The ports tools (portupgrade & the like) will do the trick for you; no need to manually chase dependencies. Want to upgrade all your applications? cd/usr/ports; make update; portupgrade -a (with an occasional pkgdb -F if you use an unstable ports tree). Go take a coffee, and your system is upgraded from sources. Additional customizations (such as alternative dependencies, compile flags per-application etc.) can be made by editing/usr/local/etc/pkgtools.conf. You can't go much better than this.
Zeroes can be quite heavily compressed, this would yield a pretty good transfer rate. TFA doesn't mention whether the data was checked at both ends with, say, MD5sum (it doesn't mean it was not checked).
GMail invitations to the first six dudes who say hello to espinafre at that mail provider.
Computers are tools, right, but one is expected to have a minimum knowledge to use them effectively. Computers are inherently complex, therefore the knowledge required to use them effectively is also complex. C'mon, knowing that an application use such and such port, and what a port is, is no knowledge about the inner working of the computer (that would be knowing how to program such a thing), but rather a required knowledge about your tool. Using the old car analogy, if you have a mechanical car, you need to know what a clutch is, and when and how to use it. Does it mean you must know how the clutch works? Not at all!
Yay, let us all pay Linus a drink (does anyone know if he likes lagers?), and make him drunk, and see if he will allow graphics to be integrated into the kernel
Hey, chill down, I replied that to point out BSD uptime versus OpenVMS uptime, that you were bragging about. My point wasn't that BSD is better than VMS period. My point was that you said your VMS's uptime was better than BSD (or, more precisely, UNIX), and I showed a counter example. Uptimes of ten years and more are VERY impressive, and, as you suggested, x86 hardware isn't nearly as reliable as those mainframes, or Alphas, or PA-RISCs, or...
I had a teacher (I'm a Computer Science student) who said that x86 hardware is so crappy that it shouldn't even be marketed, but the most executed "OS" on that platform is so much more crappy that it masks the badness of the x86. Thus, I believe that if we ran a modern Unix-like OS on decent hardware we will obtain decent uptimes. For instance, I know an AIX machine that has run for over five years.
By the way, I *do* know what the hell MVS is, and it is a helluva OS, if you ask me.
You would be surprised to see how many Brazilians have English as a second language, even more the ones you want to have business with. We don't have an anti-American regime, what we do is try to protect our own interests when they clash against US's interests. About the mugshot/fingerprinting, you chose to do the same with us, even though we aren't nowhere near terrorists. Diplomatic reciprocity, ever heard about that?
Why should Linux-based OSes and BSD-based systems be dumbed-down to fit newbies? Wasn't it said elsewhere that newbies stays as newbies for a short time, but once they learn their systems, they remain power-users for the rest of their lifes? What newbies should have is good documentation (and with Linux and *BSD, they do have it), not dumbed-down systems that would hinder experienced users. Computers are not adaptable, this is a feature of carbon-based systems (read: humans). We can learn how to interact with a computer, but the computer cannot know how it will interact with humans. Therefore, let the C-based systems adapt to Si-based systemsn, not the other way round.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know if it is uglier, but it surely is more readable than it.slashdot.org
Doesn't "good" here refers to "material"? As in "good material that is written"? INANES (I'm not a native English speaker), though.
0.10 - 0.9 = - 0.8
The ports tools (portupgrade & the like) will do the trick for you; no need to manually chase dependencies. Want to upgrade all your applications? cd /usr/ports; make update; portupgrade -a (with an occasional pkgdb -F if you use an unstable ports tree). /usr/local/etc/pkgtools.conf. You can't go much better than this.
Go take a coffee, and your system is upgraded from sources. Additional customizations (such as alternative dependencies, compile flags per-application etc.) can be made by editing
Not to mention mail bombing...
Does Windows have /dev/zero or /dev/null?
Zeroes can be quite heavily compressed, this would yield a pretty good transfer rate. TFA doesn't mention whether the data was checked at both ends with, say, MD5sum (it doesn't mean it was not checked).
GMail invitations to the first six dudes who say hello to espinafre at that mail provider.
You bet that!
GMail-based BBS-like file sharing. w00t!
Stop the world, I want to get out!
You imagined it first
Imagine a beowulf cluster of beowulf cluster jokes...
The whole session is more like
unzip, touch, finger
mount, fsck, yes
umount, zip, sleep
See? many sequences of many actions.
Computers are tools, right, but one is expected to have a minimum knowledge to use them effectively. Computers are inherently complex, therefore the knowledge required to use them effectively is also complex. C'mon, knowing that an application use such and such port, and what a port is, is no knowledge about the inner working of the computer (that would be knowing how to program such a thing), but rather a required knowledge about your tool. Using the old car analogy, if you have a mechanical car, you need to know what a clutch is, and when and how to use it. Does it mean you must know how the clutch works? Not at all!
They don't want us to watch their movies? Fine, let's not watch their damn movies! Boycott the media industry! Ouch!
Yay, let us all pay Linus a drink (does anyone know if he likes lagers?), and make him drunk, and see if he will allow graphics to be integrated into the kernel
Hey, chill down, I replied that to point out BSD uptime versus OpenVMS uptime, that you were bragging about. My point wasn't that BSD is better than VMS period. My point was that you said your VMS's uptime was better than BSD (or, more precisely, UNIX), and I showed a counter example. Uptimes of ten years and more are VERY impressive, and, as you suggested, x86 hardware isn't nearly as reliable as those mainframes, or Alphas, or PA-RISCs, or...
I had a teacher (I'm a Computer Science student) who said that x86 hardware is so crappy that it shouldn't even be marketed, but the most executed "OS" on that platform is so much more crappy that it masks the badness of the x86. Thus, I believe that if we ran a modern Unix-like OS on decent hardware we will obtain decent uptimes. For instance, I know an AIX machine that has run for over five years.
By the way, I *do* know what the hell MVS is, and it is a helluva OS, if you ask me.
Sure, that is insightful, and pretty damn scary if it comes to happen.
Sure.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html
Could you point the first non-unix OS in that list? Ah, thought so. Thanks.
If you want apps to exploit your OS, you may use Windows, no matter how many bits it supports.
Nah. No one will ever need more than 32 bits.
You would be surprised to see how many Brazilians have English as a second language, even more the ones you want to have business with. We don't have an anti-American regime, what we do is try to protect our own interests when they clash against US's interests. About the mugshot/fingerprinting, you chose to do the same with us, even though we aren't nowhere near terrorists. Diplomatic reciprocity, ever heard about that?
We have talented programmers and beautiful chicks! Come down to Brazil!
That write of yore already said:
"Fair is foul, and foul is fair..."
Shakespeare, Macbeth
Why should Linux-based OSes and BSD-based systems be dumbed-down to fit newbies? Wasn't it said elsewhere that newbies stays as newbies for a short time, but once they learn their systems, they remain power-users for the rest of their lifes? What newbies should have is good documentation (and with Linux and *BSD, they do have it), not dumbed-down systems that would hinder experienced users. Computers are not adaptable, this is a feature of carbon-based systems (read: humans). We can learn how to interact with a computer, but the computer cannot know how it will interact with humans. Therefore, let the C-based systems adapt to Si-based systemsn, not the other way round.
What is Good, then? BSD's Beastie? A whole new way of seeing demons...
What else would we expect from the makers of the most malware-friendly software in the world?