>You can't blame the BSD people for wanting to make a free Unix.
But the reality of the matter is that they *aren't* making a free Unix. Remember this license (BSD) wasn't really created to protect people (students basically) working on a project. It was created to let a college, their professors and other people make off with the (student's/projects) work.
>What I wonder is what the Linux community gains by the Redhat >takeover of Cygnus. Cygnus was already an open source company and >seemed to do very well by it's own.
It prevents the takeover of Cygnus by a Windows-focused, Linux/Unix hostile outfit like the one Microsoft just bought out. As for Redhat buying a gaming company, forget it. Interest in gaming on the PC is dying out. Just look at all the interest the PlayStation 2 in generating for example.
>I don't think this is fair. The fears are real, the article explores >them, and with a reasonable caveat, puts them to rest. No FUD, no >groundless Redhat bashing.
The FUD comment is accurate. If you read the article, you get the impression it was written because some people were upset that a linux company that has little or no interest in Windows software development (RedHat) has bought out Cygnus rather than a Windows-orinated outfit
>You can DOWNLOAD the Linux executable, slapnuts. Why bother? It's just another reason to totally abandon the PC as a gaming platform and jump ship to the PlayStation2 when it comes out, which is exactly what I'm going to do. The fact that games like Unreal and Quake don't really appeal to me anyway makes the decision all that much easier.
This is not a bug. It's basically an on-the-fly key generator which unlocks the AOL server and let the people AOL wanted in and showed microsoft users the door. Not a bad solution.
>AOL blocked cqexpress.com's server access to ICQ, so they don't >appear to be any more friendly towards server access than they are to >client access (MSN).
Did the morons at cqexpress even bother with the simple coursty of *ASKING* AOL for permision to acess *THEIR* hardware, or were they just planning to have you bitch about it when AOL found out about it and told them to get lost?
>It gets you sort of hot and defensive when you hear people being >referred to as "Linux zealots" doesn't it? Makes you all angry, and >ready to strike off on a holy war campaign, eh? Nope, you're not a >Linux zealot. No-siree.
You're right it doesn't make one a Linux zealot, since this dislike of Microsoft Windows and it's users you are bitching about goes back to the Unix,MSDOS,Amiga,ST,Mac,Atari-8 bit and C64 users. Learn something about the history involved before shooting off your mouth. Non-Windows people historically have truely disliked Microsoft Windows from Day 1.
>Just like pam ! >And I CHALLENGE you to disprove me on that one. I have always been >dissillusioned with redhat for their tendency to "forget" to release >a tar ball of stuff they work on. http://www.us.kernel.org/pub/linux/libs/pam/
Did the doctor slap your head too hard when you were born, or are you just naturally stupid?
>Grow up, learn to take defeat -- Alan Cox and Redhat engineers >participated in this, do you think they didn't do their job >correctly?
Hey astroturfer, the current version of Redhat on the store shelves is 6.1 with an entirely different kernel. It looks like this "article" is nothing but a reprint of the PC Week/Mindcraft farce. Look at the date of the article. This isn't a new benchmark "test" at all.
>I can't help but feel really sorry for relatively small companies who >try to make a living, but then get bashed around by a community which >really should either support them or shutup.
Aren't you getting things backwards here? We aren't a bunch of slaves for some software company to order around. You might actually believe the nonsense you post, but most of us aren't that dumb. Xi is the kind of software company that gives commerical software a bad name.
>Oh, did I miss something important? What is Chrome Effects?
Basically it was an attempt by Microsoft to bog down the WWW even more with even more useless graphical crud that basically died because nearly everbody outside of MS supporters thought it was a fucking stupid idea.
>In short, don't just count out Microsoft just yet. They could literally turn the open >source community upside down (and you wonder why Microsoft has opened a >major development center >in Mountain View, CA--the heart of Linux >development).
Um. The heart of Linux development takes place in NC, Europe and Japan. Mountain View, CA is not even in the picture.....
>but they can't open source Motif. And if this is big news for Red Hat >then it's bad news for GTK
You're an idiot. The *ONLY* reason Motif is mentioned is for compatibity reasons. This isn't a threat to GTK at all, since most linux apps will be GTK-based.
>the new president can appoint a new head of the Justice Department's >antitrust division.
Don't think it will change anything. There are too many in the House and Senate like Hatch who wants to see Mircosoft get what's coming to them. Microsoft's antics, especially in the court cases, have made this become personal to a lot of people.
>Lower prices and "innovations" aside, pretty much all of the machines >you mentioned (Commodore, TRS-80, TI99/4A - although I am not sure >about that one) actually used Microsoft software - in the form of >BASIC language. Even on the Apple platform (II, IIe, etc) one of the >best-selling add-ons was CP/M card, which consisted of Z80 processor, >some RAM and CP/M OS - which was coincidentally also made by >Microsoft.
Nope. One of the most popular computers, the Atari-8 bit line *DID NOT* use Microsoft software in the form of BASIC language as you put it. Atari BASIC and the BASIC that shipped with the Atari-8 bit machines and the TI99/4A (I think) was diffrent from Microsoft BASIC in a number of important ways. In ATARI BASIC for instance you could create huge string variables, and store relocatable ML routines in them. You could also use a string varible to capture and buffer graphics and text from the video display device, and with a couple of PEEKs and POKEs swap the data in the string varible to and from the display screen. It was called Page Flipping.
>No, microsoft did not invent the serial mouse. I used one on an >Apple II (I think the mouse was from Mouse Systems). Just a normal >serial connection.
There was software programs that would let you use the trackball controller that plugged into the joystick ports on the Atari-8 bit computer as a mouse-like device.
>All those people who design bloated, image-ladden web sites with >pointless Java programs obviously have not actually used the net >much. People usually bitch about sites being too slow to load and >don't have the stuff they were looking for, they don't stay away from >a site with the information they want simply because it's not >fancy-looking enough.
And of course these are the people who are bitching and screaming the loudest about the coming WWW acess lawsuits,because they damn well know that they are the ones who will get hit by them and I can't think of a bunch of people who deserve it more. In other words, they're going to get what's coming to them, and they're going to find that there aren't going to be very many people who are going to be willing to defend them.
>Your completely mistaken. Companies like Macromedia and RealAudio >have made IE a success because the plug-ins for IE function much >better on
You're completely mistaken. With the various acess lawsuits looming in the future, you can bet that there's going to be a reduction in the "multimedia" focus/aspects of WWW sites. Toss in the recent ruling concerning Microsoft being a monopoly and you can pretty much bet on corperate sites running scared of being hit with lawsuits if they try to force the use of IE or other Windows-focused software.
Slashdot Mirror
>You can't blame the BSD people for wanting to make a free Unix.
But the reality of the matter is that they *aren't* making a free Unix. Remember this license (BSD) wasn't really created to protect people (students basically) working on a project. It was created to let a college, their professors and other people make off with the (student's/projects) work.
>What I wonder is what the Linux community gains by the Redhat >takeover of Cygnus. Cygnus was already an open source company and >seemed to do very well by it's own.
It prevents the takeover of Cygnus by a Windows-focused, Linux/Unix hostile outfit like the one Microsoft just bought out. As for Redhat buying a gaming company, forget it. Interest in gaming on the PC is dying out. Just look at all the interest the PlayStation 2 in generating for example.
>I don't think this is fair. The fears are real, the article explores >them, and with a reasonable caveat, puts them to rest. No FUD, no >groundless Redhat bashing.
The FUD comment is accurate. If you read the article, you get the impression it was written because some people were upset that a linux company that has little or no interest in Windows software development (RedHat) has bought out Cygnus rather than a Windows-orinated outfit
>You can DOWNLOAD the Linux executable, slapnuts.
Why bother? It's just another reason to totally abandon the PC as a gaming platform and jump ship to the PlayStation2 when it comes out, which is exactly what I'm going to do. The fact that games like Unreal and Quake don't really appeal to me anyway makes the decision all that much easier.
>You fix bugs, not exploit them.
This is not a bug. It's basically an on-the-fly key generator which unlocks the AOL server and let the people AOL wanted in and showed microsoft users the door. Not a bad solution.
>AOL blocked cqexpress.com's server access to ICQ, so they don't >appear to be any more friendly towards server access than they are to >client access (MSN).
Did the morons at cqexpress even bother with the simple coursty of *ASKING* AOL for permision to acess *THEIR* hardware, or were they just planning to have you bitch about it when AOL found out about it and told them to get lost?
>What disturbing is people who advocate govermental medelling in >business. This case is going to set a dangerous precident in >computers.
Sod off, astroturfer. Nobody's buying your bullshit anymore.
>It gets you sort of hot and defensive when you hear people being >referred to as "Linux zealots" doesn't it? Makes you all angry, and >ready to strike off on a holy war campaign, eh? Nope, you're not a >Linux zealot. No-siree.
You're right it doesn't make one a Linux zealot, since this dislike of Microsoft Windows and it's users you are bitching about goes back to the Unix,MSDOS,Amiga,ST,Mac,Atari-8 bit and C64 users. Learn something about the history involved before shooting off your mouth. Non-Windows people historically have truely disliked Microsoft Windows from Day 1.
>Please name me one operating system that has to, and in many cases >succeeds in inter-operating with so many other systems.
Unix.
>Just like pam !
>And I CHALLENGE you to disprove me on that one. I have always been >dissillusioned with redhat for their tendency to "forget" to release >a tar ball of stuff they work on.
http://www.us.kernel.org/pub/linux/libs/pam/
Did the doctor slap your head too hard when you were born, or are you just naturally stupid?
>Grow up, learn to take defeat -- Alan Cox and Redhat engineers >participated in this, do you think they didn't do their job >correctly?
Hey astroturfer, the current version of Redhat on the store shelves is 6.1 with an entirely different kernel. It looks like this "article" is nothing but a reprint of the PC Week/Mindcraft farce. Look at the date of the article. This isn't a new benchmark "test" at all.
>Now, why didn't I *know* this other way? I've been using Linux since >1993. Maybe we need an X tutorial?
Maybe you need to actually *READ* the X tutorials that's already out.
>I can't help but feel really sorry for relatively small companies who >try to make a living, but then get bashed around by a community which >really should either support them or shutup.
Aren't you getting things backwards here? We aren't a bunch of slaves for some software company to order around. You might actually believe the nonsense you post, but most of us aren't that dumb. Xi is the kind of software company that gives commerical software a bad name.
>> Chrome Effects was an example of this
>Oh, did I miss something important? What is Chrome Effects?
Basically it was an attempt by Microsoft to bog down the WWW even more with even more useless graphical crud that basically died because nearly everbody outside of MS supporters thought it was a fucking stupid idea.
>But if Oracle is based on Motif (and many people will want Oracle-you >know that) people will have no choice but to use Redhat.
Whatever.
>In short, don't just count out Microsoft just yet. They could literally turn the open
>source community upside down (and you wonder why Microsoft has opened a >major development center >in Mountain View, CA--the heart of Linux >development).
Um. The heart of Linux development takes place in NC, Europe and Japan. Mountain View, CA is not even in the picture.....
>Why is it so hard to make Linux/Samba act EXACTLY like Network >Neighborhood? Completely Hassle-Free.
Because we want to keep script kiddies like yourself out of our networks....
>but they can't open source Motif. And if this is big news for Red Hat >then it's bad news for GTK
You're an idiot. The *ONLY* reason Motif is mentioned is for compatibity reasons. This isn't a threat to GTK at all, since most linux apps will be GTK-based.
>I challenge you to give me an example of well written C++ that's >significantly slower than well written C code.
You'll lose the challenge because there's no such thing as well written C++. End of contest.
>the new president can appoint a new head of the Justice Department's >antitrust division.
Don't think it will change anything. There are too many in the House and Senate like Hatch who wants to see Mircosoft get what's coming to them. Microsoft's antics, especially in the court cases, have made this become personal to a lot of people.
>Lower prices and "innovations" aside, pretty much all of the machines >you mentioned (Commodore, TRS-80, TI99/4A - although I am not sure >about that one) actually used Microsoft software - in the form of >BASIC language. Even on the Apple platform (II, IIe, etc) one of the >best-selling add-ons was CP/M card, which consisted of Z80 processor, >some RAM and CP/M OS - which was coincidentally also made by >Microsoft.
Nope. One of the most popular computers, the Atari-8 bit line *DID NOT* use Microsoft software in the form of BASIC language as you put it. Atari BASIC and the BASIC that shipped with the Atari-8 bit machines and the TI99/4A (I think) was diffrent from Microsoft BASIC in a number of important ways. In ATARI BASIC for instance you could create huge string variables, and store relocatable ML routines in them. You could also use a string varible to capture and buffer graphics and text from the video display device, and with a couple of PEEKs and POKEs swap the data in the string varible to and from the display screen. It was called Page Flipping.
>No, microsoft did not invent the serial mouse. I used one on an >Apple II (I think the mouse was from Mouse Systems). Just a normal >serial connection.
There was software programs that would let you use the trackball controller that plugged into the joystick ports on the Atari-8 bit computer as a mouse-like device.
>You forgot their chat client! that comic strip thing has to be one of >the grandest contributions to mankind i have yet seen.
Wasn't it also the first client to have the distiction of being banned on sight on nearly all of the IRC networks?
>All those people who design bloated, image-ladden web sites with >pointless Java programs obviously have not actually used the net >much. People usually bitch about sites being too slow to load and >don't have the stuff they were looking for, they don't stay away from >a site with the information they want simply because it's not >fancy-looking enough.
And of course these are the people who are bitching and screaming the loudest about the coming WWW acess lawsuits,because they damn well know that they are the ones who will get hit by them and I can't think of a bunch of people who deserve it more. In other words, they're going to get what's coming to them, and they're going to find that there aren't going to be very many people who are going to be willing to defend them.
>Your completely mistaken. Companies like Macromedia and RealAudio >have made IE a success because the plug-ins for IE function much >better on
You're completely mistaken. With the various acess lawsuits looming in the future, you can bet that there's going to be a reduction in the "multimedia" focus/aspects of WWW sites. Toss in the recent ruling concerning Microsoft being a monopoly and you can pretty much bet on corperate sites running scared of being hit with lawsuits if they try to force the use of IE or other Windows-focused software.