Why can't linux people just accept that their OS' niche is a unix-like OS running on commodity hardware?
Because it isn't? Seriously, Linux is the first operating system that I have ever seen that isn't in a niche. True, it has its roots on i386 commodity boxes, but it has been designed properly and runs well (and without nasty compromises) on more stuff that just about any other OS.
Do we really want to take the industry down that path again?
Nobody is taking the industry anywhere. The industry is scrabbling to follow.
Code sharing is good. Code bloat is not.
While it is true that the Linux codebase will always expand (unless legacy support is elected to be removed) the runtime of any particular port does not have to be that huge.
My vote is to fork the existing ports into seperate kernel dev teams and refocus linux,
Separate teams are precisely what the subject of the original post was about: the Puffin Group is one such, working on 64 bit PA-RISC; Trillium is another, working on IA-64. I don't see that there is any lack of focus.
I own a Dyson vacuum cleaner (DC03) and it does a wonderful job.
Dyson has really shaken up the UK manufacturing establishment; and done it in a very engineering-oriented way. All credit to him.
Its easy to get carried away when we hear about so many really stupid patents, but Dyson risked an awful lot to build his company; it got its start from his exploitation of the Dual Cyclone technique.
Perhaps we should make a distinction between software patents (stupid), biotech (dangerous) and the more traditional physical invention types that have (generally) served us very well.
Did you know that they are finally about to get rid of that enourmous undemocratic gerontocratic conservative anchor, the House of Lords?
With the proposals not yet in place for how they are to replaced! The Lower House (Commons) has been manipulating the Upper (Lords) for years, to the point where everybody recognises that the whole thing was pointless.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the parties that brought the original action already consider that their aims have been met. The actual outcome of the trial may well be irrelevant.
Consider: by bringing the action lots of companies and individuals have been a) made aware of a lot of interesting facts and b) been given breathing space because MS is temporarily shackled.
Wasn't it Howard Rheingold that said "The Internet treats censorship as a routing failure and routes around it"?
Well, why not use that FreeS/WAN thingy to make a pipe out from Australia's pristine shores to a server in a more enlightened place and circumvent the national restriction?
> Kosovo is a prime f*cking example of what can > happen. If every household in Kosovo had a gun, > if every township could band their people > together with said guns and put up a fight they > might have been able to defend themselves. This > very reason is *why* we 'merkins have this > slowly disappearing right to keep arms.
The Kosovans _did_ have access to weapons, _did_ put up strong fight (the KLA made a lot of ground early on), but in the end the Serbian tactics and superiority beat them down. Along the way, of course, were (and are!) the many attrocities.
My take on the firearms issue? Both positions have flaws: but on the whole I like the idea of banning public access to lethal weapons. People (in whatever groupings you choose) are just too irrational and, all too often, just plain stupid.
When SCO finally goes under what will happen to its assets? The codebase might be useful for historical reasons, but the Unix trademark might be worth a bit of money. Perhaps Red Hat or Caldera might buy the assets and put the code under GPL? Wouldn't that be fun.
I read an article recently that highlighted the difficulties of maintaining the Moore's Law momentum. Basically, it was the quantum-effect problem retold, and suggesting that there may be a flat spot coming while these difficulties are overcome. However, the article also suggested that the mass market for processors may have to shift away from computing devices and into more general appliances in order to keep the economic momentum going.
I happen to believe that there will be a relatively small (one or two year) glitch in the curve, but that the push will continue all the way down to nano eventually.
As to the economics of CPU (memory/IO/storage) production - there are an awful lot of people who still have no personal access to the technology that we (the Slashdot We) take for granted.
Slashdot Mirror
And does "getting MS back" seem like a sound business strategy to you?
Yes, if it means taking billions in revenue away from them!
Better yet, use CSS to encrypt your material before distributing, and distribute DeCSS as the method of unscrambling your materials.
And then submit your defence of DeCSS to the court encrypted using CSS.
Logic states that the court must find distribution of DeCSS to be legal: if they find it to be illegal then the court is breaking its own judgement!
Why can't linux people just accept that their OS' niche is a unix-like OS running on commodity hardware?
Because it isn't?
Seriously, Linux is the first operating system that I have ever seen that isn't in a niche. True, it has its roots on i386 commodity boxes, but it has been designed properly and runs well (and without nasty compromises) on more stuff that just about any other OS.
Do we really want to take the industry down that path again?
Nobody is taking the industry anywhere. The industry is scrabbling to follow.
Code sharing is good. Code bloat is not.
While it is true that the Linux codebase will always expand (unless legacy support is elected to be removed) the runtime of any particular port does not have to be that huge.
My vote is to fork the existing ports into seperate kernel dev teams and refocus linux,
Separate teams are precisely what the subject of the original post was about: the Puffin Group is one such, working on 64 bit PA-RISC; Trillium is another, working on IA-64. I don't see that there is any lack of focus.
I own a Dyson vacuum cleaner (DC03) and it does a wonderful job.
Dyson has really shaken up the UK manufacturing establishment; and done it in a very engineering-oriented way. All credit to him.
Its easy to get carried away when we hear about so many really stupid patents, but Dyson risked an awful lot to build his company; it got its start from his exploitation of the Dual Cyclone technique.
Perhaps we should make a distinction between software patents (stupid), biotech (dangerous) and the more traditional physical invention types that have (generally) served us very well.
With the proposals not yet in place for how they are to replaced! The Lower House (Commons) has been manipulating the Upper (Lords) for years, to the point where everybody recognises that the whole thing was pointless.
Britain needs:
Forgive me, but I thought that the US constitution acts to protect against this sort of discrimination.
It does apply to all citizens, adult and 'child', does it not?
David Brin's story "Crystal Spheres" introduced me to this idea.
These proposed legislative changes will be illegal in Europe and probably an awful lot of the rest of the world.
So, US companies bound by the new rules will have to administer a domestic version with domestic policy and an export version with some other policy.
This is not the way the wired-world works!
The effect will be to stifle the US software industry methinks.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the parties that brought the original action already consider that their aims have been met. The actual outcome of the trial may well be irrelevant.
Consider: by bringing the action lots of companies and individuals have been a) made aware of a lot of interesting facts and b) been given breathing space because MS is temporarily shackled.
Wasn't it Howard Rheingold that said "The Internet treats censorship as a routing failure and routes around it"?
Well, why not use that FreeS/WAN thingy to make a pipe out from Australia's pristine shores to a server in a more enlightened place and circumvent the national restriction?
> Kosovo is a prime f*cking example of what can
> happen. If every household in Kosovo had a gun,
> if every township could band their people
> together with said guns and put up a fight they
> might have been able to defend themselves. This
> very reason is *why* we 'merkins have this
> slowly disappearing right to keep arms.
The Kosovans _did_ have access to weapons, _did_ put up strong fight (the KLA made a lot of ground early on), but in the end the Serbian tactics and superiority beat them down. Along the way, of course, were (and are!) the many attrocities.
My take on the firearms issue? Both positions have flaws: but on the whole I like the idea of banning public access to lethal weapons. People (in whatever groupings you choose) are just too irrational and, all too often, just plain stupid.
When SCO finally goes under what will happen to its assets? The codebase might be useful for historical reasons, but the Unix trademark might be worth a bit of money. Perhaps Red Hat or Caldera might buy the assets and put the code under GPL? Wouldn't that be fun.
I read an article recently that highlighted the
difficulties of maintaining the Moore's Law
momentum. Basically, it was the quantum-effect
problem retold, and suggesting that there may
be a flat spot coming while these difficulties
are overcome. However, the article also
suggested that the mass market for processors
may have to shift away from computing devices
and into more general appliances in order to
keep the economic momentum going.
I happen to believe that there will be a
relatively small (one or two year) glitch in
the curve, but that the push will continue
all the way down to nano eventually.
As to the economics of CPU (memory/IO/storage)
production - there are an awful lot of people
who still have no personal access to the
technology that we (the Slashdot We) take for
granted.