K6/300 running Linux, so I got a machine that's, say, 4 times cheaper and runs things at the same (or better!) speed.
I don't think Solaris boxes could beat Linux boxes from a price/performance point of view, (which is what I care about) and although Solaris boxes may do SMP better (that's what I've heard, I haven't tested it) I'm sure they are very expensive, and Linux clusters very well. (64-processor SMP == 16 boxes clustered with 4-processor SMP, assuming you have enough bandwidth. Which is most of what people do, POVray, web servers, everything except for the most high-end and esoteric simulations. And some people still do that on Linux for the price/performance ratio!
...and my argument against Sun hardware is: you get what you pay for. You can run Linux on the same hardware, and even get the same parts for an x86 machine or an Alpha... Some of the SPARCs here use IDE harddrives, heck, I used a PowerMac that did too, one time. So the PC hardware is crappy argument doesn't work, especially since Linux runs on most hardware *and* processors.
(unlike Solaris, NT, AIX, etc, etc. This is actually one area where the *BSD's also do better than the commercial equivalents, too. I could just do without their supporters, if I want that, I'll read User Friendly.
Heh, they're only "crackers" if they're all white boys. Oops, I thought I was a hacker, but I don't make furniture with an axe... :)
The topic of the article is "Why is Microsoft worrying about Linux?", so don't be surprised if the author talks about it and not your favorite server OS... All he said was that "Hotmail originally ran on Sun SPARCStations and Solaris", which is true, he mentions that Microsoft failed in moving it to NT, and then he says:
:) and marketed better. I could see how users of such an OS would get to feel somewhat inferior, but this isn't *my* problem, and I don't care. I try to post informative comments, and I don't need stupid ones cluttering up the place.
(If you just can't believe Microsoft runs Hotmail on Unix, see the
recent Bull Software press release, "Bull awarded major contract from
Microsoft for system management software," which states that:
The initial order is for OpenMaster to manage the hundreds of servers
and network connections of Hotmail, the world's leading e-mail
service, which currently provides worldwide e-mail services to more
than 35 million users.
OpenMaster runs on and manages AIX and Solaris, not Windows NT.)
That is it. Maybe hotmail didn't originally run on FreeBSD. Hotmail's site doesn't say *anything* about AIX or Solaris or FreeBSD, and he only cites one source which doesn't mention any *BSD. Maybe this wasn't the topic of the article anyway. He doesn't rule out the possibility, because he says that "hotmail runs on Unix", more than one, and doesn't list them all.
I'm sorry to rant off-topic, but the backlash against Linux from the *BSD crowd around here is really starting to piss me off. I don't use *BSD, but I am somewhat impressed at what they've managed to do, since they have a Linux emulator which apparently runs well, and are also generally renowned for stability. However, it's just another Unix, and not an incredibly popular one at that. Linux is popular, Solaris is well-known but inferior, *BSD is still good, but generally works and rots in a corner. Why? Maybe their development model doesn't work as well with a free community. Maybe if the kernel development were less tight-knit, you'd see more interest, or maybe if it were GPL'ed, instead of stolen by any commercial interest and then re-released proprietarily (read: Apple, for one
Someone mentioned earlier about how Solaris ran on x86 hardware when we had a small flamewar about server/operating systems, and I had a *one-line* post about how Linux also runs on SPARC hardware. What response did I get?
Not on all hardware and not very well, don't let your religion pull the wool over your eyes.--I didn't say that Linux was GOD, I just mentioned that it ran on the same friggin' hardware. I could have mentioned that it was also faster, in, say, kernel latency, or cheaper, or runs on *better hardware* (this UltraSPARC has a friggin' IDE drive in it, it's still expensive, and it doesn't run as well as my K6/300 which has crappier hardware and runs Linux) because that is a *documented fact*, but I didn't, and the bastard read into my post that *didn't* have any hidden meaning. (but I wish it had now...)
...if you want a definitive answer to your question, write to the author, don't whine to us, and I hope he slams you as hard as any of us can for acting like a moron and assuming things that you don't know.
...and Linux runs on SPARC hardware. :)
Two words for you: Windows_95_sucks.mp3 :)
"My 3-8-6, ain't got the speed,
gonna havta buy myself a brand new machine,
whoa-o-o-oa..."
Oh man, I love that song.
exactly, and even using Wine it should be as fast, or faster.
:) and better-written underlying OS.
:)
I wouldn't be surprised if the underlying calls were better written, and faster, on Linux, due to the compiler, lack of API coverage, (stub calls are faster, when they work
I remember when I'd defragment my DOS partition under DOSEmu because it was faster, Linux would cache that space and DOS would just churn the HD. Those were the days, now everything is ext2.
Yeah, a lot of boxes don't accept finger queries these days anyhow, and we've got the friggin' proprietary chat programs instead (which run on everything, including Windows) and I'm sure they're just as bad...
:)
It's not hard to set the size of the process table, anyhow, whenever something forks too much you'll get errors, but it won't usually crash a box.
Even NT doesn't always crash in low memory conditions, but good luck getting that memory back!
If what you are saying is that your perl scripts are just as fast as your C programs, then I must ask you:
what the hell are you talking about?
Write this in Perl for me, or write it in shell, and tell me which is fastest. I bet it's C.
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char * argv[]) {
int l, h, s, i;
if (argc>=2) {
l = atoi(argv[1]);
h = atoi(argv[2]);
if (l>h) { s = l; l = h; h = s; }
s = 1;
if (argc>=3)
s = atoi(argv[3]);
for (i=l;i=h;i+=s) printf("%d ",i);
}
return 0;
}
I have to agree.
The name is "Linux", no one is changing it now.
It refers to the kernel, do whatever you want to the system, including using lcc and lsh, and rewriting ed to be edlin-compliant, I don't care, it doesn't mean we're changing the name of the OS to "Lindos", or "Lindows", and if we use the GNU tools, it won't be "LiGnux"...
RMS's idea of a "GNU/Linux" system is okay, except that (a) of course he wants "GNU" first, and (b) what's to stop us from calling it a "GNU(GPL'ed) X11(X11/MIT) Wine(Artistic) INSERT_APP_HERE(LICENSE) etc. etc. Linux" system?
Nope, way too complicated.
Friggin' Lugnuts...
I gotta say that post was really lame, it opens up about a million places where you can be flamed. I use Netscape on a Solaris box. I have no choice in the matter because IE[4|5] for Solaris never works, so I do not appreciate your bullshit "[Linux] is not the end-all of OS excellence."
BTW: NT in this lab leaks memory to the point where any machine is unusable after 10 days (300MB of memory used, swap is full, 100MB kernel memory) and needs to be rebooted after 5 days. This is NT4SP4, with all kinds of extra stuff (AFS, NDS) to attempt to make it into a working system. Muhuhahaha! I've seen Linux run for that long without using 20MB of RAM!
Face it guys, Slashdot is fun. I like Slashdot. But KlomDark is not the end-all of OS excellence.
But, a big FUCK YOU to KlomDark. What an imbecile.
The Creationist Theory. There was nothing, which was God. And he made everything.
Yep, that's pretty realistic there.
The applications are there, if you look for them. No, not MS-Office. Unfortunately, WINE will run some versions of that beast, but at least it won't bring your system down like Office does under Windows.
I really like the bit about the "weak anti-trust defense". Poke, poke...
If you don't like Emacs, use vi (I like pico).
:)
If you don't like sendmail, use qmail.
It isn't like you don't have any choices, unless you install windows. (let me know when windows comes with multiple, independent editors and e-mail servers, and everything else. Then let me know when you find a good *text* editor for it, and a good e-mail server, etc, etc. Then let me know if you had to port UNIX to do it.
As for the article, it was completely wrong. Testing programs for errors has nothing to do with how long their source code is. Seeing as how Linux is currently *the* *dominant* *unix* in the market, I don't see how the other players could do any better. Linux may not scale quite as well on other people's specific enterprise hardware configurations, but it can't do worse than NT. Therefore, Microsoft also fails the acid test.
What was the test again?
No, you moron, it doesn't say "compiled", it says "used in the production of services".
/v "#" stupid.txt > stupid.sh
By this reasoning, writing this line of shell script wouldn't be allowed (if I wrote and executed it, say, on a linux box)
grep -v ^# stupid.file > stupid.uncommented.file
However, writing this line of code on this NT machine and running it would be fine:
find
However, find and grep are not the same. Specifically, find is a proprietary cheap ripoff of grep. This is why find has no equivalent to ^# (matching strings starting with #) and therefore I would have to write a proprietary replacement to find, or find a grep that isn't GPL'ed.
How does using a GPL'ed utility hurt Sprint? It doesn't. There are no licensing issues for using GPL'ed software for the production of anything. There *are* licensing issues for modifying GPL'ed software, and recompiling it. (or, for that matter, stealing code, which you can't really do in the proprietary programs anyhow.)
Solution? Treat a GPL'ed binary like a proprietary binary. Don't read source unless you're going to use the GPL.
Basically, this contract needs to be more specific, and you need to figure out what a derivative work means. (I read the GPL, and it's not as broad or as boneheaded as that snippet from the Sprint license. (Specifically, if you need *more* explanation, the Sprint license is talking about use of programs, the GPL is talking about source code. Got it?) )
"A few orders of magnitude" is a whole lot.
Example: a simple phrase, some mixed case, and punctuation. No matter how simple it is, if you brute-force it, you have to scan all the possibilities. Even using dictionary look-ups, you're still looking at combinations of words and punctuation.
For instance, if you wanted to brute-force my PGP-key, with, say, a 64-digit character set, you would have to look through at least roughly 10^38 character combinations.
Assuming you made a lot of assumptions about dictionary words, capitalization, and punctuation, you'd still be looking at (at least) 10^25 different phrases, and there's no guarantee you'll find it that way.
Each lookup will take some time to compare, unless you really hack PGP. And by then, it would have been easier to make a fake key to impersonate me, or threaten me at gunpoint, or make a fake identity, or accomplish cold fusion, or just about anything else.
No, man, it has other meanings.
In fact, he mentions the meaning he's using... "sissy". If I say people are gay, that can also mean they're joyful. If I say people are "faggy", that can also mean they're sissies. Learn to properly interpret connotations.
Mark Twain called black people niggers because that's what everyone called them. It was common speak for "negroid", which was the politically correct term then. Because people today can't interpret what he was saying then, Huckleberry Finn is sometimes banned. Because you can't interpret what this author is saying now, you're upset and calling him names.
Try to understand what people mean before you slander them.
Nope, you're right, they were trying to say that applications won't benefit from the new capabilities, when it's obvious that they will, if they are properly written.
:)
:)
Examples:
glibc (threads)
make -j (fork
The Gimp (plug-ins are separate processes)
graphical mp3 players (fork off the GUI, the player, and sometimes even the oscilloscope)
Compare to Photoshop on the Mac, the only application that supported *any* kind of extra processor usage for a long time.
Or, for that matter, NT, which has much the same problem, actually, apparently unless you configure it properly and say the magic words and stuff... (I have yet to see this)
Oh my god! A sound file available for public download! I never did that over ZMODEM before!
Yay! Screw RTIME, Ultima 6 rocks!
:)
But seriously, I don't have a whole lot of experience with graphics (drawing or code, but less with drawing) but I'd love an Ultima 6-style game for Linux, multiplayer or no...
(in fact, isn't there a project like that already? I guess we're not the only ones, then...
Yeah, I'm sure that in 1985 *everyone* had their hardware-accelerated 3d stuff working... Besides, DOS is older than 1985, and based on work that was older still.
Just as DOS (or CP/M) is the basis for what is today Windows, UNIX is the basis for Linux.
(they weren't *finished* in 1960, you freak...)
is Rick Cook!
If you've ever read his books, you know he must have been a UNIX dude from way back, and his comments on Linux are pretty intelligent, too.
Sure, there isn't a whole lot of new stuff here, but the strategy looks sound, like what RedHat as a commercial firm is currently trying to do... (and winning
(besides, his books are funny and fun-to-read
The chances of there being exactly *one* UNIX in the far future are about as likely as MacOS replacing Windows with all future computers looking like iMacs on steroids.
(and a commercial UNIX? Get real... Like anyone will want to buy a source license again after Microsoft fades out.)
here's my opinion on that:
Z 3GzaPUGdSEOPxLpE
:)
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: 2.6.2
pgAAAC3X92V/VZV7hVVNY4TOUBuxVbh8IC3HnXJwuqndVtV
sMU=
=NHcT
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
...the password is everyone's favorite metasyntactic syllable, three letters, lowercase. (nope, it's not 'bar'.
Gorillas did a good job with bananas... :)
First, I would like to say that John Carmack (& id) is the god of all 3d-shooter-PC-game programming. Why? Because each time he releases a 3d-shooter it is better than all the ones before it on the same platform. Period.
(This is also why Linus (& friends) is the god of all Operating System design. Each time a stable port of Linux is released for a new platform, it is faster than the old OS on the same hardware. (provided it doesn't use Mach, for a fair comparison, both OSes would have to use it))
Second, I have read rants like this before. Low-level weenie? Hey, I resemble that remark! My computer is x86 based, it's an AMD K6/300. The whole package, including the 17" monitor was under $1100, cheaper, faster, and generally superior than the iMac offerings around the same time. And it has a mouse with two mouse buttons, emulating three. I like my "features". And toasters are easier to "learn" how to use than are computers. But I'm not going to try to run a web server off of a toaster...
And notice that Carmack didn't bash the hardware, but the OS. This is the real issue. If it had been cheaper, I would have gotten a PPC-based computer, and put PPCLinux on it... but the offerings from Apple are too expensive, and I prefer having compatibility with at least one other native OS. (I use DOSEmu and WINE as it is, maybe if SheepShaver gets ported I'll switch hardware platforms)
And why does Carmack bash the MacOS? Because it sucks! This is not a GUI argument here, people. This is about the underlying OS. It's supposed to provide file services, access to RAM, etc, etc. And that sucks. If you want a unified look-and-feel, then you have to convince all app developers to only use your API the way you intended (which Apple does) but that is *not* an OS issue, it's a friggin' user interface issue.
Therefore, this article was off-topic, which is pretty bad considering...
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 22:33:13 GMT
Server: Apache/1.2.5 FrontPage/3.0.4
Last-Modified: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 20:10:05 GMT
ETag: "3b815-2d9-3692719d"
Content-Length: 729
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html
Incidentally, it looks like Microsoft *does* provide these server extensions, but I'd rather use the GPL'ed version... (provides source, isn't as slow as ftp.microsoft.com, etc...