The article though tried to make it sound like Oracle's OS was so much more improved then what Red Hat had because they changed the kernel and added a VM but nothing more.
Um, so basically it is a rip off of Red Hat just with Red Hat stripped out and Oracle's own filesystem added to the kernel, with a different VM. Thats it. Still maintains binary compatibility, etc. This is basically like someone trying to justify that Linux Mint is some grand new distribution when it is nothing more then Ubuntu with a few extra tweaks and drivers added.
Yes, and that bill has HUGE constitutional consequences. It effectively does things ex post facto which is illegal under the constitution. It is similar to the Government suddenly blocking Bit Torrent today and then showing up at your house arresting you for using Bit Torrent last week when it was still legal. Secondly, this just shows how giving taxpayer money to *any business* no matter how large, is a bad idea, not only that it undermines capitalism and catapults us to socialism and communism, but the businesses who need the money obviously don't have the leadership to manage it.
...Or how about ICANN and parents growing up and realizing a few things. A) Parents can control what sites their kids visit. B) Information is not "damaging", if a kid want to look up porn and they search for it, they obviously want to look at it and are much less the "innocent kids" then their parents think they are. C) It is not ICANN, the ISPs, or even the government to "patrol" what is online. The internet is honestly one of the few places where true capitalism and freedom is at work (despite efforts to prevent it), and just look at the growth in the last few years, a "closed garden" web like they are suggesting would not have hardly any of the growth the free web is experiencing now.
Edit your hosts file to block all ad servers. Its quick and painless. As for NoScript, I'm not a huge fan of it (its more of a pain then anything else, and as a Linux/obscure pre-alpha release user most generic attacks fail) so I haven't found a substitute.
Edit your hosts file (theres even one for Windows), and put in all adservers to redirect to localhost. There. No ads, similarly, no extra bloat from Adblock. Plus, it works on whatever, e-mail, browsers, etc.
...But its a lot harder to screw up command line options. For example, editing fstab is a lot easier if you tell people to sudo gedit/etc/fstab compared to telling them to log in as root, going to their file browser (which could be a multitude of different things), clicking on their filesystem, going to etc, finding fstab and editing the file.
I tend to think of command line stuff as going via a direct URL. Sure, I can click Mail when I go to Google to bring up Gmail, but if you just type in mail.google.com it gets you to it a lot faster, and its a lot easier.
Yes, but think about things that the "content" providers wouldn't want you to be able to "download", such as Hulu. Also, there are quite a few Flash cartoons that would be hard to make in any other format such as Homestar Runner and various others.
There are some things though, that Flash would be absolutely necessary to have. For example, videos. Sure, you can get YouTube on the iPhone, but other then YouTube your video choices are limited. Some have dedicated apps, but the majority don't. Just think about Homestar Runner on the iPhone.
When has regulating anything done anything to stop potential terrorist or other criminal activity? Almost never. When has regulating made it an absolute pain to do something? Always.
We should not regulate or ban things just because they have potential destructive uses. Heck, even if someone just wants to see a rocket shoot up into the air very fast, let them. Most useful scientific research doesn't happen from lab technicians in sterile environments doing everything exactly to the scientific method, it comes from people who just wonder "What if....".
Well, there are a few reasons. Most terrorists today who commit attacks are Islamic, they wish to die in the attacks, by sniping you give yourself ample time to run away, and even if you are caught you will most likely be brought to prison where you will serve out a term, not the going down in a blaze of glory that they so desire. If you run into a crowded street with explosives, there is a good chance you will die in the explosion. If you drive a car filled with explosives into a building, you will probably die in the explosion.
But similarly, who can afford them? They aren't just sold for $10 at Wal-Mart. And generally those who can afford them and buy them will be the people who know much more about rockets then either you or me. The thought that because these things are regulated will suddenly make them be only in the hands of those who are good is a myth, it will only make getting them a pain. Remember 9/11. The planes weren't hijacked by anything that is regulated (or hopefully will be regulated) they were hijacked by boxcutters, today anyone can go into a hardware store and buy boxcutters, even most bomb attacks were not bought as bombs but as fertilizer or other "non-explosive" compounds.
Because unlike most of us, some people simply don't really care about their online community, others rarely get on, etc. For a migration to be successful, everyone has to move at once. Even if two of my college friends that I talk to decide to stay on Facebook rather then move to *shiny new social network* more then likely I will be logging into Facebook every now and then to talk to them, that in Facebook's status doesn't show up as a "lost" customer, only a customer that rarely gets on anymore. Social networking is one thing that you really can't be a "trend-setter" in, if I switch to using Haiku, it doesn't really matter if I am one of the few people that use is, but if I go to a social networking site with only a few people on it, whats the use?
...So you get a Storm? Are you kidding? The Storm was bashed almost more heavily then the iPhone. The main problems with the Storm was that it tried to take the "normal" BlackBerry OS and shove it into a touchscreen device and expect it to work. Why not get at least a BlackBerry Bold or a Curve? But from every review I have read, the Storm is more or less the worst BlackBerry phone you could get.
And yes, there always seems to be very obvious things left out of every phone. Why can't someone make a QWERTY keyboard/captive touchscreen phone with A) Decent Bluetooth B) A decent OS C) An easy way of developing applications D) No "approval" process E) A camera that actually works F) SMS along with MMS with lots of options (signatures, deleting individual messages, an option to view things "IM style" or E-mail style, etc), G) Copy and Paste and H) Decent predictive text with correction (the predictive text of a Storm with the correction of an iPhone)
Exactly, I'm sure after the many, many, many, changes to Facebook many users wanted to leave, but if their friends aren't on the other social networking sites, why bother? And until something manages to beat Facebook in terms of ease of use (that part should be easy by now), support (Facebook (and even Twitter) has apps for the Blackberry, iPhone, etc), and features, people aren't going to jump ship in large numbers even if you have managed to tick off about 15% of your users.
The Cell is PPC based, can be faster than a Core i7 in some respects and is available cheaply in quantity.
Fast as in, will run desktop applications fast, or can do some obscure math calculations fast? Because, according to most reports, Core i7 architectures (or scaled down versions) will be what Intel is going to be pushing for the next few years, and in every report I have read, they totally demolish the competition (x86) in "real" speed. Whereas the Cell was more or less built to run supercomputers, render HD video and do other CPU intensive processes compared to the Core i7 which was designed more for a desktop machine.
Tho it helps if the CPU is designed to handle it.
Yes, but emulation of x86 in the CPU level (or technologies made to make emulation easier) might run afoul of Intel's agreements with AMD
Sell itself to Intel, thus unilaterally giving Intel ~100% control over mainstream consumer microprocessor fabrication, production and sales
And this would be approved by the EU? Sure, the US justice system doesn't really understand technology but the EU does and they would know what the effect is. With no competitors Intel could very easily stop innovating, and prices of computers would rise. The EU knows that and would not allow the buyout/merger (and if Intel does cut off AMD, then they can be looking forward to an antitrust case)
Use an older or less popular spec (The resurrection of PowerPC?).
I can't see PPC nor ARM capturing any marketshare because A) They are slower then most x86 chips and B) They have pathetic clock rates that make them nearly impossible to market even against an inferior CPU.
AMD has a lot to lose, but yet I can see Intel being hit by a massive antitrust case if they continue with this.
The problem with PPC, is, they just aren't fast, I'm quite certain that your PPC workstation would end up seeming slower than a sub-$1000 x86 Core i7 box (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883229072). Yes, PPC does scale quite nicely with multiple CPU configurations, but it is still very expensive for the speed. It similarly didn't help that Apple added the usual "Mac markup" with their hardware, and there are (comparatively) very few PPC motherboards and other hardware support. But I just can't see PPC ending up making a dent in x86 even if AMD starts making PPC chips, it didn't work for Apple and I don't think it will work for AMD because they simply are not marketable.
Yah, unfortunately for most things more advanced than DOS, it fails on anything that isn't currently top-of-the-line. Not to mention that ARM, SPARC, and PPC architectures simply aren't fast compared to x86. Sure, they are more power efficient, but I challenge you to find a single CPU (multi-cores are acceptable, multi-CPUs not) thats based on ARM, SPARC or the PPC architecture that is at least as fast as a low-end Core i7 and are cheap enough to be included in a mid-range PC.
What you are advocating though is effectively Communism.
Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
is the first "plank" of Communism according to The Communist Manifesto (see http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Manifesto_of_the_Communist_Party/Chapter_II) and while you are not advocating the abolition of privately held land as Karl Marx did, the idea of taking private land and making it beneficial to the community, either by high taxes or by force, is very similar to Communism.
But again, is it not my freedom to use my land how I wish? If I want to keep land for no apparent reason other then for an investment, I should have every right to do it. Owning property is one of the fundamental rights in capitalism. If I want to keep land and for no apparent reason put garden gnomes all in it, I should be allowed to (so long as they weren't causing it to be an eyesore).
Now, if there was a lack of land to buy, I might believe that motivating people to sell land is a good thing, but there isn't. There is tons, and tons of land out there.
I wasn't talking about the property tax, I was talking about the fact that he seemed to claim that because I took up space it justified taxes because it reduced other people's freedom, and to support me to sell off my land. And by taxing me to promote the selling of my land was a good thing. I don't see how either A) Me owning land violates anyone's freedoms and B) Why motivating me to sell my land would be a good thing (especially today in the USA where we have tons of land at rock-bottom prices but very few buyers).
The nice thing about Red Hat is they seem to walk the walk. Even now just about all Red Hat's code is pure OSS, (even if they are overly-picky about trademarks), Google, Sun, Apple, and even Novell are still partially proprietary software vendors even though all of them have made great claims to how they wish to support OSS all the time.
Slashdot Mirror
The article though tried to make it sound like Oracle's OS was so much more improved then what Red Hat had because they changed the kernel and added a VM but nothing more.
Um, so basically it is a rip off of Red Hat just with Red Hat stripped out and Oracle's own filesystem added to the kernel, with a different VM. Thats it. Still maintains binary compatibility, etc. This is basically like someone trying to justify that Linux Mint is some grand new distribution when it is nothing more then Ubuntu with a few extra tweaks and drivers added.
Yes, and that bill has HUGE constitutional consequences. It effectively does things ex post facto which is illegal under the constitution. It is similar to the Government suddenly blocking Bit Torrent today and then showing up at your house arresting you for using Bit Torrent last week when it was still legal. Secondly, this just shows how giving taxpayer money to *any business* no matter how large, is a bad idea, not only that it undermines capitalism and catapults us to socialism and communism, but the businesses who need the money obviously don't have the leadership to manage it.
...Or how about ICANN and parents growing up and realizing a few things. A) Parents can control what sites their kids visit. B) Information is not "damaging", if a kid want to look up porn and they search for it, they obviously want to look at it and are much less the "innocent kids" then their parents think they are. C) It is not ICANN, the ISPs, or even the government to "patrol" what is online. The internet is honestly one of the few places where true capitalism and freedom is at work (despite efforts to prevent it), and just look at the growth in the last few years, a "closed garden" web like they are suggesting would not have hardly any of the growth the free web is experiencing now.
Censorship, no matter for what "righteous" purpose you might intend it, always, always, always, leads to tyranny.
Edit your hosts file to block all ad servers. Its quick and painless. As for NoScript, I'm not a huge fan of it (its more of a pain then anything else, and as a Linux/obscure pre-alpha release user most generic attacks fail) so I haven't found a substitute.
Edit your hosts file (theres even one for Windows), and put in all adservers to redirect to localhost. There. No ads, similarly, no extra bloat from Adblock. Plus, it works on whatever, e-mail, browsers, etc.
...But its a lot harder to screw up command line options. For example, editing fstab is a lot easier if you tell people to sudo gedit /etc/fstab compared to telling them to log in as root, going to their file browser (which could be a multitude of different things), clicking on their filesystem, going to etc, finding fstab and editing the file.
I tend to think of command line stuff as going via a direct URL. Sure, I can click Mail when I go to Google to bring up Gmail, but if you just type in mail.google.com it gets you to it a lot faster, and its a lot easier.
Yes, but think about things that the "content" providers wouldn't want you to be able to "download", such as Hulu. Also, there are quite a few Flash cartoons that would be hard to make in any other format such as Homestar Runner and various others.
There are some things though, that Flash would be absolutely necessary to have. For example, videos. Sure, you can get YouTube on the iPhone, but other then YouTube your video choices are limited. Some have dedicated apps, but the majority don't. Just think about Homestar Runner on the iPhone.
When has regulating anything done anything to stop potential terrorist or other criminal activity? Almost never. When has regulating made it an absolute pain to do something? Always.
We should not regulate or ban things just because they have potential destructive uses. Heck, even if someone just wants to see a rocket shoot up into the air very fast, let them. Most useful scientific research doesn't happen from lab technicians in sterile environments doing everything exactly to the scientific method, it comes from people who just wonder "What if....".
Well, there are a few reasons. Most terrorists today who commit attacks are Islamic, they wish to die in the attacks, by sniping you give yourself ample time to run away, and even if you are caught you will most likely be brought to prison where you will serve out a term, not the going down in a blaze of glory that they so desire. If you run into a crowded street with explosives, there is a good chance you will die in the explosion. If you drive a car filled with explosives into a building, you will probably die in the explosion.
But similarly, who can afford them? They aren't just sold for $10 at Wal-Mart. And generally those who can afford them and buy them will be the people who know much more about rockets then either you or me. The thought that because these things are regulated will suddenly make them be only in the hands of those who are good is a myth, it will only make getting them a pain. Remember 9/11. The planes weren't hijacked by anything that is regulated (or hopefully will be regulated) they were hijacked by boxcutters, today anyone can go into a hardware store and buy boxcutters, even most bomb attacks were not bought as bombs but as fertilizer or other "non-explosive" compounds.
Because unlike most of us, some people simply don't really care about their online community, others rarely get on, etc. For a migration to be successful, everyone has to move at once. Even if two of my college friends that I talk to decide to stay on Facebook rather then move to *shiny new social network* more then likely I will be logging into Facebook every now and then to talk to them, that in Facebook's status doesn't show up as a "lost" customer, only a customer that rarely gets on anymore. Social networking is one thing that you really can't be a "trend-setter" in, if I switch to using Haiku, it doesn't really matter if I am one of the few people that use is, but if I go to a social networking site with only a few people on it, whats the use?
...So you get a Storm? Are you kidding? The Storm was bashed almost more heavily then the iPhone. The main problems with the Storm was that it tried to take the "normal" BlackBerry OS and shove it into a touchscreen device and expect it to work. Why not get at least a BlackBerry Bold or a Curve? But from every review I have read, the Storm is more or less the worst BlackBerry phone you could get.
And yes, there always seems to be very obvious things left out of every phone. Why can't someone make a QWERTY keyboard/captive touchscreen phone with A) Decent Bluetooth B) A decent OS C) An easy way of developing applications D) No "approval" process E) A camera that actually works F) SMS along with MMS with lots of options (signatures, deleting individual messages, an option to view things "IM style" or E-mail style, etc), G) Copy and Paste and H) Decent predictive text with correction (the predictive text of a Storm with the correction of an iPhone)
Exactly, I'm sure after the many, many, many, changes to Facebook many users wanted to leave, but if their friends aren't on the other social networking sites, why bother? And until something manages to beat Facebook in terms of ease of use (that part should be easy by now), support (Facebook (and even Twitter) has apps for the Blackberry, iPhone, etc), and features, people aren't going to jump ship in large numbers even if you have managed to tick off about 15% of your users.
The Cell is PPC based, can be faster than a Core i7 in some respects and is available cheaply in quantity.
Fast as in, will run desktop applications fast, or can do some obscure math calculations fast? Because, according to most reports, Core i7 architectures (or scaled down versions) will be what Intel is going to be pushing for the next few years, and in every report I have read, they totally demolish the competition (x86) in "real" speed. Whereas the Cell was more or less built to run supercomputers, render HD video and do other CPU intensive processes compared to the Core i7 which was designed more for a desktop machine.
Tho it helps if the CPU is designed to handle it.
Yes, but emulation of x86 in the CPU level (or technologies made to make emulation easier) might run afoul of Intel's agreements with AMD
Sell itself to Intel, thus unilaterally giving Intel ~100% control over mainstream consumer microprocessor fabrication, production and sales
And this would be approved by the EU? Sure, the US justice system doesn't really understand technology but the EU does and they would know what the effect is. With no competitors Intel could very easily stop innovating, and prices of computers would rise. The EU knows that and would not allow the buyout/merger (and if Intel does cut off AMD, then they can be looking forward to an antitrust case)
Use an older or less popular spec (The resurrection of PowerPC?).
I can't see PPC nor ARM capturing any marketshare because A) They are slower then most x86 chips and B) They have pathetic clock rates that make them nearly impossible to market even against an inferior CPU.
AMD has a lot to lose, but yet I can see Intel being hit by a massive antitrust case if they continue with this.
Intel would also certainly be looking at an antitrust case, if not by the US then by the EU certainly.
The problem with PPC, is, they just aren't fast, I'm quite certain that your PPC workstation would end up seeming slower than a sub-$1000 x86 Core i7 box (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883229072). Yes, PPC does scale quite nicely with multiple CPU configurations, but it is still very expensive for the speed. It similarly didn't help that Apple added the usual "Mac markup" with their hardware, and there are (comparatively) very few PPC motherboards and other hardware support. But I just can't see PPC ending up making a dent in x86 even if AMD starts making PPC chips, it didn't work for Apple and I don't think it will work for AMD because they simply are not marketable.
Yah, unfortunately for most things more advanced than DOS, it fails on anything that isn't currently top-of-the-line. Not to mention that ARM, SPARC, and PPC architectures simply aren't fast compared to x86. Sure, they are more power efficient, but I challenge you to find a single CPU (multi-cores are acceptable, multi-CPUs not) thats based on ARM, SPARC or the PPC architecture that is at least as fast as a low-end Core i7 and are cheap enough to be included in a mid-range PC.
Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
is the first "plank" of Communism according to The Communist Manifesto (see http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Manifesto_of_the_Communist_Party/Chapter_II) and while you are not advocating the abolition of privately held land as Karl Marx did, the idea of taking private land and making it beneficial to the community, either by high taxes or by force, is very similar to Communism.
But again, is it not my freedom to use my land how I wish? If I want to keep land for no apparent reason other then for an investment, I should have every right to do it. Owning property is one of the fundamental rights in capitalism. If I want to keep land and for no apparent reason put garden gnomes all in it, I should be allowed to (so long as they weren't causing it to be an eyesore).
Now, if there was a lack of land to buy, I might believe that motivating people to sell land is a good thing, but there isn't. There is tons, and tons of land out there.
I wasn't talking about the property tax, I was talking about the fact that he seemed to claim that because I took up space it justified taxes because it reduced other people's freedom, and to support me to sell off my land. And by taxing me to promote the selling of my land was a good thing. I don't see how either A) Me owning land violates anyone's freedoms and B) Why motivating me to sell my land would be a good thing (especially today in the USA where we have tons of land at rock-bottom prices but very few buyers).
The nice thing about Red Hat is they seem to walk the walk. Even now just about all Red Hat's code is pure OSS, (even if they are overly-picky about trademarks), Google, Sun, Apple, and even Novell are still partially proprietary software vendors even though all of them have made great claims to how they wish to support OSS all the time.