???
Okay, since when was Solaris 7.0 or 8.0 $75USD? I purchased my copy(ies) each for only $12 for the CD media and about $4 for shipping. Did they raise their prices that much or are you just blowing smoke out of your ass?
This is a very, very good thing that the AP board is doing. I am a senior at small Engineering university in Wisconsin, USA (ranked 12th in the nation) and as of 2 years ago we eliminated C++, COBOL, and a few other languages all together in favor of JAVA. C++ is simply a pain in the ass and it's OO design is crap. I originally learned OO programming in Eiffel for NeXtStep here and that was coming from learning Pascal for the AP test back in 1996. Java is NOT bad and it's debugging is extremely more Verbose that most C++ compilers I have had the unfortunate time to use. There are no elements of "cheating" in Java like some of the earlier, more unimformed posts here. Java has the best networking API on the planet and while it may have a few quirks here and there, Java has been a wonderful language to program in and learn what OO programming is supposed to be about. C++ is crap for OO, like I said before, and to have a student learn it would be far more beneficial as a later course in his/her career. Ask yourself one question...If true OO design philosophies are held so highly by all of the geniuses on Slashdot why do programmers for Linux make EVERYHING in C and then try to fool themselves and their programs into thinking they are actually OO when they are not? Maybe if people learned OO programming, philosophy and used decent OO languages before trying to do everything in C and half attempts at C++ then we would have a better Linux/Unix today.
Eh..What? This was marked as a 2 for what reason? Okay, there is no such thing as a "flux capacitor" you morons. Has anybody had Physics? Ha ha ha..We laughed about this when I was in Physics II in college. Yeah and maybe if I drive my Delorian fast enough and at just the right time and a perfectly placed lightning bolt hits my car I might travel Back to the Future. Ha ha ha.
Flux Capacitor...Torque Iversion Matrix...don't even get me started.
I guess that this will once again become a matter of organized religious debate. Does this mean that carbon dating is "once again" wrong (laughing on the inside) or is Adam and Eve (if you Christian, which I am not) just that much older now?
Has anyone here on Slashdot heard of QNX? They have been making an OS for real-time and HA medical equipment for a long time. Linux on my heart monitor or pace maker? Are you fucking kidding me? Yeah, here on/. Linux is made out to be a god, but it is in ABSOLUTELY NO WAY stable enough to bet my life on it. OSE sounds neat, but if I was going to write software for something as critical as a pace maker or life support system I would write ASSEMBLY code SPECIFICALLY for the hardware and job function at hand. Keep it simple...debug it, debug it, debug it, debug it and certainly not make it do anything else except the job at hand.
Please read the following to understand EXACTLY what I was trying to say:
SMP (Symmetrical Multi-Processing) is typically associated with high-end operating systems such as UNIX and NT running on high-end servers. These large monolithic systems tend to be quite complex, the result of many man-years of development. Since these large kernels contain the bulk of all OS services, the changes to support SMP are extensive, usually requiring large numbers of modifications and the use of specialized spinlocks throughout the code.
Neutrino, on the other hand, contains a very small microkernel surrounded by processes that act as resource mangers, providing services such as filesystems, character I/O, and networking. By modifying the microkernel alone, all other OS services will gain full advantage of SMP without the need for coding changes. If these service-providing processes are multi-threaded, their many threads will be scheduled among the available processors. Even a single-threaded server would also benefit from an SMP system, because its thread would be scheduled on the available processors beside other servers and client processes.
As a testament to this microkernel approach, the SMP version of Neutrino adds only a few kilobytes of additional code. This version, called procnto-smp, will boot on any system that conforms to the Intel MultiProcessor Specification (MP Spec) with up to 8 Pentium or Pentium Pro processors. The procnto-smp manager will also function on a single non-SMP system. With the cost of building a dual-processor Pentium motherboard very nearly the same as a single-processor motherboard, it's possible to deliver cost-effective solutions that can be scaled in the field by the simple addition of a second CPU. The fact that the OS itself is only a few kilobytes larger also allows SMP to be seriously considered for small CPU-intensive embedded systems, not just high-end servers.
What I have always found most interesting is the idea that people seem to have on Slashdot about programming for SMP or Parallel Processor machines. Why does there have to be a general compiler that EVERYONE including even the "dumb" programmer can use to compile excellent SMP or MPP code? I was enlightened on an idea a long time ago when I first started programming and the genius was in the OS...QNX. As a brief overview of their idea, they basically have the kernel, which decides which processor in an SMP system gets what thread. Everything above the kernel is forced to be multithreaded by design, no matter what the program is. This is why QNX needs no extra software to skip instantaneaously from an SMP machine to a UNI-Processor machine and vice-versa. The same goes for BeOS. Everything is multithreaded by design of the OS. There is no theoretical limit of processors for these OS's and even if the programmer writes a simple HELLO WORLD program it will be multithreaded without any extra code whatsoever. So why, might I ask, is the next generation "holy grail" supposed to be the smart compilers and algorithms for these 128 processor systems, when maybe the holy grail will be for people to get their heads out of their asses and start using the right software for the job? SMP is nothing but a joke on systems such as Windows NT, Linux, or any other OS who needs to have total OS re-writes if not ULTRA SPECIAL programming and spin-locks and semaphores and every other goddamn thing that is wasting millions of human hours to work on when maybe people should just sit down and start from scratch. Maybe somebody should lookup QNX or Be and be amazed at what people can do when they sit down and realize how messed up current implementations of SMP and MPP really are. For Linux to truly succeed, it needs to become Microkernel...monolithic kernel is just going to go the way of Microsoft and there will be millions upon millions of wasted VOLUNTEER man hours to make it work, if it even does now.
Actually, to be more accurate, this computer was purchased by the DOE for the Sandia National Laboratories to simulate nuclear explosions. What the truth is is that if you read the entire article the computer will actually be running a modified version of RedHat Linux and their proprietary, but soon to be open source software, called CPlant. The article has all the links and it an interesting read. Check it out. More great Linux headlines that should have probably been their own post on Slashdot.
I am not aiming for any points here, but exactly why is the parent post marked TROLL??? I looked at the page too and noticed that he is correct. This is not GPL'd code, so why is he marked as troll? Moderator's...Please mark him as something else, you are being unfair for absolutely no good reason.
I am currently a user of QNX OS and it's preemptive real-time capabilities are absolutely astonishing. For the sake of Linux I would hope that this company holds off on production of its distribution until the kernel is at least stable, if not fully released. If a big "oops" is made too early in the game, many people or just going to stay with their OS of choice, which isn't at the time most likely Linux, because having confidence in what OS you stick on your real-time hardware is no laughing matter at all.
This is almost humorous to me as to why this article is posted. As a long time user of OS/2 I remember when people were lobbying Apple to make a QuickTime player for OS/2. IBM sanctioned a port and then *poof* it disappeared. This happened because Apple isn't completely stupid. Quicktime is an awesome CODEC and it's technology SHOULD be highly guarded and its intellectual property protected. This is very, very simple business. People will buy Macintoshes because of technology like this. The point is that Apple will never port Quicktime to Linux because Linux+Quicktime would eliminate the need to run OS/X+QuickTime. Having Quicktime on Windows is not a problem on two fronts. First of all, Windows will never run on a Macintosh so Apple's hardware is safe. And secondly Apple will be able to gain marketshare without the worry of having Microsoft "absorb" there Quicktime technology into Windows Media player as long as it is not opensourced and available to everyone. Opensourcing OS/X is not a very big deal at all. I mean, who cares? Not Microsoft sonce there are already tons of OS's that run on both Intel and PowerPC so what's another version of Unix to them? Opensourcing Quicktime is something completely different all together. This is Apple's ONLY stronghold left in the market. Plus, once Apple lets out a binary on Linux some jackass would try to reverse engineer it in the name of "OSS" and the whole free world and then Apple would never, ever try it again and it would ruin it for us all. So, let's stop complaining to Apple about Quicktime. It's not going to happen. Apple doesn't like us, period. Unless their intellectual property can be preserved and it makes really, really good business sense to them and it's not going to help Linux to take over OS/X on their own hardware then just maybe we'll see Quicktime on Linux. Good luck.
Here is what the real problem is with audio and Linux. I am not going to be taking sides on this issue, so please don't flame me as such. Linux, as far as I know, cannot process realtime audio. This has do with really, really bad latencies in the kernel (especially)and underlying subsystems with prevent realtime audio from working in Linux at all. This is the same story with WinNT. I purchased BeOS because of its incredible audio applications and its ability to do things with audio and video that I have never seen before. So being curious I decided to do some research on the subject of why other OS's cannot do things such as realtime crossfading and realtime input/output/mixing. If you do some honest research you will discover a lot of things that will really open your eyes. Most notably that although everyone here loves Linux, it was never meant to be or designed to be a realtime audio processing OS. Has anybody else done real honest research into this topic like myself?
At my university there are only "planned" implementations of Windows 2000 for roughly 1-1 1/2 years from now. To the IT department here W2K offers absolutely no "clear" advantages over running WinNT 4.0 SP6 and a lot of expected headaches and nightmares over bugs and incompatibilities. The cost to upgrade hardware alone made everyone scratch their heads. I think that Microsoft has hit a serious software plateau and has no clear way to move forward from NT 4.0. This is good for Linux and Solaris and all the rest. But, I don't think that anyone is going to buy into Windows 2001 either. Has anyone else had this experience as well?
Whoever moderated my post as "Flamebait" can FUCK OFF. I am sorry that my support for this girl as well as other female scientists bothers you. Ignorant bastard. And, no, Watson and Crick did not like Rosalind Franklin. They NEVER gave her credit until confronted about it, unlike what some people think. Rosalind worked under John Randall at King's College. She was given the sole responsibility of discovering DNA's structure ALONE. Watson even went so far as to write an extremely damning paper about Rosalind where he actually claimed to have discovered DNA called "The Double Helix." The book actually raises Rosalind's lab partner Maurice Wilkins above Franklin when they worked as peers in the lab. At a routine seminar John Randall presented Rosalind's data and UNPUBLISHED discoveries on the helical structure of DNA. At the same conference this data was stolen and provided to Cambridge University where Watson and Crick used Franklin's data and claimed her discoveries as their own.
And, on another note, to Uberminky. QUOTE..."I was dabbling with steganography and RSA years ago (8th grade)." HA HA HA HA. That post alone made me laugh for a couple of minutes. Amazing people on/. aren't there. Maybe someone will tell me next that they were, in 6th grade or maybe 8th grade to be fair...between watching TV and playing outside...figuring out the zeroes of the Riemann Zeta function in the complex plane for fun. HA HA HA HA HA HA
It good to finally start seeing exceptionally talented females being recognized for their achievements. Congratulaions to you. I am writing a research paper as we speak about a female scientist named Rosalind Franklin. Anybody ever hear of her? Probably not. As a matter of fact see was the first human being to ever discover DNA and its helical shaping. SHE was the FIRST. But, since her peers in Randall Laboratory were men, and you know who they were, they not only recieved credit for her work, but literally took all of her work as their own. Watson and Crick was nothing but liars and I hope that this female gets all of the attention and credit that she deserves today and in the future.
Things like that seem just a little too obvious. That is a good way to solve those little cryptograms in the daily newspaper. But, it is a great idea to get some thought flowing. But $2500 is a lot of money to give away if this little beauty was that easy.
I absolutely agree with you on all points. There are some interesting disperities (spelled wrong) between all of the programs available for Linux/X Windows. For example, it is incredibly annoying to be able to scroll through menus and lists with ease using my scroll-wheel in GNOME and then switch to Netscape and it doesn't work, or Emacs and it doesn't work. The copy-->paste functions certainly do not work between programs at all. It is as if every programmer thinks he is in a "I know best" bubble when they are programming and thinks that OSS means that nobody should have to follow any sort of UI guidelines. Setting up a sort of "standards" body for UI design would help out Linux immensely. Nobody wants to learn the command line anymore. Only people who were brought up on it, like myself, think it has any value at all. Should Linux UI be like Windows? Why not? My mother came to visit and wanted to check her email from my computer and do some other stuff. The minute she ran a program without a "File" in the menu she just gave up. Only when I created a user for her in Netscape did she understand how to check her mail. People today think about their computers as more of an "appliance" and really don't give half a shit about how it works. And don't tell me people do. That is why Windows works for people. They install something by clicking on "setup," they don't touch anything else, they click on the new icon, and *blammo* their program is running. This is "consumer level" UI design and it works. Linux does not have this and it needs it badly. Sure, "geeks" and "power-users" and the such can use Linux how they see fit, but people like my mother could give a shit less how "wonderful" Linux is if she can't just sit down and use it without any "hassles." And people don't want a Linux "guru" to sit down and setup a system for them when they buy a computer or invest hundreds of hours learning to use Linux when they could be doing something else. Windows actually offers this to people and that is what they expect. So, I wish Linux the best of luck. Right now I am using BeOS for Intel for the simple reason that the GUI is incredible and so is it's simplicity. When I wanted to use my Brooktree 848 capture card in Linux I had to recompile the kernel, load the drivers in conf.modules and then fuck with configuration files for hours. That's bullshit. In BeOS I simply dragged a file named Brooktree to a "devices" folder on the desktop and *poof* my video card came right up. No hassles. See what I mean. Linux needs this and it needs it badly.
There will never, ever be a version of Office for Linux. Let's all get that straight, this article should be in the National Enquirer. The ONLY reason that people use Windows in a corporate environment instead of Linux, or whatever else is because companies have standardized on Office. Office sales=Windows sales. Period. No retraining, no strange document conversions, great support, great user and training manuals, training classes available everywhere, etc., etc. Microsoft would never make Office available for Linux, since this would negate the only reason people need to run Windows. An OS is useless without it's applications and this is exactly where Microsoft got it right. Slashdot may hate Microsoft, but obviously they are not stupid or they wouldn't be where they are today.
Where are some of you people getting your ideas about Netscape and Mozilla? I have been using Mozilla M13 since it came out with full-circle software and it doesn't last longer than 5 minutes NO MATTER WHAT. I know that this is the Windows version, but what's the difference? I've been filing bug reports until my arms fingers fall off, but it seriously sucks. It may be alpha quality, but it sucks horribly compared to other alpha quality software. And Java doesn't work in Mozilla without major fucking around with files normal users would never touch. Now, Netscape is a hell of a lot more stable. Usually what brings down Netscape is it's helper apps and plugins. But, it does just crash on me out the clear blue most of the time. Oh well. Mozilla still have a LONG way to go to replace Netscape. And on a side note, for people who don't like SmartDownload (like me) go to http://www.gozilla.com . This is a seperate downloader that kicks ass. You can even download files for Unix with a dozen a.b.c.d.e.f.t.tar or whatever and it keeps the name intact, unlike Netscape. And it resumes downloads even if your turn your computer off and continue downloading a week later. It rocks, try it out.
Ha ha ha. #9, #10, whatever. Another Leo movie. I like that fact that there is a change of pace on Slashdot, but Leonardo DeCaprio movie reviews?
I personally think that a review on the new Winnie the Pooh movie would be a lot more fun. No Microsoft, No Linux, No Leo...Just good old fashioned low brain activity inducing cartoons. I love Tigger.
I remember a few years ago when a women bought coffee at McDonalds. So as she was driving home she spilled it on herself causing her to get burned. Then she sued McDonalds for millions of dollars. Now, if this was on Slashdot there would have been a BIG CONSPIRACY about McDonalds giving super hot coffee to Black Women in an attempt to stop them from eating there in the mornings. This Echelon deal and the French is very much the same. I would personally believe that the French are simply poor businessmen and that they are just really pissed off at the US for hurting their economy. So what better way to hurt the US than to appeal to narrowminded people in this country to believe that the NSA caused this to happen. HA HA HA HA HA. That is great. I think that I am going to sue the NSA for causing me to fail my first interview because they gave my future employer information about me and my competing interviewing in favor of someone else. HA HA HA HA
Thanks for making my day friend!!! I am glad to see a rating of 2 on your post. I have some new stuff right now and I am always calling my old stuff for help and advice. Why didn't I just keep my old stuff in the first place?
Slashdot Mirror
???
Okay, since when was Solaris 7.0 or 8.0 $75USD? I purchased my copy(ies) each for only $12 for the CD media and about $4 for shipping. Did they raise their prices that much or are you just blowing smoke out of your ass?
This is a very, very good thing that the AP board is doing. I am a senior at small Engineering university in Wisconsin, USA (ranked 12th in the nation) and as of 2 years ago we eliminated C++, COBOL, and a few other languages all together in favor of JAVA. C++ is simply a pain in the ass and it's OO design is crap. I originally learned OO programming in Eiffel for NeXtStep here and that was coming from learning Pascal for the AP test back in 1996. Java is NOT bad and it's debugging is extremely more Verbose that most C++ compilers I have had the unfortunate time to use. There are no elements of "cheating" in Java like some of the earlier, more unimformed posts here. Java has the best networking API on the planet and while it may have a few quirks here and there, Java has been a wonderful language to program in and learn what OO programming is supposed to be about. C++ is crap for OO, like I said before, and to have a student learn it would be far more beneficial as a later course in his/her career. Ask yourself one question...If true OO design philosophies are held so highly by all of the geniuses on Slashdot why do programmers for Linux make EVERYHING in C and then try to fool themselves and their programs into thinking they are actually OO when they are not? Maybe if people learned OO programming, philosophy and used decent OO languages before trying to do everything in C and half attempts at C++ then we would have a better Linux/Unix today.
Eh..What? This was marked as a 2 for what reason? Okay, there is no such thing as a "flux capacitor" you morons. Has anybody had Physics? Ha ha ha..We laughed about this when I was in Physics II in college. Yeah and maybe if I drive my Delorian fast enough and at just the right time and a perfectly placed lightning bolt hits my car I might travel Back to the Future. Ha ha ha. Flux Capacitor...Torque Iversion Matrix...don't even get me started.
I guess that this will once again become a matter of organized religious debate. Does this mean that carbon dating is "once again" wrong (laughing on the inside) or is Adam and Eve (if you Christian, which I am not) just that much older now?
Has anyone here on Slashdot heard of QNX? They have been making an OS for real-time and HA medical equipment for a long time. Linux on my heart monitor or pace maker? Are you fucking kidding me? Yeah, here on /. Linux is made out to be a god, but it is in ABSOLUTELY NO WAY stable enough to bet my life on it. OSE sounds neat, but if I was going to write software for something as critical as a pace maker or life support system I would write ASSEMBLY code SPECIFICALLY for the hardware and job function at hand. Keep it simple...debug it, debug it, debug it, debug it and certainly not make it do anything else except the job at hand.
Please read the following to understand EXACTLY what I was trying to say:
SMP (Symmetrical Multi-Processing) is typically associated with high-end operating systems such as UNIX and NT running on high-end servers. These large monolithic systems tend to be quite complex, the result of many man-years of development. Since these large kernels contain the bulk of all OS services, the changes to support SMP are extensive, usually requiring large numbers of modifications and the use of specialized spinlocks throughout the code.
Neutrino, on the other hand, contains a very small microkernel surrounded by processes that act as resource mangers, providing services such as filesystems, character I/O, and networking. By modifying the microkernel alone, all other OS services will gain full advantage of SMP without the need for coding changes. If these service-providing processes are multi-threaded, their many threads will be scheduled among the available processors. Even a single-threaded server would also benefit from an SMP system, because its thread would be scheduled on the available processors beside other servers and client processes.
As a testament to this microkernel approach, the SMP version of Neutrino adds only a few kilobytes of additional code. This version, called procnto-smp, will boot on any system that conforms to the Intel MultiProcessor Specification (MP Spec) with up to 8 Pentium or Pentium Pro processors. The procnto-smp manager will also function on a single non-SMP system. With the cost of building a dual-processor Pentium motherboard very nearly the same as a single-processor motherboard, it's possible to deliver cost-effective solutions that can be scaled in the field by the simple addition of a second CPU. The fact that the OS itself is only a few kilobytes larger also allows SMP to be seriously considered for small CPU-intensive embedded systems, not just high-end servers.
And Please visit the link http://qdn.qnx.co m/s upport/docs/neutrino_qrp/sys_arch/smp.html
This would refute EVERYTHING that you said.
Thank You.
What I have always found most interesting is the idea that people seem to have on Slashdot about programming for SMP or Parallel Processor machines. Why does there have to be a general compiler that EVERYONE including even the "dumb" programmer can use to compile excellent SMP or MPP code? I was enlightened on an idea a long time ago when I first started programming and the genius was in the OS...QNX. As a brief overview of their idea, they basically have the kernel, which decides which processor in an SMP system gets what thread. Everything above the kernel is forced to be multithreaded by design, no matter what the program is. This is why QNX needs no extra software to skip instantaneaously from an SMP machine to a UNI-Processor machine and vice-versa. The same goes for BeOS. Everything is multithreaded by design of the OS. There is no theoretical limit of processors for these OS's and even if the programmer writes a simple HELLO WORLD program it will be multithreaded without any extra code whatsoever. So why, might I ask, is the next generation "holy grail" supposed to be the smart compilers and algorithms for these 128 processor systems, when maybe the holy grail will be for people to get their heads out of their asses and start using the right software for the job? SMP is nothing but a joke on systems such as Windows NT, Linux, or any other OS who needs to have total OS re-writes if not ULTRA SPECIAL programming and spin-locks and semaphores and every other goddamn thing that is wasting millions of human hours to work on when maybe people should just sit down and start from scratch. Maybe somebody should lookup QNX or Be and be amazed at what people can do when they sit down and realize how messed up current implementations of SMP and MPP really are. For Linux to truly succeed, it needs to become Microkernel...monolithic kernel is just going to go the way of Microsoft and there will be millions upon millions of wasted VOLUNTEER man hours to make it work, if it even does now.
Actually, to be more accurate, this computer was purchased by the DOE for the Sandia National Laboratories to simulate nuclear explosions. What the truth is is that if you read the entire article the computer will actually be running a modified version of RedHat Linux and their proprietary, but soon to be open source software, called CPlant. The article has all the links and it an interesting read. Check it out. More great Linux headlines that should have probably been their own post on Slashdot.
I am not aiming for any points here, but exactly why is the parent post marked TROLL??? I looked at the page too and noticed that he is correct. This is not GPL'd code, so why is he marked as troll? Moderator's...Please mark him as something else, you are being unfair for absolutely no good reason.
I am currently a user of QNX OS and it's preemptive real-time capabilities are absolutely astonishing. For the sake of Linux I would hope that this company holds off on production of its distribution until the kernel is at least stable, if not fully released. If a big "oops" is made too early in the game, many people or just going to stay with their OS of choice, which isn't at the time most likely Linux, because having confidence in what OS you stick on your real-time hardware is no laughing matter at all.
Hey man, thanks for the great links!!! I was totally unprepared and laughed my ass off at the first link. Hell yeah.
This is almost humorous to me as to why this article is posted. As a long time user of OS/2 I remember when people were lobbying Apple to make a QuickTime player for OS/2. IBM sanctioned a port and then *poof* it disappeared. This happened because Apple isn't completely stupid. Quicktime is an awesome CODEC and it's technology SHOULD be highly guarded and its intellectual property protected. This is very, very simple business. People will buy Macintoshes because of technology like this.
The point is that Apple will never port Quicktime to Linux because Linux+Quicktime would eliminate the need to run OS/X+QuickTime. Having Quicktime on Windows is not a problem on two fronts. First of all, Windows will never run on a Macintosh so Apple's hardware is safe. And secondly Apple will be able to gain marketshare without the worry of having Microsoft "absorb" there Quicktime technology into Windows Media player as long as it is not opensourced and available to everyone. Opensourcing OS/X is not a very big deal at all. I mean, who cares? Not Microsoft sonce there are already tons of OS's that run on both Intel and PowerPC so what's another version of Unix to them? Opensourcing Quicktime is something completely different all together. This is Apple's ONLY stronghold left in the market. Plus, once Apple lets out a binary on Linux some jackass would try to reverse engineer it in the name of "OSS" and the whole free world and then Apple would never, ever try it again and it would ruin it for us all. So, let's stop complaining to Apple about Quicktime. It's not going to happen. Apple doesn't like us, period. Unless their intellectual property can be preserved and it makes really, really good business sense to them and it's not going to help Linux to take over OS/X on their own hardware then just maybe we'll see Quicktime on Linux. Good luck.
Here is what the real problem is with audio and Linux. I am not going to be taking sides on this issue, so please don't flame me as such. Linux, as far as I know, cannot process realtime audio. This has do with really, really bad latencies in the kernel (especially)and underlying subsystems with prevent realtime audio from working in Linux at all. This is the same story with WinNT. I purchased BeOS because of its incredible audio applications and its ability to do things with audio and video that I have never seen before. So being curious I decided to do some research on the subject of why other OS's cannot do things such as realtime crossfading and realtime input/output/mixing. If you do some honest research you will discover a lot of things that will really open your eyes. Most notably that although everyone here loves Linux, it was never meant to be or designed to be a realtime audio processing OS. Has anybody else done real honest research into this topic like myself?
At my university there are only "planned" implementations of Windows 2000 for roughly 1-1 1/2 years from now. To the IT department here W2K offers absolutely no "clear" advantages over running WinNT 4.0 SP6 and a lot of expected headaches and nightmares over bugs and incompatibilities. The cost to upgrade hardware alone made everyone scratch their heads. I think that Microsoft has hit a serious software plateau and has no clear way to move forward from NT 4.0. This is good for Linux and Solaris and all the rest. But, I don't think that anyone is going to buy into Windows 2001 either. Has anyone else had this experience as well?
It's "losers" not "loosers"
Why don't you just look up chroot sometime, it really isn't that difficult.
Whoever moderated my post as "Flamebait" can FUCK OFF. I am sorry that my support for this girl as well as other female scientists bothers you. Ignorant bastard.
/. aren't there. Maybe someone will tell me next that they were, in 6th grade or maybe 8th grade to be fair...between watching TV and playing outside...figuring out the zeroes of the Riemann Zeta function in the complex plane for fun. HA HA HA HA HA HA
And, no, Watson and Crick did not like Rosalind Franklin. They NEVER gave her credit until confronted about it, unlike what some people think. Rosalind worked under John Randall at King's College. She was given the sole responsibility of discovering DNA's structure ALONE. Watson even went so far as to write an extremely damning paper about Rosalind where he actually claimed to have discovered DNA called "The Double Helix." The book actually raises Rosalind's lab partner Maurice Wilkins above Franklin when they worked as peers in the lab.
At a routine seminar John Randall presented Rosalind's data and UNPUBLISHED discoveries on the helical structure of DNA. At the same conference this data was stolen and provided to Cambridge University where Watson and Crick used Franklin's data and claimed her discoveries as their own.
And, on another note, to Uberminky. QUOTE..."I was dabbling with steganography and RSA years ago (8th grade)." HA HA HA HA. That post alone made me laugh for a couple of minutes. Amazing people on
It good to finally start seeing exceptionally talented females being recognized for their achievements. Congratulaions to you. I am writing a research paper as we speak about a female scientist named Rosalind Franklin. Anybody ever hear of her? Probably not. As a matter of fact see was the first human being to ever discover DNA and its helical shaping. SHE was the FIRST. But, since her peers in Randall Laboratory were men, and you know who they were, they not only recieved credit for her work, but literally took all of her work as their own. Watson and Crick was nothing but liars and I hope that this female gets all of the attention and credit that she deserves today and in the future.
Things like that seem just a little too obvious. That is a good way to solve those little cryptograms in the daily newspaper. But, it is a great idea to get some thought flowing. But $2500 is a lot of money to give away if this little beauty was that easy.
I absolutely agree with you on all points. There are some interesting disperities (spelled wrong) between all of the programs available for Linux/X Windows. For example, it is incredibly annoying to be able to scroll through menus and lists with ease using my scroll-wheel in GNOME and then switch to Netscape and it doesn't work, or Emacs and it doesn't work. The copy-->paste functions certainly do not work between programs at all. It is as if every programmer thinks he is in a "I know best" bubble when they are programming and thinks that OSS means that nobody should have to follow any sort of UI guidelines. Setting up a sort of "standards" body for UI design would help out Linux immensely. Nobody wants to learn the command line anymore. Only people who were brought up on it, like myself, think it has any value at all. Should Linux UI be like Windows? Why not? My mother came to visit and wanted to check her email from my computer and do some other stuff. The minute she ran a program without a "File" in the menu she just gave up. Only when I created a user for her in Netscape did she understand how to check her mail. People today think about their computers as more of an "appliance" and really don't give half a shit about how it works. And don't tell me people do. That is why Windows works for people. They install something by clicking on "setup," they don't touch anything else, they click on the new icon, and *blammo* their program is running. This is "consumer level" UI design and it works. Linux does not have this and it needs it badly. Sure, "geeks" and "power-users" and the such can use Linux how they see fit, but people like my mother could give a shit less how "wonderful" Linux is if she can't just sit down and use it without any "hassles." And people don't want a Linux "guru" to sit down and setup a system for them when they buy a computer or invest hundreds of hours learning to use Linux when they could be doing something else. Windows actually offers this to people and that is what they expect. So, I wish Linux the best of luck. Right now I am using BeOS for Intel for the simple reason that the GUI is incredible and so is it's simplicity. When I wanted to use my Brooktree 848 capture card in Linux I had to recompile the kernel, load the drivers in conf.modules and then fuck with configuration files for hours. That's bullshit. In BeOS I simply dragged a file named Brooktree to a "devices" folder on the desktop and *poof* my video card came right up. No hassles. See what I mean. Linux needs this and it needs it badly.
There will never, ever be a version of Office for Linux. Let's all get that straight, this article should be in the National Enquirer. The ONLY reason that people use Windows in a corporate environment instead of Linux, or whatever else is because companies have standardized on Office. Office sales=Windows sales. Period. No retraining, no strange document conversions, great support, great user and training manuals, training classes available everywhere, etc., etc. Microsoft would never make Office available for Linux, since this would negate the only reason people need to run Windows. An OS is useless without it's applications and this is exactly where Microsoft got it right. Slashdot may hate Microsoft, but obviously they are not stupid or they wouldn't be where they are today.
Where are some of you people getting your ideas about Netscape and Mozilla? I have been using Mozilla M13 since it came out with full-circle software and it doesn't last longer than 5 minutes NO MATTER WHAT. I know that this is the Windows version, but what's the difference? I've been filing bug reports until my arms fingers fall off, but it seriously sucks. It may be alpha quality, but it sucks horribly compared to other alpha quality software. And Java doesn't work in Mozilla without major fucking around with files normal users would never touch. Now, Netscape is a hell of a lot more stable. Usually what brings down Netscape is it's helper apps and plugins. But, it does just crash on me out the clear blue most of the time. Oh well. Mozilla still have a LONG way to go to replace Netscape.
And on a side note, for people who don't like SmartDownload (like me) go to http://www.gozilla.com . This is a seperate downloader that kicks ass. You can even download files for Unix with a dozen a.b.c.d.e.f.t.tar or whatever and it keeps the name intact, unlike Netscape. And it resumes downloads even if your turn your computer off and continue downloading a week later. It rocks, try it out.
Umm, hello. A score of 6? It wasn't exactly an Earth shattering question.
Hello,
Anybody home in moderator land?
Ha ha ha. #9, #10, whatever. Another Leo movie. I like that fact that there is a change of pace on Slashdot, but Leonardo DeCaprio movie reviews?
I personally think that a review on the new Winnie the Pooh movie would be a lot more fun. No Microsoft, No Linux, No Leo...Just good old fashioned low brain activity inducing cartoons. I love Tigger.
I remember a few years ago when a women bought coffee at McDonalds. So as she was driving home she spilled it on herself causing her to get burned. Then she sued McDonalds for millions of dollars.
Now, if this was on Slashdot there would have been a BIG CONSPIRACY about McDonalds giving super hot coffee to Black Women in an attempt to stop them from eating there in the mornings. This Echelon deal and the French is very much the same. I would personally believe that the French are simply poor businessmen and that they are just really pissed off at the US for hurting their economy. So what better way to hurt the US than to appeal to narrowminded people in this country to believe that the NSA caused this to happen. HA HA HA HA HA. That is great. I think that I am going to sue the NSA for causing me to fail my first interview because they gave my future employer information about me and my competing interviewing in favor of someone else. HA HA HA HA
Thanks for making my day friend!!!
I am glad to see a rating of 2 on your post. I have some new stuff right now and I am always calling my old stuff for help and advice. Why didn't I just keep my old stuff in the first place?