Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?
on
Linux 2.6.26 Out
·
· Score: 1
I don't know about you, but a kernal alone does not alow me to operate my system. Also, I've never seen an iso with only a kernel.
All this bickering is nice and dandy, point still stands that most of us are in the normal world, don't care about what is in serious coding books or what GNU fanatics think about naming conventions.
I'm in the shop (or the internet, or in a meeting with advisors) and I need something to install on my computer(s) so I can do what I bought them for. So that's for example Windows, RedHat, Ubuntu, what have you, not anything else.
Way to go for respecting my English not being my primary language. What could I possibly mean with disintegrating, huh? Like exploding and that the shards will shoot into outer space?
Come on, you know what I mean. Rotating 'stuff' at low rpms is just better than rotating them at high rpms, anywhere anytime, any material.
Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?
on
Linux 2.6.26 Out
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The entire operating system is called Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian, Suse, whatever. They all happen to have a Linux kernel, GNU tools and are very compatible, but that's all there is to it. All these operating systems are often refered to as Linux, as that's what makes them all so very compatible (If an app runs in Ubuntu, it very probably also runs in Suse). There's no such thing as GNU/Linux, because I've never ever seen an.iso labeled like that. gNewSense is afaik the endorsed operating system by the GNU project, let's leave it at that.
As the bits are more densly packed on the platters, the thoughput is increasing too. Current drives easily doo 100MB/s and I would be surprised if this drive can do 120-140MB/s.
You're point still stands of course, HD space increases faster than throughputs increase.
Cannibalizing OSX market share? Nonsense. Every Mac than can run OSX ships with OSX, not too mention that OSX is sexier, more up to date, actually works on recent machines andis jus not in the same market as OS9 would be.
Opensourcing OS9 (is that actually opensourcing, or making available as free binary download?) would make a few hobbyists and fans have a good time, not much more.
Like Windows 3.11, I can't possibly see a disadvantages to setting (the binaries) free.
And that's why AC's are more expensive and inherently less efficient than heating a house in cooler areas. You can create heat with 100% efficiency, but you can not ever cool with 100% efficiency.
Provided they all support open formats in a consistent way (which, last time I checked, sadly wasn't the case: mostly formatting differences), what would it matter if there are multiple suites operating correctly with those formats? I some like the interface of OpenOffice, others Abiword, and some KOffice. As lang as I can move files across them with full compatibility, I'm happy.
I agree that the OpenOffice team needs to do something fast. Apart from very minor changes I can't tell 0.9 apart from 3.0. I think they should focus on actually improving and adding/changing the interface (the presentation interface of that Mac-app that Jobs uses is vastly superior to anything else imho, why not have that) and cutting bloat. Perhaps they should take the ribbon too, OpenOffice directly competes with MSOffice after all.
Re:Anyone see much of a difference?
on
A Year of GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
If I remember correctly EULA's in commercial software that appear upon installation have been rendered illegal by some court here in the Netherland or maybe a European court. They should present the terms upon sale, not upon installation. How this compares to an EULA for a product that may not be sold, I do not know.
It's actually put in there by the Mozilla devs because they have this plan for world domination. So you bet that hole will be there in FF3.1 and every FF after that! They need to control your computer someho, don't they?
The thing I like of ZFS is that it moves basically all file-related stuff to the actual filesystem, which makes sense to me, since that's why I have a filesystem. You basically don't need to know all these annoying details, or make checksum-databases yourself and check regularly.
Still, the question stands.
Hate to reply to myself here, but if these TLD's are going to be cheap (which of course they aren't) a TLD-owner could just use a catchall to redirect any *.TLD to it's website. I suppose this would, kinda, solve the problem. Still, I'd vote for getting rid of TLD's alltogether.
Why not get rid of TLD's alltogether? All those TLD's aren't making things easier to understand and certainly not easier to administrate. How nice it would be when I visit "http://slashdot" I'll be at slashdot.
While I absolutely agree there's no fundamental difference between animals and humans (there's no a priori reason why we should have abilities they do not and vice versa), still I think the difference is obvious: humans simply have greatly maximized the use of their brains. The fact that we have this type of conversation (a) at all (b) though a machine (c) over a glassfiber network that spans the entire planet, and that I have no reason to believe any other animal can have this type of conversations at all is difference enough for me. Not that I really want there to be a difference, but I think it's obvious there is.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about you, but a kernal alone does not alow me to operate my system. Also, I've never seen an iso with only a kernel. All this bickering is nice and dandy, point still stands that most of us are in the normal world, don't care about what is in serious coding books or what GNU fanatics think about naming conventions. I'm in the shop (or the internet, or in a meeting with advisors) and I need something to install on my computer(s) so I can do what I bought them for. So that's for example Windows, RedHat, Ubuntu, what have you, not anything else.
The whole point is that these AMD cards cost from 140 to 200 euro, and still manage to eat nvidia's 500 euro cards. RTFA.
Way to go for respecting my English not being my primary language. What could I possibly mean with disintegrating, huh? Like exploding and that the shards will shoot into outer space? Come on, you know what I mean. Rotating 'stuff' at low rpms is just better than rotating them at high rpms, anywhere anytime, any material.
The entire operating system is called Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian, Suse, whatever. They all happen to have a Linux kernel, GNU tools and are very compatible, but that's all there is to it. All these operating systems are often refered to as Linux, as that's what makes them all so very compatible (If an app runs in Ubuntu, it very probably also runs in Suse). There's no such thing as GNU/Linux, because I've never ever seen an .iso labeled like that. gNewSense is afaik the endorsed operating system by the GNU project, let's leave it at that.
At high rotation speeds the metal of the axis and wheel will/could desintegrate, because of the centrifugal force.
It runs, if you're happy with DX8.1 effects and breakage from time to time. Neither of those appeal to gamers, not even gamers that like Linux.
As the bits are more densly packed on the platters, the thoughput is increasing too. Current drives easily doo 100MB/s and I would be surprised if this drive can do 120-140MB/s. You're point still stands of course, HD space increases faster than throughputs increase.
Cannibalizing OSX market share? Nonsense. Every Mac than can run OSX ships with OSX, not too mention that OSX is sexier, more up to date, actually works on recent machines andis jus not in the same market as OS9 would be. Opensourcing OS9 (is that actually opensourcing, or making available as free binary download?) would make a few hobbyists and fans have a good time, not much more. Like Windows 3.11, I can't possibly see a disadvantages to setting (the binaries) free.
Last time I ventured into second life I searched for 'Beach' and was treated to a picture of a girl fingering herself.
I once had this happen to me in First Life...
And that's why AC's are more expensive and inherently less efficient than heating a house in cooler areas. You can create heat with 100% efficiency, but you can not ever cool with 100% efficiency.
Provided they all support open formats in a consistent way (which, last time I checked, sadly wasn't the case: mostly formatting differences), what would it matter if there are multiple suites operating correctly with those formats? I some like the interface of OpenOffice, others Abiword, and some KOffice. As lang as I can move files across them with full compatibility, I'm happy. I agree that the OpenOffice team needs to do something fast. Apart from very minor changes I can't tell 0.9 apart from 3.0. I think they should focus on actually improving and adding/changing the interface (the presentation interface of that Mac-app that Jobs uses is vastly superior to anything else imho, why not have that) and cutting bloat. Perhaps they should take the ribbon too, OpenOffice directly competes with MSOffice after all.
If I remember correctly EULA's in commercial software that appear upon installation have been rendered illegal by some court here in the Netherland or maybe a European court. They should present the terms upon sale, not upon installation. How this compares to an EULA for a product that may not be sold, I do not know.
That is actually illegal, is it not? You are allowed to sell what you bought, no matter what.
It's actually put in there by the Mozilla devs because they have this plan for world domination. So you bet that hole will be there in FF3.1 and every FF after that! They need to control your computer someho, don't they?
Human beings in groups are political beings. Trying to seperate them is simply impossible and a waste of time.
Actually it means 'can' as in 'yes we can'.
Ah, damn....
- Brent
2010, will it finally be the year of the Windows desktop?
Since the 'leaked' Windows 7 alpha's say they're NT6.1, I think you're right.
The thing I like of ZFS is that it moves basically all file-related stuff to the actual filesystem, which makes sense to me, since that's why I have a filesystem. You basically don't need to know all these annoying details, or make checksum-databases yourself and check regularly. Still, the question stands.
Hate to reply to myself here, but if these TLD's are going to be cheap (which of course they aren't) a TLD-owner could just use a catchall to redirect any *.TLD to it's website. I suppose this would, kinda, solve the problem. Still, I'd vote for getting rid of TLD's alltogether.
Thanks. Still I have one question: does it do background filechecks (against a built-in checksum) like ZFS does?
Why not get rid of TLD's alltogether? All those TLD's aren't making things easier to understand and certainly not easier to administrate. How nice it would be when I visit "http://slashdot" I'll be at slashdot.
A private prison? What is that?
While I absolutely agree there's no fundamental difference between animals and humans (there's no a priori reason why we should have abilities they do not and vice versa), still I think the difference is obvious: humans simply have greatly maximized the use of their brains. The fact that we have this type of conversation (a) at all (b) though a machine (c) over a glassfiber network that spans the entire planet, and that I have no reason to believe any other animal can have this type of conversations at all is difference enough for me. Not that I really want there to be a difference, but I think it's obvious there is.