The obviously you havent read the communist manifesto very well. It might be said that the communist manifesto is more Christian than democracy. So you calling the GNU manifesto Christian-like, but not similar to the communist manifesto, is rather odd.
The Dr was always asexual, as far as any "preference" went. It would be just as much a travesty to make him gay, as it was for him to get involved with a female, in that dumb US-tv-movie schlock.
We've already got a problem with the family, having two stable parents (no matter what their gender) is a good thing.
Why?
There is a straightforward, obvious reason (or two or three) why it is beneficial to a child to have both a mother(female) and a father(male). That should not need any explaination.
On the other hand, it is unclear why having two so-called parents of the same sex, is any better than having one parent?
Having actually raised signatures, it's a piece of cake to get about 70% of the people you ask to sign anything.
This is a not a problem with the recall. This is not a problem with campaign finance. This is a problem that democracy is a twisted parody if its citizens are uneducated dumbschmucks without moral guidelines. Many of the "founding fathers" of america wrote on the importance of educated people, voting concienciously, for honest men. Break any part of that chain, and the system breaks down. As it has been for over a hundred years or so.
Gay Marriage: Is it better to have two loving parents or one parent with a shifting father/mother?
That question twists the real issues. It's akin to the "have you stopped beating your wife" question. It's deliberately framed to elict a particular answer, without an attempt to get at the truth.
The truth is that the best thing is to have both a mother and a father. Neither having two same-sex "parents", nor "one parent with a shifting father/mother" is the best thing for a child.
...denying them access to an institution which promotes fidelity through a publicly witnessed oath.
Huh?
there's nothing stopping two gay people from making a "public oath" right now. There's nothing stopping two gay people from going even further, and putting together some kind of legal agreement for the two of them to stay together, and having it notarized.
If gay relationships fall apart now without some legal standing of "gay marriage", its not going to be significantly different after any legal recogniztion of such. That "argument" doesnt make any sense.
Yet, you think gay marriage is "unholy"? What the hell is that?
Are you asking "what", or "why"?
"What" would be "against God".
"Why", woudl be straight out of the bible. For starters, the very concept of "gay marriage" in a judeo-christian context, is absurd. Biblical marriage is between a man and a woman. The only reason that isnt even more explicitly mandated, is that no-one at the time of its writing would think anyone would be ignorant enough to need that spelled out for them.
(Seeing as how most everyone was BORN with a mom and a dad, married, thus knew from day 1 what marriage looked lie)
Yes, I've seen the claims that some parts the "early church" had some sort of gay union ceremony. "The church" also at various points in history, sold forgiveness of sins for money, and went about wholesale killing people. All of the above are patently against the fundamentals of Christianity.
Beyond that, the definition of "holy" for Christians, is in the bible. The bible states that homosexual acts are UNholy. Therefore, clearly, "gay marriage" is unholy, since it is based around an unholy act.
Oh, and I hate to burst your bubble, but Marijuana is against FEDERAL law
on a legal level, when it comes to federal vs state laws, I believe the constututional rule is, "A positive rule overrules a negative one".
Thus if california had a law explicitly making the use of marijuana legal, it would be legal in california.
Until the feds declared they would withhold federal money from california until the law was repealed, and then the law would be repealed.
I mean internal to sun. Offering support contracts is NOT the same as actually offering REAL support and fixing bugs.
[...]
I know WAY too many people that work there to believe ANY of your BS about that.
Who do you know "inside Sun"? Janitors?
I know actual engineers, who are working actual support issues, fixing solaris-x86 specific bugs.
yes, solaris x86 was locked up in the basement , figuratively speaking, for over a year, around about 2002. That is no longer the case.
Solaris x86 is a complete joke compared to Linux or *BSD in terms of flexibility, support options, and performance.
Put your money where your mouth is. Or rather, concrete figures.
Solaris's limitation, is that it does not support as many different types of hardware as *BSD or linux. However, the OS itself is FAR more flexible than linux, in areas that professional sysadmins care about.
As J. Schilling pointed out in a flamefest on USENET recently, solaris has the low-level performance counters, and hardware controls that linux does not have. Simple example: psradm.
Solaris lets you disable or enable specific cpus, dynamically. Linux forces you to reboot if you want to cut the number of cpus used, and doesnt even let you specify WHICH cpus.
As far as performance goes, the latest rev of Solaris's UFS +logging, outperforms the commercially shipping versions of linux for most things. And in dynamic page webserver performance, it is pretty much equal to linux.
Can't comment much on *BSD, apart from asking, "So, does it finally have decent threading and multi-cpu support yet?"
You do realize that Solaris x86 has no internal support, right???
By "internal", do you mean "internal to your organization", or "internal to Sun" ?
If the latter, you're behind the times. Sun now sells actual support contracts for it.
Had a nasty NFS bug with it. Had an open ticket for a YEAR and no fix. Upgraded to linux and the problem was solved
Sounds like you're confusing "solaris has buggy NFS" with "linux has buggy NFS".
Solaris has full standards compliant NFS. Linux has proven buggy NFS. (this is not random spouting - go do some research. eg: talk to the linux nfs coders, who will usually admit the problem). Now, if you have a linux NFS server, talking to linux NFS clients, then sure, the bugginess may cancel each other out. But get it straight where the actual bug is.
And as far as performance goes: Poor performance on solaris x86 is usually due to one of the following reasons:
a) you dont have enough ram for solaris. A server install tends to take 16-32 megs more than a server install of linux. (on the other hand, a DESKTOP install of linux, is a RAM pig these days)
b) you're using some cheapo hardware - solaris doesnt have drivers tuned for edge cases of funky hardware
c) you dont know the basics about tuning solaris.
(enable logging, turn off atime,...)
Oh, and PS: as far as "modern hardware", it will run just dandy on a 3ghz Pentium, with gigabit NICs from intel.
Oracle runs real well on it. Unfortunately, only 8i for now, but oracle has announced that 10i will be on solx86.
Plus down the line, you have the option of buying your hardware and OS from the same vendor: Sun. Sun's current x86 server line are actually cheaper than Dell's offerings, so I hear.
Then they should have renamed it "GNUfinance" or something. "GNUcash" *sounds* like a personal money manager. "cash" is something individuals have. "finances/accounting" is something businesses have.
what the... you're using SMC to configure the VOLUMES??? sheeesh.. you need a gig of ram for that stupid GUI:->
just learn the command line for disksuite, aka "the SVM". it's relatively easy, and if you're getting tired of setting it up, you can SCRIPT it, after all.
The thread saftey was non existent. (I was able to lock the server up with only 5 simultaneous connections.)
Make sure that isnt a problem with your OS, rather than apache. "Certain operating systems" have problems with threads, still. Whereas commercial ones (eg: solaris) tend to have them down pat.
With open source, there's always people scanning through every bit of code. And if there's a misplaced loop or a bad construcct somewhere, odds are that someone reports it.
Bah-hahahahaha.
Are you suggesting that there are hordes of people who go over open source code, and suggest code cleanup? Have YOU every tried to do this?
open source projects are lucky to get accurate bug reports, let alone patches to fix them. but you think that there are tons of code cleanliness patches coming in? You are very much mistaken.
And even if there were... half the open source maintainers would toss them out any way.
Because either they dont think it is clean, or they dont want to go through the effort of integrating and using (and learning) the new cleaner structure.
So by default Open Source achieves quicker reliablity due to the lack of speed on new releases on versions of commercial code. Of course there are thousands of examples where this is not the case
and that would be "any open source project of sufficiently large size".
It is said, "with enough eyes, all bugs are shallow". However, I say, "with many eyes, only shallow bugs will get fixed".
It's quality of eyes, not quantity, that counts, in the area we are talking about.
Second, I cannot remember a single occasion where a formerly closed source app was opened and did not stink. Netscape took some years and a nearly complete rewrite to become the Mozilla we all know and love.
That is not a valid argument. mozilla stank when it was released, but netscape still worked well. the initial code failure of mozilla, was due to which coders had control over the project at the time.
Judging from your use of "Winblows", I'm guessing you're fairly new on the scene, perhaps fresh out of college or high school,...
I got my CS degree 10 years ago, I've been coding for 15. I've been working as a sysadmin for the last 10 years, although initially, I was doing development work as well. I work at a fortune 100 comany, working on Sun starfire 6800s and E15ks.
haven't yet experienced the finer things of a UNIX sysadmin's career, like attempting to make the impossible happen day in and day out without so much as praise or acknowledgement.
Maybe it's just that I'm actually good at what I do, so that it isnt particularly a struggle for me to actually write clear shellscripts. Maybe it's that I actualy like solving problems, instead of trying to be a UNIX admin "for the money".
The people you describe are idiots. Either they have a sucky position, (in which case they should be looking for a new one), or they just suck at what they are supposed to do. For competant UNIX admins, "burnout" should not be an issue.
As someone said quite a while ago, paraphrasing a bit: a sysadmin's job is to keep the systems running without problems. If you're not spending a lot of your time essentially 'doing nothing', then you're not doing your job. (ie: you should be PREVENTING fires, not fighting them; otherwise, you're incompetant)
My point is, you're not making significant money from your GPL efforts. If you were to try to exist on money from your coding alone, you would indeed be poor.
not acknowleging that fact, is being higly dishonest to people considering whether or not to work on GPL stuff. I dont have anything against the GPL itself. But I disgusted by fanaticism that "everything should be GPLed", without people acknowleging that GPLing code, often gets in the way of people actually making money from their work.
I've seen a lot of programmers/sysadmins leave their jobs after 4-5 years. This high turn over rate is driven not only by the age discrimination, but also high rates of burn-out among programmers.
Err.. Unless you're a winblows/desktop support sysadmin, I dont see why there would be burn-out involved for a sysadmin.
Slashdot Mirror
The obviously you havent read the communist manifesto very well. It might be said that the communist manifesto is more Christian than democracy. So you calling the GNU manifesto Christian-like, but not similar to the communist manifesto, is rather odd.
The Dr was always asexual, as far as any "preference" went. It would be just as much a travesty to make him gay, as it was for him to get involved with a female, in that dumb US-tv-movie schlock.
Why?
There is a straightforward, obvious reason (or two or three) why it is beneficial to a child to have both a mother(female) and a father(male). That should not need any explaination.
On the other hand, it is unclear why having two so-called parents of the same sex, is any better than having one parent?
This is a not a problem with the recall. This is not a problem with campaign finance. This is a problem that democracy is a twisted parody if its citizens are uneducated dumbschmucks without moral guidelines. Many of the "founding fathers" of america wrote on the importance of educated people, voting concienciously, for honest men. Break any part of that chain, and the system breaks down. As it has been for over a hundred years or so.
That question twists the real issues. It's akin to the "have you stopped beating your wife" question. It's deliberately framed to elict a particular answer, without an attempt to get at the truth.
The truth is that the best thing is to have both a mother and a father. Neither having two same-sex "parents", nor "one parent with a shifting father/mother" is the best thing for a child.
Huh?
there's nothing stopping two gay people from making a "public oath" right now. There's nothing stopping two gay people from going even further, and putting together some kind of legal agreement for the two of them to stay together, and having it notarized.
If gay relationships fall apart now without some legal standing of "gay marriage", its not going to be significantly different after any legal recogniztion of such. That "argument" doesnt make any sense.
Yeah, but most of 'em cant vote...
:-)
(joke, its a joke
Are you asking "what", or "why"? "What" would be "against God". "Why", woudl be straight out of the bible. For starters, the very concept of "gay marriage" in a judeo-christian context, is absurd. Biblical marriage is between a man and a woman. The only reason that isnt even more explicitly mandated, is that no-one at the time of its writing would think anyone would be ignorant enough to need that spelled out for them. (Seeing as how most everyone was BORN with a mom and a dad, married, thus knew from day 1 what marriage looked lie)
Yes, I've seen the claims that some parts the "early church" had some sort of gay union ceremony. "The church" also at various points in history, sold forgiveness of sins for money, and went about wholesale killing people. All of the above are patently against the fundamentals of Christianity.
Beyond that, the definition of "holy" for Christians, is in the bible. The bible states that homosexual acts are UNholy. Therefore, clearly, "gay marriage" is unholy, since it is based around an unholy act.
on a legal level, when it comes to federal vs state laws, I believe the constututional rule is, "A positive rule overrules a negative one". Thus if california had a law explicitly making the use of marijuana legal, it would be legal in california.
Until the feds declared they would withhold federal money from california until the law was repealed, and then the law would be repealed.
Who do you know "inside Sun"? Janitors? I know actual engineers, who are working actual support issues, fixing solaris-x86 specific bugs.
yes, solaris x86 was locked up in the basement , figuratively speaking, for over a year, around about 2002. That is no longer the case.
Put your money where your mouth is. Or rather, concrete figures.
Solaris's limitation, is that it does not support as many different types of hardware as *BSD or linux. However, the OS itself is FAR more flexible than linux, in areas that professional sysadmins care about.
As J. Schilling pointed out in a flamefest on USENET recently, solaris has the low-level performance counters, and hardware controls that linux does not have. Simple example: psradm. Solaris lets you disable or enable specific cpus, dynamically. Linux forces you to reboot if you want to cut the number of cpus used, and doesnt even let you specify WHICH cpus.
As far as performance goes, the latest rev of Solaris's UFS +logging, outperforms the commercially shipping versions of linux for most things. And in dynamic page webserver performance, it is pretty much equal to linux.
Can't comment much on *BSD, apart from asking, "So, does it finally have decent threading and multi-cpu support yet?"
By "internal", do you mean "internal to your organization", or "internal to Sun" ? If the latter, you're behind the times. Sun now sells actual support contracts for it.
Had a nasty NFS bug with it. Had an open ticket for a YEAR and no fix. Upgraded to linux and the problem was solved
Sounds like you're confusing "solaris has buggy NFS" with "linux has buggy NFS".
Solaris has full standards compliant NFS. Linux has proven buggy NFS. (this is not random spouting - go do some research. eg: talk to the linux nfs coders, who will usually admit the problem). Now, if you have a linux NFS server, talking to linux NFS clients, then sure, the bugginess may cancel each other out. But get it straight where the actual bug is.
And as far as performance goes: Poor performance on solaris x86 is usually due to one of the following reasons:
a) you dont have enough ram for solaris. A server install tends to take 16-32 megs more than a server install of linux. (on the other hand, a DESKTOP install of linux, is a RAM pig these days)
b) you're using some cheapo hardware - solaris doesnt have drivers tuned for edge cases of funky hardware
c) you dont know the basics about tuning solaris. (enable logging, turn off atime, ...)
Oh, and PS: as far as "modern hardware", it will run just dandy on a 3ghz Pentium, with gigabit NICs from intel.
you may as well consider solaris x86.
Oracle runs real well on it. Unfortunately, only 8i for now, but oracle has announced that 10i will be on solx86.
Plus down the line, you have the option of buying your hardware and OS from the same vendor: Sun.
Sun's current x86 server line are actually cheaper than Dell's offerings, so I hear.
Orr.. Geee.. run Solaris (x86)
Then they should have renamed it "GNUfinance" or something. "GNUcash" *sounds* like a personal money manager. "cash" is something individuals have. "finances/accounting" is something businesses have.
It deserves to die, ever since it migrated from gnome1 to gnome 2, and added a ludicrous number of libraries required to compile it.
At best, it should have the older simpler tree revitalized and fixed up.
what the... you're using SMC to configure the VOLUMES??? sheeesh.. you need a gig of ram for that stupid GUI :->
just learn the command line for disksuite, aka "the SVM". it's relatively easy, and if you're getting tired of setting it up, you can SCRIPT it, after all.
Make sure that isnt a problem with your OS, rather than apache. "Certain operating systems" have problems with threads, still. Whereas commercial ones (eg: solaris) tend to have them down pat.
Bah-hahahahaha.
Are you suggesting that there are hordes of people who go over open source code, and suggest code cleanup? Have YOU every tried to do this?
open source projects are lucky to get accurate bug reports, let alone patches to fix them. but you think that there are tons of code cleanliness patches coming in? You are very much mistaken.
And even if there were... half the open source maintainers would toss them out any way. Because either they dont think it is clean, or they dont want to go through the effort of integrating and using (and learning) the new cleaner structure.
and that would be "any open source project of sufficiently large size".
It is said, "with enough eyes, all bugs are shallow". However, I say, "with many eyes, only shallow bugs will get fixed".
It's quality of eyes, not quantity, that counts, in the area we are talking about.
No, the entire world has the capacity to see it. I can guarantee you however, that "the entire world" will not be looking at the code.
There are many, many open source projects with really really bad code design, both at the architecture level, and at the individual file level.
(Comments? who needs comments? I dont have time to write comments, or documentation. Read the code!) Schmucks.
That is not a valid argument. mozilla stank when it was released, but netscape still worked well. the initial code failure of mozilla, was due to which coders had control over the project at the time.
I got my CS degree 10 years ago, I've been coding for 15. I've been working as a sysadmin for the last 10 years, although initially, I was doing development work as well. I work at a fortune 100 comany, working on Sun starfire 6800s and E15ks.
haven't yet experienced the finer things of a UNIX sysadmin's career, like attempting to make the impossible happen day in and day out without so much as praise or acknowledgement.
Maybe it's just that I'm actually good at what I do, so that it isnt particularly a struggle for me to actually write clear shellscripts. Maybe it's that I actualy like solving problems, instead of trying to be a UNIX admin "for the money".
The people you describe are idiots. Either they have a sucky position, (in which case they should be looking for a new one), or they just suck at what they are supposed to do. For competant UNIX admins, "burnout" should not be an issue. As someone said quite a while ago, paraphrasing a bit: a sysadmin's job is to keep the systems running without problems. If you're not spending a lot of your time essentially 'doing nothing', then you're not doing your job. (ie: you should be PREVENTING fires, not fighting them; otherwise, you're incompetant)
My point is, you're not making significant money from your GPL efforts. If you were to try to exist on money from your coding alone, you would indeed be poor.
not acknowleging that fact, is being higly dishonest to people considering whether or not to work on GPL stuff. I dont have anything against the GPL itself. But I disgusted by fanaticism that "everything should be GPLed", without people acknowleging that GPLing code, often gets in the way of people actually making money from their work.
Err.. Unless you're a winblows/desktop support sysadmin, I dont see why there would be burn-out involved for a sysadmin.
(speaking as a professional UNIX sysadmin)