It brings to mind a vision of a million geeks in Mao jackets waving Little Red Books, carting the running-dog proprietary OS users off to a re-education camp in the hills.
We are about co-existance. All I want is the right to co-exist without having to give everything up.
Open formats and standards are a way to do that. So that EVERYONE can exist. So that NOBODY has to be carted off. Giving people the right to choose what OS they run and still being able to communicate with other people.
Companies like MS try to squash co-existance. And we will always be around to fight them.
It seems that on/. that if a something is not Linux, or Linux compatible, it's crap.
It isn't just about Linux. It is about formats that aren't compatible with any but two OS's. There are standards that are just as good as QuickTime that are open and supported by most every OS.
Lucas could have just as easily posted an mpeg version *along with* a QuickTime version. But he didn't. Why: because MS has such a strangle hold on things that it didn't make sense for him to. (If MS decided not to use quicktime, I bet we would all be watching an MS only movie right now.) If monopolies would stop breaking standards with their own proprietary crap, then this wouldn't be a problem.
But alas, the just want money and they take it from any sucker stupid enough to give it to them, and everytime that happens, they only get stronger.
What the hell are we nerds gonna do? I was really hoping to get a few K7's if they support SMP.
I heard some time ago about a patch to the kernel that stopped that whole piii serial number mess. The same thing could be done for any other chip, right?
Having these big name companies invest in open source is nice, but I don't really see what the big deal is. If they are complaining that they don't understand, let them leave.
Can't Linux just balance the processes between two processors? Like if you started a whole bunch of processes at once? Could it run a few on one CPU and run the rest on the other CPU?
Cause I tend to max my machine out by trying to do too much at one time.
I don't have a lot of resources to donate (I'm over a 56k connection, and I use all of that as it is), but I would be more than willing to enter all of my cd's (130+) into a new database. Hehe. Probably about 5 or 6 a day, however. Not all at once.;-P
Combine that with an old copy of the cddb, we could probably come up with a sizeable amount of data. *shrug* That would probably be plenty to motivate people to move over to a new standard.
The average GPL fanatic doesn't understand this. Microprocessors grow on trees, and the people in the colored clean-room suits harvest them, and when the harvest is finished, they go on TV commercials and dance badly.
You mean that isn't how it happens? *snap* And this whole time I was so angry that I had to pay for my processor.;-)
If civilization and life are merely a game, why should I play by the rules? How is it to my benefit to restrain myself when I could gain an advantage by acting immorally?
No where in there did it say killing someone (that was in a previous post). AndI will admit, I repsonded to that in a more general sense than just killing someone. I used the example of killing someone in my post because it was handy. So there is one thing we need to clear up before continuing, are we talking about just killing someone, or doing someone someone deems "immoral?" So I appologize. When you said "acting immorally," I took it to mean more than what you did.
I don't mean you shouldn't kill someone *period*. I mean you shouldn't kill someone because there *are* consequences. If you are *sure* you can get away with it, there is no *absolute* reason you should not. This is why society imposes the rules it does. Because, by consesus, the people who impose these rules, don't want to be killed, and by imposing them on *everyone*, they better the chances that they won't be killed. Now if your problem is that you don't want these rules imposed upon you, go move away from society.
My point is, there is no reason you should care beyond the consequences and personal preference. (If you choose to care, that is your business, not mine. But you cant say that belief has is, in any way, absolute). Society knows this, and to protect itself, it imposes rules.
Go for it. As long as you're not really hurting anyone, it is up to you what you do. (It is the definition of "hurt" you have to be careful with in this situation.)
I was mearly pointing out some of the benefits one might get from playing by the rules. That is not to say there isn't *any* benefits by not. It doesn't have to be either-or.
How is it to my benefit to restrain myself when I could gain an advantage by acting immorally?
There is benefit by playing by the rules. By playing by the rules, you don't suffer the consequences that society imposes for those who don't play by the rules (jail, death, whatever).
Take the law that makes it illegal to kill. It doesn't exist because of some absolute morality. It exists because people, in general, don't want to die. (Why don't they want to die? That's probably an evolutionary advantage a few living organisms picked up a long time ago. Those who didn't mind dying, for the most part, died off.) In light of this, society (by consensus usually) makes rules against it. It isn't that they are moral, but they decide that in order to save themselves, they make it illegal to kill. By coming to a consensus, more people are likely play by this rule, and you are less likely to be killed. Hence the benefit to you.
Unless that is...you don't mind dying. Then by all means, go break the rules.
Not even mentioning the lack of plot and bad actors. But what the fsck were they doing on those mock up computers?
That was a sad, sad movie.
Damn, we're a bunch of greedy bastards.
on
Free Oracle 8i CDs
·
· Score: 1
Any time something is being given away for free and it is mentioned on/., the site to register on always gets/.'ed within seconds. Guess we all just want free shit.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Hura for Rob!
It can only get better from here on.
It probably just reminds windoze how long it has been running, windoze freaks if (time > 1 minute), and shuts itself down immediately. ie crashes.
More crap from Wintel to make our lives easier.
Bah.
It brings to mind a vision of a million geeks in Mao jackets waving Little Red Books, carting the running-dog proprietary OS users off to a re-education camp in the hills.
We are about co-existance. All I want is the right to co-exist without having to give everything up.
Open formats and standards are a way to do that. So that EVERYONE can exist. So that NOBODY has to be carted off. Giving people the right to choose what OS they run and still being able to communicate with other people.
Companies like MS try to squash co-existance. And we will always be around to fight them.
It seems that on /. that if a something is not Linux, or Linux compatible, it's crap.
It isn't just about Linux. It is about formats that aren't compatible with any but two OS's. There are standards that are just as good as QuickTime that are open and supported by most every OS.
Lucas could have just as easily posted an mpeg version *along with* a QuickTime version. But he didn't. Why: because MS has such a strangle hold on things that it didn't make sense for him to. (If MS decided not to use quicktime, I bet we would all be watching an MS only movie right now.) If monopolies would stop breaking standards with their own proprietary crap, then this wouldn't be a problem.
But alas, the just want money and they take it from any sucker stupid enough to give it to them, and everytime that happens, they only get stronger.
AMD is reportedly considering it for the K7
What the hell are we nerds gonna do? I was really hoping to get a few K7's if they support SMP.
I heard some time ago about a patch to the kernel that stopped that whole piii serial number mess. The same thing could be done for any other chip, right?
Think it is really a mistake? Heh. Right.
Having these big name companies invest in open source is nice, but I don't really see what the big deal is. If they are complaining that they don't understand, let them leave.
Those of us who believe will continue on.
You continue selling software to people who will buy it.
Those of us who know will continue using and contributing to open source. And spreading the word to those who don't know.
But as more and more people realize that open source costs them nothing, you're left with only selling to buisnesses who can't understand.
Suits me fine.
We all gotta do what we can.
Not to say I am a guru, just an apprentice.
Isn't it wonderful? I learn something new about *nix every day that allows me to customize things to my liking.
I wouldn't give it up for the world.
Do all programs have to be written to use SMP?
Can't Linux just balance the processes between two processors? Like if you started a whole bunch of processes at once? Could it run a few on one CPU and run the rest on the other CPU?
Cause I tend to max my machine out by trying to do too much at one time.
I don't have a lot of resources to donate (I'm over a 56k connection, and I use all of that as it is), but I would be more than willing to enter all of my cd's (130+) into a new database. Hehe. Probably about 5 or 6 a day, however. Not all at once. ;-P
Combine that with an old copy of the cddb, we could probably come up with a sizeable amount of data. *shrug* That would probably be plenty to motivate people to move over to a new standard.
Anyone wanna fill me in on what this is?
The average GPL fanatic doesn't understand this. Microprocessors grow on trees, and the people in the colored clean-room suits harvest them, and when the harvest is finished, they go on TV commercials and dance badly.
You mean that isn't how it happens? *snap* And this whole time I was so angry that I had to pay for my processor. ;-)
http://www.ibmlink.ibm.com/uspress&parms=P_1999030 203
Says IBM will be 'delivering' he AFS* enterprise file system for Linux.
What exactly is the AFS file system?
will it run linu.... oh. ;-)
Good idea. Get on it, Rob. ;-)
If civilization and life are merely a game, why should I play by the rules? How is it to my benefit to restrain myself when I could gain an advantage by acting immorally?
No where in there did it say killing someone (that was in a previous post). AndI will admit, I repsonded to that in a more general sense than just killing someone. I used the example of killing someone in my post because it was handy. So there is one thing we need to clear up before continuing, are we talking about just killing someone, or doing someone someone deems "immoral?" So I appologize. When you said "acting immorally," I took it to mean more than what you did.
I don't mean you shouldn't kill someone *period*. I mean you shouldn't kill someone because there *are* consequences. If you are *sure* you can get away with it, there is no *absolute* reason you should not. This is why society imposes the rules it does. Because, by consesus, the people who impose these rules, don't want to be killed, and by imposing them on *everyone*, they better the chances that they won't be killed. Now if your problem is that you don't want these rules imposed upon you, go move away from society.
My point is, there is no reason you should care beyond the consequences and personal preference. (If you choose to care, that is your business, not mine. But you cant say that belief has is, in any way, absolute). Society knows this, and to protect itself, it imposes rules.
Go for it. As long as you're not really hurting anyone, it is up to you what you do. (It is the definition of "hurt" you have to be careful with in this situation.)
I was mearly pointing out some of the benefits one might get from playing by the rules. That is not to say there isn't *any* benefits by not. It doesn't have to be either-or.
How is it to my benefit to restrain myself when I could gain an advantage by acting immorally?
There is benefit by playing by the rules. By playing by the rules, you don't suffer the consequences that society imposes for those who don't play by the rules (jail, death, whatever).
Take the law that makes it illegal to kill. It doesn't exist because of some absolute morality. It exists because people, in general, don't want to die. (Why don't they want to die? That's probably an evolutionary advantage a few living organisms picked up a long time ago. Those who didn't mind dying, for the most part, died off.) In light of this, society (by consensus usually) makes rules against it. It isn't that they are moral, but they decide that in order to save themselves, they make it illegal to kill. By coming to a consensus, more people are likely play by this rule, and you are less likely to be killed. Hence the benefit to you.
Unless that is...you don't mind dying. Then by all means, go break the rules.
I know. I was being sarcastic. :-)
Windoze 95 will route a BSOD straight to your video card much faster than any other OS. (Although NT is almost as fast.)
Lemme know if you want it.
cfy1@ra.msstate.edu
We could build a kewl Beowulf clu...doh. Nevermind. ;-)
Hackers. Man did that movie ever suck.
Not even mentioning the lack of plot and bad actors. But what the fsck were they doing on those mock up computers?
That was a sad, sad movie.
Any time something is being given away for free and it is mentioned on /., the site to register on always gets /.'ed within seconds. Guess we all just want free shit. ;-)
Arg, I can't seem to get through from anywhere.