Other then the idea that the universe magically created itself and everything in it, exactly what parts of '200 years and thousands of independant(sic) pieces of information and the entire biology branch of science' have to be ignored? Creation is no more far fetched then evolution, your just changing what your god is.
FYI, the origins of the universe and whether or not it "created itself" have abolsutely nothing to do with biology or evolution. Evolution pertains to the origin of (new) species... not the origin of Everything. I just thought I would point that out before you continue to make a fool of yourself by making ridiculous distortions of what evolutionary theory says.
I find it much more reasonable to believe it was created with a snap of the fingers and admit I cannot understand how God could always exist than to believe this Awesome Universe "evolved" exactly the way it did!
Would you believe that this Awesome Universe "evolved" in a way other than it did?
What you mean to say is that you find it much *easier* to believe that the universe was created with a snap of the fingers. Reason has absolutely nothing to do with it. If you were using reason, you would be seeking to find the real answers rather than believe what you find easiest.
The purpose of your life is whatever you decide it will be. If you want a grand purpose then give yourself one. If all you want to do is watch TV until you fall over dead one day, go for it. There is no grand purpose.
If I give myself a grand purpose, then there is a grand purpose. Duh!
The universe doesn't give a wet slap what you do or if you live or die.
Insofar as I am part of the universe, it most certain does give a wet slap what I do or whether I live or die. I don't know where you are getting this notion that you or I are somehow apart from, or something other than, the universe.
Everyone knows that nice new Ferraris evolved gradually from centuries, if not millenia, of industrial and automotive advancements using consumer preference as a selective force. Did you think that Ferraris just miraculously appeared one day by the will of God?
Genetically programmed death implies gradual breakdown of the organism. If there was no genetically programmed death, there probably wouldn't be the gradual breakdown either. The offspring would have a very difficult time competing with older, more experienced, and physically fit ancestors despite the small genetic advantages the offspring might have. Also, the gene pool would be much less dynamic with lots of ancenstors hanging around and continuing to breed.
Wait a minute. I thought it had already been determined that CherryOS was really just PearPC and that all its fantastic feature and performance claims were bogus. Why is this "great news?"
Can't you put any number on the do not call list? I don't think it matters what type of service it is. I actually switched to VoIP last month and kept my old POTS number ( which is on the list ). I haven't recieved any telemarking calls.
The problem is that you are not thinking in terms of real version numbering. You are trying to use the Microsoft quasi versioning, which really hasn't made much sense since Windows 3.11.
My point was that you wouldn't market Windows XP SP2 as a new version of Windows. You would separate the bug fixes from the new features in SP2 and put the new features in a major version upgrade which you would charge for. So you'd have Windows XP 1.0.2 which would be Windowx XP 1.0.0 with all the latest SP2 bug fixes. And then you'd have XP 1.1.0 which would be XP with all teh latest bug fixes AND the new features. The only argument against this that I can think of is that Windows XP was insecure by design in the first place so there is no way to separate the bug fixes from the new "features."
Apple is a great example of how to do it. Versions 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 are all different releases which you have to pay for, and all minor version upgrades come free, i.e. 10.2.8 -> 10.2.9. I don't hear Mac users complaining....
For every new branch office getting a fresh set of workstations and servers, there are thousands using bubble gun to hold their old network together, scrounging individual computers, printers, and monitors.
They do, but not everyone, or even most people, in a company does. Generally, users have basic needs that can be adaquately satisfied by a non-WIndows desktop. WHere I work we have a mix of Windows, OS X, and Linux desktops. Each user has different needs and preferences. It is stupid to say that everyone should run Windows just because a few specized apps in specific departments require it.
A lot of places have custom software that covers those functions.
Indeed they do. Where I work we use Filemaker with a custom billing/inventory/receiving system. Of course, that runs on Mac and Windows. Linux users can connect to the Citrix server if the really need to access that system directly. But generally they don't need to. We have web apps that pull data from Filemaker for common tasks.
Most business users who use Windows do so because they have one or two vertical market apps that require Windows. PERIOD.
Depends on the business. In my experience, most business users use Windows just because that is what they know. It is a comfortable choice. In an a typical office, people just need word processing, maybe a spreadsheet, email, and a web browser. There may be be a few people in the company who use special apps that only run on Windows, but most have very basic needs. But again, it really depends on the company. Some companies do revolve around a specific application. You're painting with a very wide brush.
They shop for an entire system - server, workstations, printers
They do? Do you deal exclusivly with startups with large amounts of venture capital and/or grants? In my 7 years as an IT consultant, I have seen very few companies lay out the cash for a complete, new, integrated setup. Most companies piece their network together. Couple new computers here, a couple there. A new server when the old one craps out. That kind of thing. Our sales guys would be in hog heaven if what you say were true. Then again, we are not Microsoft whores (although we do our share of Windows work) like your wife's company sounds like it is, so maybe they just aren't coming to us for these "integrated" setups.
Slightly off topic, but all this fuss about "SP2" made me seriously ask the question "what ever happened to version numbers?" Seems to me that people would not be making such a big deal about incompatabilies if Microsoft made a clear distinction between software upgrades (new version), and patches to existing versions. More specifically, when a "service pack" changes things such that other software might become in compatable, it should be a new version of the OS, i.e. Windows XP version 1.2. That way companies could standardize on a certain version of, say, WIndows XP, and only install security updates for that version. This 7 year (or whatever it is) product lifecycle without a major official version change is just stupid. They tried to some kind of versioning with Windows 98 by releasing "second edition" but that caused nothing but confusion. Was it really a new version or just the old version with all the updates applied?
The whole point of incorporating a business is to reduce personal liablity. That is what a Limited Liability Company (LLC) is for... for better or worse.
Yes, he probably does deserve to owe $49 million. Remember, he has assets of $10 million (or so he says). He made big money spamming for years. He deserves to owe big money for years (life?). Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Is this more a conclusion you arrive at by feeling or is it the pure logic of understanding the situation and adding up all the plusses and negatives?
It is the conclusion I come to after having used Linux for 10 years.
You have to admit, the end result from the appfolder scenario is much better for the PC user than the package scenario we have now,
As a Debian user, I must say that the package system is treating me pretty well.
Better to start the Linux movement on appfolders NOW when it's still in flux than to wait until the Linux scene has been totally set in it's ways.
I can't say that it is the right way to go. I think the Linux scene still needs to settle before we can seriously talk about making universal packages and/or appfolders. I really don't want MY system running 5 different versions of a basic shared library just because the software author couldn't count on a certain version being on the user's system.
Ofcourse it's THEIR site so you might find ways their arguments are faulty but I'm convinced this is the way to go over packages for most programs.
I'm not talking about the ROX desktop, only the program installation part of that system, Zero Install. Let me know what you think.
I think all good distributions do I good job of providing all the basic programs that a user needs. Web browser, utility programs, etc. It would be nice to have a good system for those misc programs that aren't included in the distribution. Whether it is autopackage or zero install, I don't know. I don't think it makes that much difference to the user. As long as there is a single "package" to download for a given program.
Well, let's say it's not just an index of libraries of all the programs but a central repository of libraries, exactly like the libraries are stored in the traditional UNIX package way. When the index finds that 2 or more appdirs are using the same library, it copies that dual-use library into the traditional/lib or whatever Linux uses. NOW, when by happenstance those 2 progams are loaded at the same time, they will share that library in RAM, just like the package way of doing things
Sounds like an awkward hack to me.
t's not very HD friendly, but you're trading in HD space for more efficient RAM usage.
Or just use the package system and get both efficent RAM usage and efficient disk usage.
"You have no idea how much RAM shared libraries save."
"Each application is still going to want to use its own version."
You contradicted yourself I think.
Not at all. One statement was referring to the current system and the other was referring to an appfolder system.
I'm not trying to attack you but how often are libraries shared in RAM between installed-by-user programs?
In a properly maintained package system, almost always. There are some cases where an application will use old 1.x gnome libraries, for example, but that is rare. Most Debian packages are going to be built against the current library set. And anything you complile is, by default, going to build against the current set of installed libraries.
Don't get me wrong. I love the OS X appfolder system. I just don't think it is right for Linux at this time.
Multiple copies of libraries on your HD inside different appfolders are doable. Efficiency inside RAM can probably be the same as with packages. Maybe make a big index of all the libraries that are available inside the appfolders on the system.
You have no idea how much RAM shared libraries save. Especially on your average graphical desktop. Also, multiple copies of libraries makes it very difficult to apply updates to all applications that use a particular library.
Maybe make a big index of all the libraries that are available inside the appfolders on the system.
How does this solve anything? Each application is still going to want to use its own version. And if it doesn't use its own version, dont' you run the risk of breaking one application by installing overlapping libraries included in another appfolder? Sounds like hell to troubleshoot.
The autopackage FAQ has "what's wrong with NeXT/MacOSX style appfolders", but it seems to consist mostly of hand-waving and straw men. They don't seem to understand how NeXT/Mac apps work, e.g., w.r.t. linking.
The biggest argument that the FAQ made against the OS X style application on Linux is its complete inability to deal with dependencies. Most OS X apps can assume that all the needed libraries and services will be installed as part part of a standard OS installlation. Linux apps do not have this luxury. This is neither a strawman nor hand waving. How do you propose dealing with this issue? What does a user do when he/she gets "libgnome-2.8.1.so not found" after dragging their favorite application into the "Applications" folder?
Slashdot Mirror
FYI, the origins of the universe and whether or not it "created itself" have abolsutely nothing to do with biology or evolution. Evolution pertains to the origin of (new) species... not the origin of Everything. I just thought I would point that out before you continue to make a fool of yourself by making ridiculous distortions of what evolutionary theory says.
-matthew
Would you believe that this Awesome Universe "evolved" in a way other than it did?
What you mean to say is that you find it much *easier* to believe that the universe was created with a snap of the fingers. Reason has absolutely nothing to do with it. If you were using reason, you would be seeking to find the real answers rather than believe what you find easiest.
-matthew
Perhaps it isn't a problem because they don't become better adapted through experience and growth as higher organisms do. Just a thought.
-matthew
If I give myself a grand purpose, then there is a grand purpose. Duh!
The universe doesn't give a wet slap what you do or if you live or die.
Insofar as I am part of the universe, it most certain does give a wet slap what I do or whether I live or die. I don't know where you are getting this notion that you or I are somehow apart from, or something other than, the universe.
-matthew
Everyone knows that nice new Ferraris evolved gradually from centuries, if not millenia, of industrial and automotive advancements using consumer preference as a selective force. Did you think that Ferraris just miraculously appeared one day by the will of God?
-matthew
Why is it that when creationists can't explain something they call it miraculous?
To parallel this, "Let there be Light!" = Big Bang.
Who makes this equation?
-matthew
Genetically programmed death implies gradual breakdown of the organism. If there was no genetically programmed death, there probably wouldn't be the gradual breakdown either. The offspring would have a very difficult time competing with older, more experienced, and physically fit ancestors despite the small genetic advantages the offspring might have. Also, the gene pool would be much less dynamic with lots of ancenstors hanging around and continuing to breed.
-matthew
Ducks are amazing. Creationist ducks are funny.
-matthew
DNA isn't really an adaptation, per se. Perhaps that is why it isn't on the list.
-matthew
Wait a minute. I thought it had already been determined that CherryOS was really just PearPC and that all its fantastic feature and performance claims were bogus. Why is this "great news?"
-matthew
Can't you put any number on the do not call list? I don't think it matters what type of service it is. I actually switched to VoIP last month and kept my old POTS number ( which is on the list ). I haven't recieved any telemarking calls.
-matthew
Isn't that how all VOIP services work? Is AOL's easier?
My point was that you wouldn't market Windows XP SP2 as a new version of Windows. You would separate the bug fixes from the new features in SP2 and put the new features in a major version upgrade which you would charge for. So you'd have Windows XP 1.0.2 which would be Windowx XP 1.0.0 with all the latest SP2 bug fixes. And then you'd have XP 1.1.0 which would be XP with all teh latest bug fixes AND the new features. The only argument against this that I can think of is that Windows XP was insecure by design in the first place so there is no way to separate the bug fixes from the new "features."
Apple is a great example of how to do it. Versions 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 are all different releases which you have to pay for, and all minor version upgrades come free, i.e. 10.2.8 -> 10.2.9. I don't hear Mac users complaining....
-matthew
For every new branch office getting a fresh set of workstations and servers, there are thousands using bubble gun to hold their old network together, scrounging individual computers, printers, and monitors.
-matthew
They do, but not everyone, or even most people, in a company does. Generally, users have basic needs that can be adaquately satisfied by a non-WIndows desktop. WHere I work we have a mix of Windows, OS X, and Linux desktops. Each user has different needs and preferences. It is stupid to say that everyone should run Windows just because a few specized apps in specific departments require it.
A lot of places have custom software that covers those functions.
Indeed they do. Where I work we use Filemaker with a custom billing/inventory/receiving system. Of course, that runs on Mac and Windows. Linux users can connect to the Citrix server if the really need to access that system directly. But generally they don't need to. We have web apps that pull data from Filemaker for common tasks.
-matthew
Uh, I am pretty sure I said "it depends on the business."
-matthew
Was that said? -matthew
Depends on the business. In my experience, most business users use Windows just because that is what they know. It is a comfortable choice. In an a typical office, people just need word processing, maybe a spreadsheet, email, and a web browser. There may be be a few people in the company who use special apps that only run on Windows, but most have very basic needs. But again, it really depends on the company. Some companies do revolve around a specific application. You're painting with a very wide brush.
They shop for an entire system - server, workstations, printers
They do? Do you deal exclusivly with startups with large amounts of venture capital and/or grants? In my 7 years as an IT consultant, I have seen very few companies lay out the cash for a complete, new, integrated setup. Most companies piece their network together. Couple new computers here, a couple there. A new server when the old one craps out. That kind of thing. Our sales guys would be in hog heaven if what you say were true. Then again, we are not Microsoft whores (although we do our share of Windows work) like your wife's company sounds like it is, so maybe they just aren't coming to us for these "integrated" setups.
-matthew
Slightly off topic, but all this fuss about "SP2" made me seriously ask the question "what ever happened to version numbers?" Seems to me that people would not be making such a big deal about incompatabilies if Microsoft made a clear distinction between software upgrades (new version), and patches to existing versions. More specifically, when a "service pack" changes things such that other software might become in compatable, it should be a new version of the OS, i.e. Windows XP version 1.2. That way companies could standardize on a certain version of, say, WIndows XP, and only install security updates for that version. This 7 year (or whatever it is) product lifecycle without a major official version change is just stupid. They tried to some kind of versioning with Windows 98 by releasing "second edition" but that caused nothing but confusion. Was it really a new version or just the old version with all the updates applied?
-matthew
The whole point of incorporating a business is to reduce personal liablity. That is what a Limited Liability Company (LLC) is for... for better or worse.
-matthew
Yes, he probably does deserve to owe $49 million. Remember, he has assets of $10 million (or so he says). He made big money spamming for years. He deserves to owe big money for years (life?). Live by the sword, die by the sword.
-matthew
It is the conclusion I come to after having used Linux for 10 years.
You have to admit, the end result from the appfolder scenario is much better for the PC user than the package scenario we have now,
As a Debian user, I must say that the package system is treating me pretty well.
Better to start the Linux movement on appfolders NOW when it's still in flux than to wait until the Linux scene has been totally set in it's ways.
I can't say that it is the right way to go. I think the Linux scene still needs to settle before we can seriously talk about making universal packages and/or appfolders. I really don't want MY system running 5 different versions of a basic shared library just because the software author couldn't count on a certain version being on the user's system.
Ofcourse it's THEIR site so you might find ways their arguments are faulty but I'm convinced this is the way to go over packages for most programs.
I'm not talking about the ROX desktop, only the program installation part of that system, Zero Install. Let me know what you think.
I think all good distributions do I good job of providing all the basic programs that a user needs. Web browser, utility programs, etc. It would be nice to have a good system for those misc programs that aren't included in the distribution. Whether it is autopackage or zero install, I don't know. I don't think it makes that much difference to the user. As long as there is a single "package" to download for a given program.
-matthew
Sounds like an awkward hack to me.
t's not very HD friendly, but you're trading in HD space for more efficient RAM usage.
Or just use the package system and get both efficent RAM usage and efficient disk usage.
"You have no idea how much RAM shared libraries save."
"Each application is still going to want to use its own version."
You contradicted yourself I think.
Not at all. One statement was referring to the current system and the other was referring to an appfolder system.
I'm not trying to attack you but how often are libraries shared in RAM between installed-by-user programs?
In a properly maintained package system, almost always. There are some cases where an application will use old 1.x gnome libraries, for example, but that is rare. Most Debian packages are going to be built against the current library set. And anything you complile is, by default, going to build against the current set of installed libraries.
Don't get me wrong. I love the OS X appfolder system. I just don't think it is right for Linux at this time.
-matthew -matthew
You have no idea how much RAM shared libraries save. Especially on your average graphical desktop. Also, multiple copies of libraries makes it very difficult to apply updates to all applications that use a particular library.
Maybe make a big index of all the libraries that are available inside the appfolders on the system.
How does this solve anything? Each application is still going to want to use its own version. And if it doesn't use its own version, dont' you run the risk of breaking one application by installing overlapping libraries included in another appfolder? Sounds like hell to troubleshoot.
-matthew
The biggest argument that the FAQ made against the OS X style application on Linux is its complete inability to deal with dependencies. Most OS X apps can assume that all the needed libraries and services will be installed as part part of a standard OS installlation. Linux apps do not have this luxury. This is neither a strawman nor hand waving. How do you propose dealing with this issue? What does a user do when he/she gets "libgnome-2.8.1.so not found" after dragging their favorite application into the "Applications" folder?
-matthew