I guess if they had been more affordable, that more people would've bought them. I currently cannot take out another loan, so the option is off the table; and since they're no longer available (except from some reseller stock, perhaps), it is impossible.
Why don't they make a Cell version of AIX?;)
(Hey, imagine that, AIX on PS3!;) )
Anyway, I think they should revive that product line someday, in one way or the other... IBM has often been quick to pull stuff off the market. Like OS/2: Just when the OS/2 market was gaining momentum, the pull the plug on it. And AIX workstations, they do have applications. Why don't they just let them sit in stock or something?;)
From the UN*Xes, I've used AIX, Solaris, HP-UX, Linux, OpenBSD and FreeBSD, and I still sometimes yearn for that good old RS/6000 with AIX. Why? I'm a computer programmer, I simply like good consistent system APIs that always behave as expected. In that category, so far AIX and the BSDs have convinced me the most. Linux was a big pain for a long time, but it's getting better every month.
AIX has some cool stuff like CDE (which might also still be available for Solaris, and last time I checked, there might have been a Linux version), the SMIT and SMITTY admin tools that are very, very powerful, and there are some excellent compilers for it. Stability, reliability, speed, consistency and stuff are things that I appreciate in an OS. At home I'm currently running Debian 4.0r5 and I'm quite satisfied with it. FreeBSD and OpenBSD are also quite stable (OpenBSD 4.3 only if you recompile GNOME without optimizer). But with AIX I never had to even think about such things. It just worked flawlessly, like a clockwork.:)
But that doesn't solve the basic mainboard architecture... you know, the stuff that brings you I/O performance. I hate sitting on my PC waiting for stuff. That is so 1980ies.
For compiling, use IBM's C/C++ Set compiler package (or what it's called nowadays). It does work with configure scripts and GNU makefiles. I did it a couple of times on AIX 4.2 without problems (small packages, though).
If AIX wasn't so nice, I wouldn't even bother complaining!;) -- Although, in cases of emergency, I could make do with Linux or BSD on POWER as well!;)
Just recently, when I copied some files on my PC, I realized once again how lame the whole bus architecture is. On a proper IBM box, I don't think these problems would exist.;)
The problem with the German approach is it doesn't work properly. The US has been far more liberal in allowing extremist groups free speech and they are politically marginalised. In Germany the far left and far right seem to have increased influence since reunification.
Of course it increased after reunification. We reunified with the GDR. In the GDR, people had almost zero contact with foreigners, and there are regions that are almost all white. Racist sentiment has continued to exist after WWII in the GDR, because the GDR did do nothing about it. Then there are the former SED members who formed the PDS party (and are now part of Die Linke / The Left). Hence, our laws are more necessary than ever. If we would abolish those laws now, we would have NPD and DKP in parliament, probably along with REP, MLPD, and PDS. Because NPD, REP, DKP and MLPD, along with former PDS members are being watched by the Constitution Protection, they cannot realistically dream of overthrowing the democratic government.
Otherwise, Germany in its current form, would've been destroyed within years. So, quite to the contrary: It worked extremely well so far.
There was a discussion about prohibiting the NPD once again (like its predecessors), but it was reckoned that watching them would be less dangerous. Finding and destroying the covert Nazi internet-based networks is one of the major tasks that law enforcement faces.
So, as I told before, these parties exist in public in Germany despite the laws, attempting to weasel around law enforcement. But law enforcement is onto them.
So, there's not much difference between what is done in the UK and Germany.
Those parties, like NPD, REP and PDS have been sitting in regional parliaments already, BTW.
Hmm, an overpowerful state murders dissidents. That state is destroyed by foreign military action. Its successor sets up a Constitution Protection department to keep an eye on dissidents and limit their free speech. What could possibly go wrong.
Well, the purpose of this is to create a Chilling Effect to dissuade certain political groups from thinking about increasing their influence.
It's all in the name of democracy. If you don't want democracy, I certainly do.
The will of the people always directly affects the policy. If you think that the existing German constitution (and all the agencies that are dedicated to protecting it in its present immutable form) would survive a popular (i.e., supermajority) opposition, you are simply deluded. All those organizations you mention would simply be dismantled - purely democratically, of course - and then the constitution itself amended.
Well, we'll see about that, don't we? Occasionally there have been amendments to the Basic Law, but most change requests are rejected. Let's hope we'll keep a watchful eye over that development. The freedoms we enjoy today are the most we ever had, and let's hope people will not want any less. There has been an erosion of rights in the social system under Schroeder, but according to some, these changes were necessary to keep financing the social system. For instance, there's been more pressure to the unemployed to find work, but as a result (and due to much statistical juggling) we have the lowest unemployment rate since the reunification (however, the number of people on social support is still high). The economy can only create so many jobs. Without reasonable incentive to the economy, this won't change.
If you don't like Iran as a comparative example, then how about Turkey? That one is a democratic country, but the military intervenes every now and then when the voters elect the candidates that are "too undemocratic" to preserve the regime.
And rightly so. None of the secular Turks and certainly none of the Europeans want Turkey as a god state.
Also, regime critics are still persecuted... this should not happen in a democracy.
In Germany, we do not have such a problem, thankfully. You can hate the government all you want, but if you spew hatred against another people, then you might be running into problems.
Also, NSDAP did receive the plurality of votes, but not the majority. I was thinking more along the lines of majority here.
There would have been no difference in the outcome.
Constitution is not some magic piece of paper that is self-enforcing
Of course not, it is enforced by law, and by the Federal Constitutional Court.
You might want to read up on Germany a little to learn something about how the system actually works.
if the population at large wants it to be changed, it will be changed, even if it itself forbids some changes.
We have a delegative democracy, i.e. the will of the people doesn't directly affect policy.
Even if the Federal Government would turn Nazi, there are enough safeguards in place to overthrow the government. A Nazi government would be illegal, and arrest warrants would be issued and enforced.
So, let's say the shady version of Nazis, the NPD for instance, would win elections. Then the Constitution Protection service would still monitor them, and if they would spew hatred, they would have something to arrest them. Then there's the BND (Federal Messaging Service, our CIA), and they could arrange for some stuff. Not to mention the prosecutors and judges etc.; there could even be emergency warrants to prohibit the offending political party.
And if all of that still isn't enough, there's still all the people left that would not support the government and would organize riots and/or civil war if necessary.
For example, a constitution of Iran similarly forbids any kinds of changes to itself that are contrary to Islam and Shari'a. Wonder how long that one will last there.
Germany constitutional provisions forbidding referendums and change of constitution are in the same category - effectively useless against what they're supposed to guard.
No, they're not useless, otherwise they would not be in place. In fact, they served us well in the past 59 years.
That's an interesting question. If a country will, in a true democratic fashion, slip into rampant nationalism, and then racism (while still remaining democratic)
That's exactly how the Nazis came to power in the first place. They were democratically elected in the Weimar Republic.
would you say that "democracy failed" and that a coup is needed, followed by a period of dictatorial rule to make sure that the Nazis are rooted out?
Of course not, we have the Constitution Protection and our laws for that. This makes sure Nazi influence stays limited.
Hmmm... you think Germany lost the war because of money? That's an interesting perspective. I always thought it was because Hitler sent millions of soldiers into Russia to perish in the wintry cold.
Yeah... international politics is weird. We are actually quite glad that the Axis Powers came to save us. And we also gladly implemented those laws. I think (apart from Nazis) no-one views that as a violation of civil rights. We wouldn't have had them that long if those laws hadn't been in place.
BTW, ultra-right wing Germans flock to the NPD and REP parties (nazis) and ultra-left wing Germans support either no party at all (anarchists) or The Left party (communists and socialists and members of worker unions) or Bond '90 / The Greens (communists, socialists, anarchists, environmentialists). So, it's quite obvious who's voting for what. This also applies to the middle ground (SPD for worker unions and the unemployed, CDU/CSU for Christians and entrepreneurs, and FDP for capitalists). Quite an obvious political landscape, I'd say. And there's definitely no secrecy about it.
Fix the problem by not talking about it, yea that works.
No-one says we can't talk about it, in fact we're doing that all the time.
By making racist speech illegal all it does is hide all the racist people in society,
I don't know about yours, but our election system guarantees anonymous voting. So, how would it make a difference in that department if racist speech was legal?
All it does is trying to force people to ignore the problem then actually confronting it.
Quite to the contrary.
Hey if you know the guy is a racist then you have a decision to associate yourself with him or not and accept the consequences for the actions. But if you don't you can much easier be seduced.
I don't know about you, but I know a racist when I talk to him/her. No matter what speeches s/he has listened to.
Also it creates a taboo with the hate just gets deferred somewhere else.
How so? If someone's a racist, they're still a racist, no matter what laws abound. And likewise, if someone hates, say, chocolate, they will.
Silence doesn't fix the problem it defers it.
Bullsh*t. Personal conviction is obvious from speech and actions.
And despite having these laws, we do not keep quiet about the problem. Why should we? It is an issue we face every day. It is privately and publicly discussed.
That's utter nonsense. First of all, socialism has nothing to do with communism. And communism per se has nothing to do with violence. That there have been a number of bloody revolutions to achieve the "dictatorship of the proletariate" is not Karl Marx's fault. Literally, "dictatorship" means to "have the say". Historically, however, dictatorship was almost always enforced by violence (except, like, in ancient Rome, when Caesar proclaimed a dictatorship without bullying people into participation). Strictly speaking, none of those so-called "communist" countries ever were truly communist, because there always was a rich ruling elite that kept making itself richer. What they did is to strip all property from everyone else, and made sure they stayed in poverty. It's cynical to relate those dictatorships to socialism or even communism, for they had nothing to do with either.
Except the Nazi party already existed when Hitler joined it, and strong inflation was only between 1929 and 1933 (following the Black Friday, which was a stock exchange collapse just like the one we're seeing now).
Or the fine citizens of Germany are tired of getting their asses handed to them on a friggin platter because they let some idiot rise to power, and then feeds on the egos of the homeland to get them to do whatever he wants. Sheeple are everywhere, not just Germany.
Indeed, it can happen everywhere, so some folks in other countries should open their eyes (if they have not already done so). But no, we are not tired of getting them asses on our platters, there's a lot of work to do, and we will do it. Every person convinced of being a democrat is worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess if they had been more affordable, that more people would've bought them. I currently cannot take out another loan, so the option is off the table; and since they're no longer available (except from some reseller stock, perhaps), it is impossible.
;)
(Hey, imagine that, AIX on PS3! ;) )
... IBM has often been quick to pull stuff off the market. Like OS/2: Just when the OS/2 market was gaining momentum, the pull the plug on it. And AIX workstations, they do have applications. Why don't they just let them sit in stock or something? ;)
Why don't they make a Cell version of AIX?
Anyway, I think they should revive that product line someday, in one way or the other
From the UN*Xes, I've used AIX, Solaris, HP-UX, Linux, OpenBSD and FreeBSD, and I still sometimes yearn for that good old RS/6000 with AIX. Why? I'm a computer programmer, I simply like good consistent system APIs that always behave as expected. In that category, so far AIX and the BSDs have convinced me the most. Linux was a big pain for a long time, but it's getting better every month.
:)
AIX has some cool stuff like CDE (which might also still be available for Solaris, and last time I checked, there might have been a Linux version), the SMIT and SMITTY admin tools that are very, very powerful, and there are some excellent compilers for it. Stability, reliability, speed, consistency and stuff are things that I appreciate in an OS. At home I'm currently running Debian 4.0r5 and I'm quite satisfied with it. FreeBSD and OpenBSD are also quite stable (OpenBSD 4.3 only if you recompile GNOME without optimizer). But with AIX I never had to even think about such things. It just worked flawlessly, like a clockwork.
ROFL!! Umm ... of course they could be a bit more user-friendly, but then, these tools are quite good if you really get to know them. :)
But that doesn't solve the basic mainboard architecture ... you know, the stuff that brings you I/O performance. I hate sitting on my PC waiting for stuff. That is so 1980ies.
I am ... I am. ;)
SMIT provides the framework for package management, at least on AIX 4.2. It served as an installer as well as a package management tool.
For compiling, use IBM's C/C++ Set compiler package (or what it's called nowadays). It does work with configure scripts and GNU makefiles. I did it a couple of times on AIX 4.2 without problems (small packages, though).
Sounds like fun! :)
If AIX wasn't so nice, I wouldn't even bother complaining! ;) -- Although, in cases of emergency, I could make do with Linux or BSD on POWER as well! ;)
Just recently, when I copied some files on my PC, I realized once again how lame the whole bus architecture is. On a proper IBM box, I don't think these problems would exist. ;)
As a programmer, I really liked AIX! :)
Of course! ;)
The problem with the German approach is it doesn't work properly. The US has been far more liberal in allowing extremist groups free speech and they are politically marginalised. In Germany the far left and far right seem to have increased influence since reunification.
Of course it increased after reunification. We reunified with the GDR. In the GDR, people had almost zero contact with foreigners, and there are regions that are almost all white. Racist sentiment has continued to exist after WWII in the GDR, because the GDR did do nothing about it. Then there are the former SED members who formed the PDS party (and are now part of Die Linke / The Left). Hence, our laws are more necessary than ever. If we would abolish those laws now, we would have NPD and DKP in parliament, probably along with REP, MLPD, and PDS. Because NPD, REP, DKP and MLPD, along with former PDS members are being watched by the Constitution Protection, they cannot realistically dream of overthrowing the democratic government. Otherwise, Germany in its current form, would've been destroyed within years. So, quite to the contrary: It worked extremely well so far. There was a discussion about prohibiting the NPD once again (like its predecessors), but it was reckoned that watching them would be less dangerous. Finding and destroying the covert Nazi internet-based networks is one of the major tasks that law enforcement faces. So, as I told before, these parties exist in public in Germany despite the laws, attempting to weasel around law enforcement. But law enforcement is onto them. So, there's not much difference between what is done in the UK and Germany. Those parties, like NPD, REP and PDS have been sitting in regional parliaments already, BTW.
Hmm, an overpowerful state murders dissidents. That state is destroyed by foreign military action. Its successor sets up a Constitution Protection department to keep an eye on dissidents and limit their free speech. What could possibly go wrong.
Well, the purpose of this is to create a Chilling Effect to dissuade certain political groups from thinking about increasing their influence. It's all in the name of democracy. If you don't want democracy, I certainly do.
The will of the people always directly affects the policy. If you think that the existing German constitution (and all the agencies that are dedicated to protecting it in its present immutable form) would survive a popular (i.e., supermajority) opposition, you are simply deluded. All those organizations you mention would simply be dismantled - purely democratically, of course - and then the constitution itself amended.
Well, we'll see about that, don't we? Occasionally there have been amendments to the Basic Law, but most change requests are rejected. Let's hope we'll keep a watchful eye over that development. The freedoms we enjoy today are the most we ever had, and let's hope people will not want any less. There has been an erosion of rights in the social system under Schroeder, but according to some, these changes were necessary to keep financing the social system. For instance, there's been more pressure to the unemployed to find work, but as a result (and due to much statistical juggling) we have the lowest unemployment rate since the reunification (however, the number of people on social support is still high). The economy can only create so many jobs. Without reasonable incentive to the economy, this won't change.
If you don't like Iran as a comparative example, then how about Turkey? That one is a democratic country, but the military intervenes every now and then when the voters elect the candidates that are "too undemocratic" to preserve the regime.
And rightly so. None of the secular Turks and certainly none of the Europeans want Turkey as a god state. Also, regime critics are still persecuted ... this should not happen in a democracy.
In Germany, we do not have such a problem, thankfully. You can hate the government all you want, but if you spew hatred against another people, then you might be running into problems.
Also, NSDAP did receive the plurality of votes, but not the majority. I was thinking more along the lines of majority here.
There would have been no difference in the outcome.
Constitution is not some magic piece of paper that is self-enforcing
Of course not, it is enforced by law, and by the Federal Constitutional Court. You might want to read up on Germany a little to learn something about how the system actually works.
if the population at large wants it to be changed, it will be changed, even if it itself forbids some changes.
We have a delegative democracy, i.e. the will of the people doesn't directly affect policy. Even if the Federal Government would turn Nazi, there are enough safeguards in place to overthrow the government. A Nazi government would be illegal, and arrest warrants would be issued and enforced. So, let's say the shady version of Nazis, the NPD for instance, would win elections. Then the Constitution Protection service would still monitor them, and if they would spew hatred, they would have something to arrest them. Then there's the BND (Federal Messaging Service, our CIA), and they could arrange for some stuff. Not to mention the prosecutors and judges etc.; there could even be emergency warrants to prohibit the offending political party. And if all of that still isn't enough, there's still all the people left that would not support the government and would organize riots and/or civil war if necessary.
For example, a constitution of Iran similarly forbids any kinds of changes to itself that are contrary to Islam and Shari'a. Wonder how long that one will last there.
Except Iran is a de-facto dictatorship.
Germany constitutional provisions forbidding referendums and change of constitution are in the same category - effectively useless against what they're supposed to guard.
No, they're not useless, otherwise they would not be in place. In fact, they served us well in the past 59 years.
ok.
Ah, ok. Thanks! ;)
That's an interesting question. If a country will, in a true democratic fashion, slip into rampant nationalism, and then racism (while still remaining democratic)
That's exactly how the Nazis came to power in the first place. They were democratically elected in the Weimar Republic.
would you say that "democracy failed" and that a coup is needed, followed by a period of dictatorial rule to make sure that the Nazis are rooted out?
Of course not, we have the Constitution Protection and our laws for that. This makes sure Nazi influence stays limited.
Hmmm ... you think Germany lost the war because of money? That's an interesting perspective. I always thought it was because Hitler sent millions of soldiers into Russia to perish in the wintry cold.
Yeah ... international politics is weird. We are actually quite glad that the Axis Powers came to save us. And we also gladly implemented those laws. I think (apart from Nazis) no-one views that as a violation of civil rights. We wouldn't have had them that long if those laws hadn't been in place.
BTW, ultra-right wing Germans flock to the NPD and REP parties (nazis) and ultra-left wing Germans support either no party at all (anarchists) or The Left party (communists and socialists and members of worker unions) or Bond '90 / The Greens (communists, socialists, anarchists, environmentialists). So, it's quite obvious who's voting for what. This also applies to the middle ground (SPD for worker unions and the unemployed, CDU/CSU for Christians and entrepreneurs, and FDP for capitalists). Quite an obvious political landscape, I'd say. And there's definitely no secrecy about it.
Fix the problem by not talking about it, yea that works.
No-one says we can't talk about it, in fact we're doing that all the time.
By making racist speech illegal all it does is hide all the racist people in society,
I don't know about yours, but our election system guarantees anonymous voting. So, how would it make a difference in that department if racist speech was legal?
All it does is trying to force people to ignore the problem then actually confronting it.
Quite to the contrary.
Hey if you know the guy is a racist then you have a decision to associate yourself with him or not and accept the consequences for the actions. But if you don't you can much easier be seduced.
I don't know about you, but I know a racist when I talk to him/her. No matter what speeches s/he has listened to.
Also it creates a taboo with the hate just gets deferred somewhere else.
How so? If someone's a racist, they're still a racist, no matter what laws abound. And likewise, if someone hates, say, chocolate, they will.
Silence doesn't fix the problem it defers it.
Bullsh*t. Personal conviction is obvious from speech and actions. And despite having these laws, we do not keep quiet about the problem. Why should we? It is an issue we face every day. It is privately and publicly discussed.
That's utter nonsense. First of all, socialism has nothing to do with communism. And communism per se has nothing to do with violence. That there have been a number of bloody revolutions to achieve the "dictatorship of the proletariate" is not Karl Marx's fault. Literally, "dictatorship" means to "have the say". Historically, however, dictatorship was almost always enforced by violence (except, like, in ancient Rome, when Caesar proclaimed a dictatorship without bullying people into participation). Strictly speaking, none of those so-called "communist" countries ever were truly communist, because there always was a rich ruling elite that kept making itself richer. What they did is to strip all property from everyone else, and made sure they stayed in poverty. It's cynical to relate those dictatorships to socialism or even communism, for they had nothing to do with either.
Except the Nazi party already existed when Hitler joined it, and strong inflation was only between 1929 and 1933 (following the Black Friday, which was a stock exchange collapse just like the one we're seeing now).
Or the fine citizens of Germany are tired of getting their asses handed to them on a friggin platter because they let some idiot rise to power, and then feeds on the egos of the homeland to get them to do whatever he wants. Sheeple are everywhere, not just Germany.
Indeed, it can happen everywhere, so some folks in other countries should open their eyes (if they have not already done so). But no, we are not tired of getting them asses on our platters, there's a lot of work to do, and we will do it. Every person convinced of being a democrat is worth it.