I'm not sure what my wife would say about painting nudes:)
however, I'm now happily an economics professor, waiting for the antitrust cases to pay for my kids college . . . *much* better, since you just can't stay a grad student forever . . . . this is as close as it comes . ... (as one older prof I know commented, you get to keep doing the things you did as a student, but now you get paid!)
well, sort of. the laptop has drdos and an old debian linux, with windows off on a zip. One of the kids' systems needs its memory found, and my k6 had to eat the other as parts failed. Then one bit too many went bad on the cd, and it hadto get w98 . . .
> A number of
> those violations (including browser integration)
read the decision. The integration was *not* found to be a violation. It was the actions taken to stop users from using competing products that was a violation.
> Now that your the legitimate owner of South Dakota. I'd like to
> purchase a little land, I have quite a few very nice things to trade,
> such as some nice wool blankets, . . .
err, if you're going to use the Manhattan model, he should be selling you Maine, or some such . . . the funniest part of the whole Manhattan purchase, and the reall rip-off, is that it was indians who were passing through that "sold" the place ...
>Norton ought to be thrown out for this; same would
> have applied to Babbitt.
Norton wasn't the original defendant. Babbit (or perhaps even his predecessor) was the orginal defendant, and the as the office changed hands, the suit was amended.
*noone* could clean up the mess that Norton inherited in a single year . . .
> I really meant this judge, ie, a federal judge. That type of thing
> would be a state level court, correct? Or would that fall under a
> federal court's juridiction?
This is litigation regarding soveigrn indian tribes and the federal government. There's not basis for any state court to exercise jurisdiction over *either* party . . .
>This would be like the Government sending my tax return in cash --
> it's irresposible because anyone could easily open my mailbox and find
> almost $3 of totally spendible money ready and waiting.
But that's not too far from how the government has handled these trust funds--assuming, of course, that the government was supposed to have sent you $3 Billion . . .
The history of mismanagement of these moneys, and the sheer volume of missing records (they don't know how much they're supposed to have had, who it belongs, to, etc.) is shocking, even by banana republic standards. The existence of this case should have scared of Norton from *taking* the job as interior secretary . . .
Add to that that the first rule of litigation is, "don't piss of the judge." They've done that in spacdes. And if you *are* going to piss of a judge with misconduct and feigned ignorance, this is the *last* judge in the united states to do that to . . .
THink about it. It you want massive hits to your website, can you think of any better way than to get slashdot to say you forbid links--with the inevitable "defiant" link? . . .
Yes, it can fit a lot of areas. I think MD's (no, not Doctors. Most physicians have never contributed to the body of knowlege, and thus are *not* doctors) have it worse, as seen by the high suicide rate.
I always knew that there was a risk that I'd make a mistake and screw up someone's life; that's the nature of the job. Perhaps the last straw, though, was when a kid got kidnapped because I did my job *right* (and no, I didn't see it coming) . . . and pleading a client guilty to a felony sex crime I was reasonably sure he didn't commit, sincethe deal would keep him out of prison and with his family, while the cost of fighting it (and not just my fees) would cost his family everything while facing a 10 year minimum sentence hits you hard . . .
Near the end, California Lawyer did an article on burnout. I fit the profile, save that I didn't have a substance abuse problem, serious financial problems disciplinary problems, and, most importantly, still had my family. Had I stayed in . . .
Law is no place for an idealist . . . (yeah, I went into it thinking the system worked . ..)
>When I
> finished it, she asked me to play it on a higher difficulty level so
> she can watch it again.:-/
She's not alone. When I was in student apartments, my daugter (about 6 at the time, I suppose) kept asking me to play the "kitty game"--nethack. She thought being followed around by the cat was really cool (ok, so she's right:)
>I found three
>of the ten rooms I visited inhabited by people playing some computer
>game, either Half Life or Civ3, by students who SHOULD have been in
>class.
ahh, but why weren't *you* in class?
hmm?
Inquiring professors want to know . . .
hawk, reading slashdot while he should be grading . . .
I refer to myself as a "recovering lawyer," and that I've been clean for over seven years (since I last suied someone). However, it's not that far from the truth. Before I left for graduate school, I started asking other lawyers if they'd go back to law school if they had it to do again. My sample is skewed, because most of the lawyers I knew were either sole practitioners or in small firms, but 90% said no. Of the rest, almost all cited money as a reason--they had no other ways to earn a comparable amount.
I was literally stopped in the middle of the street jaywalking by another lawyer who wanted to tell me I was his hero for finding a way out. They want out; they just can't face the pay cut. Grad school was a 90% cut from what I would have made the next year--and worth every penny. (I also had to give up the 35 hour work week . ..).
I razzed another lawyer, a litigator, about eating the fish rather than the red meat at our 20 year reunion. He can't *digest* it, it makes him ill due to his stress. So why does he continue? He can't give up the money and lifestyle.
A great many lawyers are caught in a living hell. They give up everything to stay in--family, health, sanity (yes, I know at least one who just plain cracked). And for what?
Yes, I am still a lawyer, and have kept my licenses. I'll take antitrust issues and other matters which really want an economist with a law license. But I'll dig ditches before I return to general practice.
> Are the fetchable packages only available for stable releases?
FreeBSD is organized a bit differently, and it's been too long since I've used NetBSD to comment (it was MacBSD and moving fast).
Anyway, there's a major release every 6 months, e.g., 4.3 Release. This is just a snapshot of the stable branch on that particular day, as the stable branch is constantly updated. The 2.x and 3.x trees are also updated for security, but not features. 4.x (actually, I think it's 4.0-STABLE for this purpose) gets features ported from CURRENT once they're stable, as well as bug fixes. This covers the kernel, base utilities, sendmail, X (though X is also available as a port), and so forth (Far more than linux kernel and the GNU utilities--enough that it's actually usable as an os, but still far less than a linux distribution.).
To run applications (other than getting email with mail, or editing with vi, or printing), you'll want some ports or packages. There is a single ports tree, and I've always assumed that STABLE and CURRENT have the same packages.
So running STABLE gets you to about the same as the unstable branch of debian. Running CURRENT is closer to running a kernel off the development branch and applying the patches as they appear on the kernel devlopers list--and doing the same for all of the base debian distribution (i.e., running the to-the-minute devlopers' versions of sendmail, tar, etc.).
>I run unstable and update every couple of days.
You're a brave man.:)
I used to do that, and around '96-'97 it worked. After that, the twice-a-year "showstopper" got to be just too much, and the testing branch didn't exist yet. (OK, and the politics were getting more and more annoying, too.) I'd be hard pressed to give you an exact date for my switch, but it was to 3.3 or 3.4. (though I did use debian on my office desktop in the 99-2000 academic year, as the inaqdequate machine provided a visiting professor at UNI just didn't have the resources to compile).
The bottom line is that running CURRENT is about equivalent to debian unstable or testing with regular updates from security, but you don't tend to get those disasters that tend to happen with unstable, or the annoyances that happen when a package from unstable gets pulled before entering testing--but still has other packages depending upon it. CURRENT just isn't comparabloe to a Debina distribution. FreeBSD has never sent something down the pipe thaqt rendered my system unusable; I can't say that about debian.
> If you will notice, my previous comment is not in response to you, but
>rather Zach.
Yes, and Zach was writing about packages--a purely binary system.
> apt it's easy enough to compile the few packages that I might want to
> compile and install, etc. so it's a better solution for me.
> My main complaint about ports is compilation time.
So use the packages, and only use the ports for the handful that you want to compile yourself . . .
Like I said, with
> apt it's easy enough to compile the few packages that I might want to
> compile and install, etc. so it's a better solution for me.
But it's the same solution . . . you can mix ports and packages; the ports make a package and install it; the fetchable packages are really pre-compiled ports.
> sigh all you want, you've not addressed the compilation problem.
In which universe?
in the original comment, I wrote
>Debian's package management is better than bsd packages.
The post which you reply to wrote,
> Automated package
> dependancy additions, hierarchal views of the packages, searching,
> etc. Its right there from the very beginning.
Packages are pre-compiled. Ports are not. That's why I distinguished between them.
It just doesn't make sense to me, unless you have ideological reasons to insist on the GNU utilities. And if so, the BSD kernel shouldn't meet your purity requirements.
Why not just use a BSD outright?
While building a Linux distribution with bsd rather than gnu utilities makes a certain amount of sense, I don't see anyone putting time into it for other than being truly annoyed by RMS. I'd be somewhat interested, as I've prefered the bsd to gnu the couple of times I've noticed differences, but I solved that by switching. Little sense as that makes, though, stripping the free software utilities integrated into the BSD's in favor of the GNU versions makes even less sense to me.
> the one thing that keeps me with Linux is Debian's packet
> management.
Debian's package management is better than bsd packages. It seems to take a back seat to bsd ports, however. It's all compiled right there on your machine, and it handles dependencies. portupgrade can search and upgrade/replace these, too. Give it a try. I've never missed debian since switching.
> people are willing to go to great lengths to give nothing back to
> the creators, installing junkbuster or even no longer going to certain
> sites that have ads.
I don't believe I've ever blocked an ad that didn't blink at me first. When my 200mhz K6, a fairly fast machine at the time, was brought to its knees by javing two (2) web pages open at the same time (java disabled), I put in junkbuster. Now it's just habit bo block anything that blinks at me.
>The
>reason traditional businesses (like Apple and Microsoft) encourage
>independent developers to choose the BSD license is that traditional
>businesses (like Apple and Microsoft) can then integrate the
>independent developer's code into a closed-source commercial product
>without paying a licensing fee or even contributing to the free source
>code base in good faith.
Huh? Go look at the changelogs, particularly the number from apple, and try saying that again. It just wouldn't make economic sense for apple to not return the bugfixes--they then have to separately maintain their base.
This was proposed to me by a windows-centric administrator last year, rather than real unix. I looked over what he provided, thought, and several components were *way* out of date--including X, iirc (I think it was R5, not 6)
Slashdot Mirror
however, I'm now happily an economics professor, waiting for the antitrust cases to pay for my kids college . . . *much* better, since you just can't stay a grad student forever . . . . this is as close as it comes . .
hawk
> Windows isn't just an OS. It's an OS plus a set of standard libraries
> and applications
then aren't we supposed to call it "GNU/Windows" ?
:)
hawk
hawk, who doesn't use any mswindows himself
> its removal really that hard?
That was the problem, and why, after litigation, they can no longer sell that "Java" . . .
hawk
> those violations (including browser integration)
read the decision. The integration was *not* found to be a violation. It was the actions taken to stop users from using competing products that was a violation.
hawk, esq.
> purchase a little land, I have quite a few very nice things to trade,
> such as some nice wool blankets, . . .
err, if you're going to use the Manhattan model, he should be selling you Maine, or some such . . . the funniest part of the whole Manhattan purchase, and the reall rip-off, is that it was indians who were passing through that "sold" the place .
hawk
> have applied to Babbitt.
Norton wasn't the original defendant. Babbit (or perhaps even his predecessor) was the orginal defendant, and the as the office changed hands, the suit was amended.
*noone* could clean up the mess that Norton inherited in a single year . . .
hawk
> would be a state level court, correct? Or would that fall under a
> federal court's juridiction?
This is litigation regarding soveigrn indian tribes and the federal government. There's not basis for any state court to exercise jurisdiction over *either* party . . .
> it's irresposible because anyone could easily open my mailbox and find
> almost $3 of totally spendible money ready and waiting.
But that's not too far from how the government has handled these trust funds--assuming, of course, that the government was supposed to have sent you $3 Billion . . .
The history of mismanagement of these moneys, and the sheer volume of missing records (they don't know how much they're supposed to have had, who it belongs, to, etc.) is shocking, even by banana republic standards. The existence of this case should have scared of Norton from *taking* the job as interior secretary . . .
Add to that that the first rule of litigation is, "don't piss of the judge." They've done that in spacdes. And if you *are* going to piss of a judge with misconduct and feigned ignorance, this is the *last* judge in the united states to do that to . . .
hawk, esq.
slashdot used to be a quick source for technical news. Now it's rare to find technology news that isn't in the prior day's Wall Street Journal . . .
hawk
THink about it. It you want massive hits to your website, can you think of any better way than to get slashdot to say you forbid links--with the inevitable "defiant" link? . . .
hawk
I always knew that there was a risk that I'd make a mistake and screw up someone's life; that's the nature of the job. Perhaps the last straw, though, was when a kid got kidnapped because I did my job *right* (and no, I didn't see it coming) . . . and pleading a client guilty to a felony sex crime I was reasonably sure he didn't commit, sincethe deal would keep him out of prison and with his family, while the cost of fighting it (and not just my fees) would cost his family everything while facing a 10 year minimum sentence hits you hard . . .
Near the end, California Lawyer did an article on burnout. I fit the profile, save that I didn't have a substance abuse problem, serious financial problems disciplinary problems, and, most importantly, still had my family. Had I stayed in . . .
Law is no place for an idealist . . . (yeah, I went into it thinking the system worked . .
hawk, esq.
> finished it, she asked me to play it on a higher difficulty level so
> she can watch it again.
She's not alone. When I was in student apartments, my daugter (about 6 at the time, I suppose) kept asking me to play the "kitty game"--nethack. She thought being followed around by the cat was really cool (ok, so she's right
hawk
> either MUDs or Usenet.
That's what you get for being a young usenet Newbie. When I was in college, you could read the whole spool in two hours . . .
hawk
>I found three
>of the ten rooms I visited inhabited by people playing some computer
>game, either Half Life or Civ3, by students who SHOULD have been in
>class.
ahh, but why weren't *you* in class?
hmm?
Inquiring professors want to know . . .
hawk, reading slashdot while he should be grading . . .
I was literally stopped in the middle of the street jaywalking by another lawyer who wanted to tell me I was his hero for finding a way out. They want out; they just can't face the pay cut. Grad school was a 90% cut from what I would have made the next year--and worth every penny. (I also had to give up the 35 hour work week . .
I razzed another lawyer, a litigator, about eating the fish rather than the red meat at our 20 year reunion. He can't *digest* it, it makes him ill due to his stress. So why does he continue? He can't give up the money and lifestyle.
A great many lawyers are caught in a living hell. They give up everything to stay in--family, health, sanity (yes, I know at least one who just plain cracked). And for what?
Yes, I am still a lawyer, and have kept my licenses. I'll take antitrust issues and other matters which really want an economist with a law license. But I'll dig ditches before I return to general practice.
hawk, esq.
FreeBSD is organized a bit differently, and it's been too long since I've used NetBSD to comment (it was MacBSD and moving fast).
Anyway, there's a major release every 6 months, e.g., 4.3 Release. This is just a snapshot of the stable branch on that particular day, as the stable branch is constantly updated. The 2.x and 3.x trees are also updated for security, but not features. 4.x (actually, I think it's 4.0-STABLE for this purpose) gets features ported from CURRENT once they're stable, as well as bug fixes. This covers the kernel, base utilities, sendmail, X (though X is also available as a port), and so forth (Far more than linux kernel and the GNU utilities--enough that it's actually usable as an os, but still far less than a linux distribution.).
To run applications (other than getting email with mail, or editing with vi, or printing), you'll want some ports or packages. There is a single ports tree, and I've always assumed that STABLE and CURRENT have the same packages.
So running STABLE gets you to about the same as the unstable branch of debian. Running CURRENT is closer to running a kernel off the development branch and applying the patches as they appear on the kernel devlopers list--and doing the same for all of the base debian distribution (i.e., running the to-the-minute devlopers' versions of sendmail, tar, etc.).
>I run unstable and update every couple of days.
You're a brave man.
I used to do that, and around '96-'97 it worked. After that, the twice-a-year "showstopper" got to be just too much, and the testing branch didn't exist yet. (OK, and the politics were getting more and more annoying, too.) I'd be hard pressed to give you an exact date for my switch, but it was to 3.3 or 3.4. (though I did use debian on my office desktop in the 99-2000 academic year, as the inaqdequate machine provided a visiting professor at UNI just didn't have the resources to compile).
The bottom line is that running CURRENT is about equivalent to debian unstable or testing with regular updates from security, but you don't tend to get those disasters that tend to happen with unstable, or the annoyances that happen when a package from unstable gets pulled before entering testing--but still has other packages depending upon it. CURRENT just isn't comparabloe to a Debina distribution. FreeBSD has never sent something down the pipe thaqt rendered my system unusable; I can't say that about debian.
hawk
> If you will notice, my previous comment is not in response to you, but
>rather Zach.
Yes, and Zach was writing about packages--a purely binary system.
> apt it's easy enough to compile the few packages that I might want to
> compile and install, etc. so it's a better solution for me.
> My main complaint about ports is compilation time.
So use the packages, and only use the ports for the handful that you want to compile yourself . . .
Like I said, with
> apt it's easy enough to compile the few packages that I might want to
> compile and install, etc. so it's a better solution for me.
But it's the same solution . . . you can mix ports and packages; the ports make a package and install it; the fetchable packages are really pre-compiled ports.
hawk
In which universe?
in the original comment, I wrote
>Debian's package management is better than bsd packages.
The post which you reply to wrote,
> Automated package
> dependancy additions, hierarchal views of the packages, searching,
> etc. Its right there from the very beginning.
Packages are pre-compiled. Ports are not. That's why I distinguished between them.
hawk
Why not just use a BSD outright?
While building a Linux distribution with bsd rather than gnu utilities makes a certain amount of sense, I don't see anyone putting time into it for other than being truly annoyed by RMS. I'd be somewhat interested, as I've prefered the bsd to gnu the couple of times I've noticed differences, but I solved that by switching. Little sense as that makes, though, stripping the free software utilities integrated into the BSD's in favor of the GNU versions makes even less sense to me.
> the one thing that keeps me with Linux is Debian's packet
> management.
Debian's package management is better than bsd packages. It seems to take a back seat to bsd ports, however. It's all compiled right there on your machine, and it handles dependencies. portupgrade can search and upgrade/replace these, too. Give it a try. I've never missed debian since switching.
hawk
> the creators, installing junkbuster or even no longer going to certain
> sites that have ads.
I don't believe I've ever blocked an ad that didn't blink at me first. When my 200mhz K6, a fairly fast machine at the time, was brought to its knees by javing two (2) web pages open at the same time (java disabled), I put in junkbuster. Now it's just habit bo block anything that blinks at me.
hawk
Now the *truly* malicious can set out to infect 911 with a virus that attacks the phone of callers . . .
hawk, who now sees that touch-tone was a slippery slope and should have been stopped
ony for the GPL crowd. For everyone else, it's tar.bz2
:)
hawk
>reason traditional businesses (like Apple and Microsoft) encourage
>independent developers to choose the BSD license is that traditional
>businesses (like Apple and Microsoft) can then integrate the
>independent developer's code into a closed-source commercial product
>without paying a licensing fee or even contributing to the free source
>code base in good faith.
Huh? Go look at the changelogs, particularly the number from apple, and try saying that again. It just wouldn't make economic sense for apple to not return the bugfixes--they then have to separately maintain their base.
hawk
hawk