Pray tell us, how does the comment above (which incidentally doesn't appear in my Redhat system) prevent you from totally butchering it, as I'm sure you did plenty of times in your Slack box (just to "learn", you know)?
Ah, flamebait at its best! And how easily we fall for it...
About the only portion of your post that is right is that Slackware is good for people who can't (for one reason or other) do it with BSD (need Netscape? StarOffice perhaps?). The "build as you go" approach can be used with distro I know of (I use Redhat at the office and Debian at home). There is no need for you to install the full 500M that come in a Redhat CD (and incidentally are also present in that Slack CD). Also, many people that like UN*X actually prefer SysV, so don't go presuming that being more BSDish is a win.
I never issued an rm -rf/ (why the useless '*' in your example, BTW? Conditioned reflex from your DOS days? So much for Slackware "learning") and I don't think it has hampered my knowledge of UN*X a single bit.
What is "rock solid"? I keep hearing this expression a lot, mostly from people of the BSD persuasion (or pseudo-BSD in the case of Salckware) but I fail to perceive its real meaning?
Does it mean immutable? Static? Impossible to move or change?
Soviet Union never used military force against its own people and neither US did.
Oops, hate to nitpick, but you're forgetting the most expensive war (in terms of American lives lost) the US has fought. You know, something to do with a guy called Abe or something...
Between 1900 and 1950 [almost] every US military action on foreign soil was due to a border dispute, a prior action against the US, or the request of a beleagured ally.
Although the latter item mentioned is general enough to emcompass a lot (the Generalissimo is in trouble? Call the marines!) I think you will find no border disputes (there's only two of'em, remeber?), or actions against the US, prior to the many invasions perpetrated by the US in Central America in the period you mention.
So do our experiences, "Jay". Being Polish, as I presume from your links, you would tend to have a rather positive view of the US role in world politics, as the former nemesis of the Soviet Empire. All that talk of freedom fighters this, free world that might actually click in with you guys on the other side of the late Iron Curtain.
Your experience of American attitudes towards upholding liberty in other countries would be dramatically different if you lived "south of the border", as they say...
Hear, hear! Who else is tired of patch -p0 ? My respect for Linux would greatly improve if he laid down the badass attitude and added some professionalism to the kernel releases. Enough of this homebrew scheme.
I agree with your point (you being a loser), and although I don't generally pay attention to AC posts, I will do you (and anyone else interested) to point you to the jCVS home page, which provides exactly what you asked for.
First of all, I think your mention of the Linux community and how it prides itself on its haphazard development model is a bit misleading. Even the Linux kernel itself is not developed in the chaotic manner you described (parts of it, specially the in-the-works LVM, have formal specs and desing). What you seem to miss though, is that not all free software projects are developed in quite the same way. The contrast between Linux and OpenBSD is just the tipof the iceberg. Many more projects have such a close knit assembly of core developers who add features following a formal design, and use formal tests to ensure that the builds are OK. The argument you seem to have missed in that lecture is that there's no reason why an openly developed free software cannot have thourough, formal design and testing, and there's no guarantee that a closed development has it either.
I read your post over and over again, and could not quite figure out what is the point you're driving at. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that you're not just trolling your way around Slashdot I have to question you:
With KDE and GNOME, the desktop is almost as easy as Windows.
And is this a problem? Is it any worse because it is esier to use? IMHO, KDE and GNOME are already bloated pieces of software You know, bloated, when referring to software has become, through annoyng repetition in otherwise sterile arguments, become a meaningless expression. And of course it has no intrinsic absolute value, but you already knew that. I mean, GNOME is more "bloated" than, say FVWM, but then again it aims to do a lot more than the latter.
Perhaps if you could expand a little bit more on how the proliferation of "Windows-type" (you might have meant GUI? User friendly?) apps will make Linux worse...
Lo' and behold, for mighty 'leet linux user spake from his cluelessness throne. And thus hath His cluelessness proved, by 1) responding to an obvious (though humorous) troll; 2) cheering for Slackware;
You forgot the obligatory "thank you" at the end of your post, which used to be an earmark of this type of troll...
Re:Number of Linux distros
on
Linux Mergers?
·
· Score: 1
I want to have my own distro. Is the name DeadCat Linux taken?
Yes, that would be an infringement of trademark, since I just copyrighted it. You can go for SmellyCat Linux, though. That is, if the authors of "Friends" haven't trademarked that as well...
Re:Corel would be better matched...
on
Linux Mergers?
·
· Score: 1
Their reaction to this would probably come in the form of raising the prices of their OS and Office products when selling them to Compaq
Well, there's this, err, issue, that prevents Microsoft from openly doing so, and more to the point, Compaq from accepting it without crying 'foul!'. I belive it has something to do with the US judicial system...
Off the top of my head, the only really non-free package that is distributed by Redhat is Netscape, but a case can be made for it being more free than any piece in Corel's suite. I would tend to agree with you that Debian is more free than Redhat, but that doesn't mean Redhat isn't free enough for those who care about freedom.
Now that our daily spelling nitpick session is over, we can proceed with our uncalled for advice: next time, kindly comply with your own precepts and keep your posting as a secret to yourself.
Slashdot will thank you, I'm sure. Have a nice day.
When it comes to handling text, it blows goats, so you should use PERL
Have you actually looked at the benchmarks, buddy? I find it ironic, enlightening and enormously amusing that Perl never scored better than any of the other languages compared, and even at handling REGEXPs (which Perl folk so readily tout as one of the crown features of their beloved toy) it scored below AWK (which is no surprise to me). But then again, as they say: when you have a problem and think "I know, I'll use regexps!" you end up with two problems.
Slashdot Mirror
afc@tonga:~/src/stage$ rpm -qa | wc -l 706
You sure you wanna compile 706 packages yourself? Go on, do it, but I'm afraid you won't have much time left to spout BS on Slashdot then :-)
Pray tell us, how does the comment above (which incidentally doesn't appear in my Redhat system) prevent you from totally butchering it, as I'm sure you did plenty of times in your Slack box (just to "learn", you know)?
About the only portion of your post that is right is that Slackware is good for people who can't (for one reason or other) do it with BSD (need Netscape? StarOffice perhaps?). The "build as you go" approach can be used with distro I know of (I use Redhat at the office and Debian at home). There is no need for you to install the full 500M that come in a Redhat CD (and incidentally are also present in that Slack CD). Also, many people that like UN*X actually prefer SysV, so don't go presuming that being more BSDish is a win.
And I bet you compile all the software you run on that Solaris box, or install it with tar and gzip. Really...
I never issued an rm -rf / (why the useless '*' in your example, BTW? Conditioned reflex from your DOS days? So much for Slackware "learning") and I don't think it has hampered my knowledge of UN*X a single bit.
Does it mean immutable? Static? Impossible to move or change?
And in what way, pray tell me, is it more UNIX-like, whatever that means? More specifically, which UNIX is it like?
Oops, hate to nitpick, but you're forgetting the most expensive war (in terms of American lives lost) the US has fought. You know, something to do with a guy called Abe or something...
There are many countries "south of the border" that would gladly let you know that your statements are full of shit...
Although the latter item mentioned is general enough to emcompass a lot (the Generalissimo is in trouble? Call the marines!) I think you will find no border disputes (there's only two of'em, remeber?), or actions against the US, prior to the many invasions perpetrated by the US in Central America in the period you mention.
So do our experiences, "Jay". Being Polish, as I presume from your links, you would tend to have a rather positive view of the US role in world politics, as the former nemesis of the Soviet Empire. All that talk of freedom fighters this, free world that might actually click in with you guys on the other side of the late Iron Curtain.
Your experience of American attitudes towards upholding liberty in other countries would be dramatically different if you lived "south of the border", as they say...
Hear, hear! Who else is tired of patch -p0 ?
My respect for Linux would greatly improve if he laid down the badass attitude and added some professionalism to the kernel releases. Enough of this homebrew scheme.
I agree with your point (you being a loser), and although I don't generally pay attention to AC posts, I will do you (and anyone else interested) to point you to the jCVS home page, which provides exactly what you asked for.
First of all, I think your mention of the Linux community and how it prides itself on its haphazard development model is a bit misleading. Even the Linux kernel itself is not developed in the chaotic manner you described (parts of it, specially the in-the-works LVM, have formal specs and desing).
What you seem to miss though, is that not all free software projects are developed in quite the same way. The contrast between Linux and OpenBSD is just the tipof the iceberg. Many more projects have such a close knit assembly of core developers who add features following a formal design, and use formal tests to ensure that the builds are OK.
The argument you seem to have missed in that lecture is that there's no reason why an openly developed free software cannot have thourough, formal design and testing, and there's no guarantee that a closed development has it either.
Unfortunately, that's not the case for us who dwell in their proverbial backyard.
With KDE and GNOME, the desktop is almost as easy as Windows.
And is this a problem? Is it any worse because it is esier to use? IMHO, KDE and GNOME are already bloated pieces of software You know, bloated, when referring to software has become, through annoyng repetition in otherwise sterile arguments, become a meaningless expression. And of course it has no intrinsic absolute value, but you already knew that. I mean, GNOME is more "bloated" than, say FVWM, but then again it aims to do a lot more than the latter.
Perhaps if you could expand a little bit more on how the proliferation of "Windows-type" (you might have meant GUI? User friendly?) apps will make Linux worse...
Lo' and behold, for mighty 'leet linux user spake from his cluelessness throne. And thus hath His cluelessness proved, by 1) responding to an obvious (though humorous) troll; 2) cheering for Slackware;
You forgot the obligatory "thank you" at the end of your post, which used to be an earmark of this type of troll...
Yes, that would be an infringement of trademark, since I just copyrighted it. You can go for SmellyCat Linux, though. That is, if the authors of "Friends" haven't trademarked that as well...
Well, there's this, err, issue, that prevents Microsoft from openly doing so, and more to the point, Compaq from accepting it without crying 'foul!'. I belive it has something to do with the US judicial system...
Off the top of my head, the only really non-free package that is distributed by Redhat is Netscape, but a case can be made for it being more free than any piece in Corel's suite. I would tend to agree with you that Debian is more free than Redhat, but that doesn't mean Redhat isn't free enough for those who care about freedom.
Now that our daily spelling nitpick session is over, we can proceed with our uncalled for advice: next time, kindly comply with your own precepts and keep your posting as a secret to yourself.
Slashdot will thank you, I'm sure. Have a nice day.
Have you actually looked at the benchmarks, buddy?
I find it ironic, enlightening and enormously amusing that Perl never scored better than any of the other languages compared, and even at handling REGEXPs (which Perl folk so readily tout as one of the crown features of their beloved toy) it scored below AWK (which is no surprise to me). But then again, as they say: when you have a problem and think "I know, I'll use regexps!" you end up with two problems.
Whatever happened to your accent, Shania?
If my memory is right, it's about 300000 km/s. Oh, you were talking about computer languages? Never mind then...