christianity is not the same as spirituality. spirituality is not the same as religion. believe it or not, there are religions out there that are perfectly comfortable with whatever science throws at them.
the 'schism' that exists twixt Xtians and science exists because so many Xtians are so weak in their faith as to feel they have to prove God and jebus on a scientific level, instead of simply saying 'i believe, this is my faith.'
i noticed in your 'fave books' section that you have the blind watchmaker, et al.
so, with an eye towards dawkins' views on evolution, what's your personal take on the probability (not the possibility) of humans locating extraterrestrial life without going outside the solar system?
Even given two people of equal skill, their output is usually more than the sum of their efforts. There is something to be said for working in meatspace.
This is the exception, not the rule. In my experience, their output is usually much less than each of them working more-or-less individually, with a solid set of rules and guidelines.
Next time, try quoting a line or two from the post to which you are responding. I never mentioned 'peer to peer' DNS. I don't even know what that is.
By contrast in a peer to peer DNS network, in a world with many hundreds of thousands of DNS servers, to find an unknown, not commonly accessed domain would require tens of thousands of lookups if it were possible at all.
This IS a world with many hundreds of thousands of DNS servers.
I was being flippant in my call to people to start their own DNS servers - but a well designed root server heirarchy could very well be made that would allow for arbitrary TLDs without killing the 'performance' of DNS. In fact, I specifically mentioned that you could simply extend the existing BIND mechanism. There is no change to the method, merely an addition of an infinite number of TLDs.
At a tenth of a second per lookup, it would take about two hours to resolve the average domain name.
What's that one-liner about statitics being made up on the spot? Are you implying that it would take 72,000 searches to find an arbitrary domain name/ip address pair? Are you planning on searching these domains with the famous 'Ransack Search' algorithm?
Good computing isn't about math 101 - linear and iterative algorithms are almost always the wrong way to do anything complex.
It's a technologically illiterate suggestion. Anyone who made it, go back and do maths101.
There's no reason at all for them to be so stodgily defined. BIND doesn't give a damn what domain name you use. It's a sort of artificially created monopoly, in the sense that only a small number of.tld's are recognized by the commonly used root servers.
I say we all just start our own root servers, and allow any tld to be posted to it.
Come on, donate some broadband to the Free The World From ICANN's Domaination! project.:P
but it does have a 400 HP 327 engine. whee! too bad it's lined with birght red DEAD COW. top estimated speed is 185 mph, clocked at 135 in third gear, etc, ad nauseum.
I don't know.. is derivation, invention? In the case of Sun, they promised a cross-platform language suitable for open development. However, as long as they control the standard of the language, or, as long as no outside standards body has say in the mores and means of the language, it is not open - it can be revoked or changed at any time, there is no truly open peer review process for decisions regarding features and etc. Contrast this to C or C++, both of which are controlled by the American National Standards Institute - things don't just mysteriously HAPPEN to C and C++, they are deliberated and discussed, and everyone has a say in what goes on. There will never be a change in C or C++ that initiated in a marketing meeting.
In a different way, but equally valid, is the model of perl, in which changes to the language are loudly and long-windedly discussed, but to which additional extension via the CPAN facility is the norm. There is no 'standard' for changes to perl, but its growth is controlled and nurtured by users to the benefit, mostly, of users. I feel pretty confident in saying that perl, also, is not likely to be steered by corporate mandate.
M$ is promising the same paradigm as Sun for their new language. Those who know Sun know that they are no no less harsh a mistress than M$ within their own arena. I do not like their control, and I do not use their language. A language is not, or should not be a product - it is a tool. Does someone control the design and use of a hammer, pliers or saws?
I do understand that Sun's development model for Java is more open than I've made it sound to be. I don't believe for a second that M$'s will be. If they want to make a closed, controlled language for use by people who pay for it, great, but don't go telling me how open it is, and how cross-platform it's going to be.
How is Microsoft's decision to "embrace and extend" C/C++ in the form of C# any worse than Sun's decision to "embrace and extend" C/C++ and call it Java?
I agree, and you are correct on most counts. It is not actually sun's 'extension' of C++, however, that is the issue, as much as their continued insistence on control over the language.
That is a very M$ish move in and of itself. M$ have historically given away development tools but retained control of the language, thus bringing many new developers into their fold.
I've flat-out given up on moderation. I just spend most of my slashdot time composing OMM-esque flames. I think the permanent moderators must not use up mod points, because the 'late stage' moderation has gotten extremely heavy handed lately. If you want to be moderated up, just use any three-syllable technical term and don't ever, ever make a snide comment. All snide comments, no matter how true, are flamebait.
Now you are just rationalizing. cygwin might as well be unix. It's all built from the same source.
That is functionally identical to claiming that WINE might as well be windows. They are not the same. I love cygwin, I use it when I'm forced into windows, but it's slow like death, and there are still many tools that no one has bothered porting to windows.
wine isn't really that much slower.. i mean, it is, a little, but certainly not as bad as you make it sound. wine doesn't emulate OS layer calls, it replaces the OS layer with native code.
in any case, just download the demo and see for yourself.
It's definately a different experience. I have a linux box a few states away that I use for mail. That one works out well because I know and trust the people housing it. My company's large production servers are all co-lo'd as well, and, generally speaking, it sucks.
If you have someone in your company who REALLY knows what they're doing, it's best to just get root on the remote box and tell the hosting company not to touch it. In every industry job I've had, the people who will most often be near your machines are the ones you least want playing with it. It's definately worth it to work out ways of doing everything remotely.
Some of the problems we have run into (not related to the hosting company) are things like Oracle installs, which behave differently from staging areas than from CD, as well as bum tape drives, etc, etc. Backups in general just plain suck. We actually back up locally over a dedicated T-1, as well as using a 20-tape juke on the remote end for non-critical backups.
The most fun challenge of all has proven to be printing. WAN printing is a nightmare.
All in all, for an equivalent installation, it's a much, much larger pain in the ass. I honestly don't know if it's worth it, especially for what larger companies charge to host.
no, not really. In unix ethernet cards aren't files, tcp/ip connections aren't files and windows aren't files.
so/dev/eth0,/proc/net/tcp, and.. what's a window? ok, maybe windows aren't files, but i can sure as hell open(), read(), and write() to devices and ports just like any other file.
No, he's offering $3 000 because he wants KDE to be included in debian. Modifying the GPL is just a neccesity for this.
I'm not arguing anyone's motivation, just that Taco clearly and completely misrepresented the stated intent of the letter.
Taco sez:
he offers a $3k "Bonus" or "Reward" or "Bribe" depending on how you look at it, if KDE will be included with future versions of the distribution.
The letter sez:
Therefore, I would like to stipulate the appropriate actions by offering a private donation of 3.000,- US-$ to the KDE project, in case (and only in case) that the licence of the official release of KDE2 (all official packages incl. koffice) will be modified in the mentioned way
These are not the same. He is offering money to members of the KDE project to do the boring work of contacting authors and changing license files - he is not bribing anyone in the Debian project to do anything. He, in fact, is not offering anything at all to the Debian project.
He is NOT offering $3,000 for KDE to be included in Debian, he is offering $3,000 to the KDE project for them to modify their licenses! Can't you even read?
Thanks for including the letter so we didn't have to dig very far.
Bad news for American programmers, I suppose, but perhaps this sort of thing will balance out the world economy in the long run.
That's an outstanding point. Bitching about other people taking 'your' job is selfish - American tech workers have to be some of the most grossly overpaid people on the planet, right next to American executives.
Now, if only we could outsource all those VP jobs..
According to Alan Cox on the resier mailing list today, there's no way in hell the FS is going into 2.4. I like Hans, but he's fulla hooey on that particular count.
Not suprising, though, as he's said 'we're in' for pretty much the entire 2.3 lifespan - with or without Linus' support.
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 13:55:56 +0100 (BST) From: Alan Cox To: Sasi Peter Cc: Richard Torkar , Lars Marowsky-Bree , Rik van Riel , linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu, "reiserfs@devlinux.com" Subject: (reiserfs) Re: New Linux 2.5 - 2.6 TODO (Alan Cox suggests
> a good job; why would not you finally adopt their FS into the kernel???
Because we are in a code freeze. The same reasoning with NWFS, JFFS, XFS, EXT3
And as far as -ac patches go I've send them same to all parties - No. For a change that big so close to a final 2.4.0 release its for Linus to break the stated rules if anyone does.
Slashdot Mirror
dear captain christocentric,
christianity is not the same as spirituality. spirituality is not the same as religion. believe it or not, there are religions out there that are perfectly comfortable with whatever science throws at them.
the 'schism' that exists twixt Xtians and science exists because so many Xtians are so weak in their faith as to feel they have to prove God and jebus on a scientific level, instead of simply saying 'i believe, this is my faith.'
/.ing for spirituality without religion,
--
blue
i noticed in your 'fave books' section that you have the blind watchmaker, et al.
so, with an eye towards dawkins' views on evolution, what's your personal take on the probability (not the possibility) of humans locating extraterrestrial life without going outside the solar system?
both postgres and mysql have been around for more than two years.
a short history of postgres
msql, upon which mysql is based, is also ancient - the FAQ itself is still dated at 1996.
Even given two people of equal skill, their output is usually more than the sum of their efforts. There is something to be said for working in meatspace.
This is the exception, not the rule. In my experience, their output is usually much less than each of them working more-or-less individually, with a solid set of rules and guidelines.
--
blue
DEC Alphas have it. :P
Next time, try quoting a line or two from the post to which you are responding. I never mentioned 'peer to peer' DNS. I don't even know what that is.
:)
By contrast in a peer to peer DNS network, in a world with many hundreds of thousands of DNS servers, to find an unknown, not commonly accessed
domain would require tens of thousands of lookups if it were possible at all.
This IS a world with many hundreds of thousands of DNS servers.
I was being flippant in my call to people to start their own DNS servers - but a well designed root server heirarchy could very well be made that would allow for arbitrary TLDs without killing the 'performance' of DNS. In fact, I specifically mentioned that you could simply extend the existing BIND mechanism. There is no change to the method, merely an addition of an infinite number of TLDs.
At a tenth of a second per lookup, it would take about two hours to resolve the average domain name.
What's that one-liner about statitics being made up on the spot? Are you implying that it would take 72,000 searches to find an arbitrary domain name/ip address pair? Are you planning on searching these domains with the famous 'Ransack Search' algorithm?
Good computing isn't about math 101 - linear and iterative algorithms are almost always the wrong way to do anything complex.
It's a technologically illiterate suggestion. Anyone who made it, go back and do maths101.
Don't be so negative!
--
blue
who SHOULD regulate domain names?
.tld's are recognized by the commonly used root servers.
:P
There's no reason at all for them to be so stodgily defined. BIND doesn't give a damn what domain name you use. It's a sort of artificially created monopoly, in the sense that only a small number of
I say we all just start our own root servers, and allow any tld to be posted to it.
Come on, donate some broadband to the Free The World From ICANN's Domaination! project.
--
blue
#!/bin/sh
/usr/src/linux e iserfs-3.5.22-patch.gz`
cd
patch -p0 `lynx -source ftp://ftp.devlinux.com/pub/namesys/linux-2.2.16-r
change the ` to backticks.
it's actually legally licensed, so, in some stupid way, it does 'officially' relate to the cartoon.
they claim it cost em $350,000.
(insert long rant about stupid americans making a fuss over elian while making an equal fuss over there being 'too many' immigrants.. sigh)
--
blue
but it does have a 400 HP 327 engine. whee! too bad it's lined with birght red DEAD COW. top estimated speed is 185 mph, clocked at 135 in third gear, etc, ad nauseum.
don't moderate this.
thanks.
Insistence over control of the language!@?!?!?
Yes!@?!?!?
Didn't they invent the language?
I don't know.. is derivation, invention? In the case of Sun, they promised a cross-platform language suitable for open development. However, as long as they control the standard of the language, or, as long as no outside standards body has say in the mores and means of the language, it is not open - it can be revoked or changed at any time, there is no truly open peer review process for decisions regarding features and etc. Contrast this to C or C++, both of which are controlled by the American National Standards Institute - things don't just mysteriously HAPPEN to C and C++, they are deliberated and discussed, and everyone has a say in what goes on. There will never be a change in C or C++ that initiated in a marketing meeting.
In a different way, but equally valid, is the model of perl, in which changes to the language are loudly and long-windedly discussed, but to which additional extension via the CPAN facility is the norm. There is no 'standard' for changes to perl, but its growth is controlled and nurtured by users to the benefit, mostly, of users. I feel pretty confident in saying that perl, also, is not likely to be steered by corporate mandate.
M$ is promising the same paradigm as Sun for their new language. Those who know Sun know that they are no no less harsh a mistress than M$ within their own arena. I do not like their control, and I do not use their language. A language is not, or should not be a product - it is a tool. Does someone control the design and use of a hammer, pliers or saws?
I do understand that Sun's development model for Java is more open than I've made it sound to be. I don't believe for a second that M$'s will be. If they want to make a closed, controlled language for use by people who pay for it, great, but don't go telling me how open it is, and how cross-platform it's going to be.
HTH!
--
long-winded blue
How is Microsoft's decision to "embrace and extend" C/C++ in the form of C# any worse than Sun's decision to "embrace and extend" C/C++ and call it Java?
I agree, and you are correct on most counts. It is not actually sun's 'extension' of C++, however, that is the issue, as much as their continued insistence on control over the language.
That is a very M$ish move in and of itself. M$ have historically given away development tools but retained control of the language, thus bringing many new developers into their fold.
I've flat-out given up on moderation. I just spend most of my slashdot time composing OMM-esque flames. I think the permanent moderators must not use up mod points, because the 'late stage' moderation has gotten extremely heavy handed lately. If you want to be moderated up, just use any three-syllable technical term and don't ever, ever make a snide comment. All snide comments, no matter how true, are flamebait.
Have a nice day,
--
anony-blue
it runs in a VM and includes garbage collection.. ie, it has nothing to do with C or C++. :P
hopefully it'll take off about as well as WinCE.
i love the D flat moniker, tho.
they have a quote on c|net where an M$ executive claims OS independance for C#.. later, he goes on to say that it's part of visual studio.. so.. hmm..
awesome! this must mean they're releasing visual studio for solaris, linux, and all the *BSD's!
Thanks, microsoft! You kids are swell!
--
blue
Now you are just rationalizing. cygwin might as well be unix. It's all built from the same source.
That is functionally identical to claiming that WINE might as well be windows. They are not the same. I love cygwin, I use it when I'm forced into windows, but it's slow like death, and there are still many tools that no one has bothered porting to windows.
--
blue
c|net sez the linux boxen are for kiosks, which means that people may see some linux after all.
--
blue
ut it's not as easy to just pick two images, do a subtract, duplicate that, and then do a difference with your duplicate on a third.
pick two images
open layers dialog on one image
create new layer, copy second image into layer
subtract layers
merge
duplicate layer
subtract
the only thing that would make it easier is being able to open an image directly into a new layer.. hmm..
--
blue
wine isn't really that much slower.. i mean, it is, a little, but certainly not as bad as you make it sound. wine doesn't emulate OS layer calls, it replaces the OS layer with native code.
in any case, just download the demo and see for yourself.
but, of course, you knew that already.
--
blue
It's definately a different experience. I have a linux box a few states away that I use for mail. That one works out well because I know and trust the people housing it. My company's large production servers are all co-lo'd as well, and, generally speaking, it sucks.
If you have someone in your company who REALLY knows what they're doing, it's best to just get root on the remote box and tell the hosting company not to touch it. In every industry job I've had, the people who will most often be near your machines are the ones you least want playing with it. It's definately worth it to work out ways of doing everything remotely.
Some of the problems we have run into (not related to the hosting company) are things like Oracle installs, which behave differently from staging areas than from CD, as well as bum tape drives, etc, etc. Backups in general just plain suck. We actually back up locally over a dedicated
T-1, as well as using a 20-tape juke on the remote end for non-critical backups.
The most fun challenge of all has proven to be printing. WAN printing is a nightmare.
All in all, for an equivalent installation, it's a much, much larger pain in the ass. I honestly don't know if it's worth it, especially for what larger companies charge to host.
--
blue
note to author: Bolding the first word of every paragraph sucks.
note to users: It's rootable right out of the box. Upgrade yon kernel ASAP.
:P
--
blue
no, not really. In unix ethernet cards aren't files, tcp/ip connections aren't files and windows aren't files.
/dev/eth0, /proc/net/tcp, and .. what's a window? ok, maybe windows aren't files, but i can sure as hell open(), read(), and write() to devices and ports just like any other file.
so
--
blue
No, he's offering $3 000 because he wants KDE to be included in debian. Modifying the GPL is just a neccesity for this.
I'm not arguing anyone's motivation, just that Taco clearly and completely misrepresented the stated intent of the letter.
Taco sez:
he offers a
$3k "Bonus" or "Reward" or "Bribe"
depending on how you look at it, if
KDE will be included with future
versions of the distribution.
The letter sez:
Therefore, I would like to
stipulate the appropriate actions
by offering a private donation of
3.000,- US-$ to the KDE project, in
case (and only in case) that the
licence of the official release of
KDE2 (all official packages incl.
koffice) will be modified in the
mentioned way
These are not the same. He is offering money to members of the KDE project to do the boring work of contacting authors and changing license files - he is not bribing anyone in the Debian project to do anything. He, in fact, is not offering anything at all to the Debian project.
Mor0n.
--
blue
He is NOT offering $3,000 for KDE to be included in Debian, he is offering $3,000 to the KDE project for them to modify their licenses! Can't you even read?
Thanks for including the letter so we didn't have to dig very far.
--
blue
Bad news for American programmers, I suppose, but perhaps this sort of
thing will balance out the world economy in the long run.
That's an outstanding point. Bitching about other people taking 'your' job is selfish - American tech workers have to be some of the most grossly overpaid people on the planet, right next to American executives.
Now, if only we could outsource all those VP jobs..
--
blue
According to Alan Cox on the resier mailing list today, there's no way in hell the FS is going into 2.4. I like Hans, but he's fulla hooey on that particular count.
Not suprising, though, as he's said 'we're in' for pretty much the entire 2.3 lifespan - with or without Linus' support.
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 13:55:56 +0100 (BST)
From: Alan Cox
To: Sasi Peter
Cc: Richard Torkar , Lars Marowsky-Bree ,
Rik van Riel , linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu,
"reiserfs@devlinux.com"
Subject: (reiserfs) Re: New Linux 2.5 - 2.6 TODO (Alan Cox suggests
> a good job; why would not you finally adopt their FS into the kernel???
Because we are in a code freeze. The same reasoning with NWFS, JFFS, XFS, EXT3
And as far as -ac patches go I've send them same to all parties - No. For
a change that big so close to a final 2.4.0 release its for Linus to break
the stated rules if anyone does.
--
blue