stripped ksh is 1108044 bytes, and stripped bash is 730856. ksh is bigger here.
You're apparently using some other implementation of ksh, and not the one in question (OpenBSD KSH or MKSH).
Here, I have Ksh compiled STATIC, and Bash3 dynamic (linking to a handful of libs), and Bash is still twice the size. (600k vs 300k) Dynamic versions (depending only on libc, not the handful of libs Bash needs) of ksh/mksh are close to 200k. Your binary of Bash is larger still...
More importantly, OpenSSH is not something invented by the OpenBSD folds, it is a fork of SSH version 1 by SSH Communications Security
It started out that way, but it's been an extremely long time since it had any resemblance to the original SSH program. They certainly implemented SSHv2 on their own, and in ways completely different than SSH.com (Tectia) chose to, and IMHO far superior. In fact, I'd dare say most people have NEVER used the SSHv1 protocol, as SSHv2 has long been the default in OpenSSH, and practically every bit of software made in this century (literally) supports it.
A few proprietary systems do support it. Those which you've listed, and pretty much ALL that fail on ps -ax DON'T support the POSIX-compliant behavior, either, so it's a complete red herring.
Dont forget the ssh command. Oh wait, there is no real non BSD version of that tool.
Sure there is... fressh, or some such. One more of Stallman's idealogically driven pet projects done in a huff, to show the superiority of the GPL... Of course it's a pretty lousy SSH implementation that nobody uses, with plenty of holes popping up, but it does exist. Let's not exaggerate.
- The BSD -h (--help) is a joke for almost every command. It gives you something like "usage: cat [-benstuv] [file...]" with zero explanation what each of the switches do.
Yeah, that's absolutely terrible... So much worse than the GNU -h option:
$ cat -h cat: invalid option -- h Try `cat --help' for more information.
Clearly, the BSD version SHOULDN'T tell you what options are available... That would make it more GNU like, and clearly superior.
I told them to use apropos -s 2. Well, turned out some of them decided to use the BSD machines here, and apparently there's no such thing on the BSD apropos.
apropos on my Slack 12.1 Linux box doesn't have an -s option at all either...
- BSD tar lacks the jz switches. Seriously. I want them.
WTF? Of course BSD tar HAS the j and z switches. No idea where you got that idea.
- And for that matter, bash is the best shell I've seen. Yes, I've tried ksh.
I've demonstrated where BASH blows up completely... You've given NO reason to justify your claim. No doubt something else you've imagined that's completely wrong...
Bash and ksh are quite on par feature-wise, so pick whichever one you prefer
I see you repeatedly dismissed any points you can't argue with. Nicely done.
if anything, you should be comparing bash against tcsh which is the default shell in FreeBSD.
Why TCSH? What makes the FreeBSD defaults representative of all of BSD land, all of a sudden?
Is there such a thing as a BSD shell anyway?
Well, since what's now MKSH couldn't even be compiled on any platform other than OpenBSD for many YEARS, I think, yes, it qualifies if anything does...
This clashes with POSIX standards.
Name more than one Unix system that follows that particular POSIX standard then. POSIX is most definitely not the be all end all of how a Unix system should act. You're clearly stretching to justify the pointless, useless, incompatible, and annoying behavior.
It doesn't do that when you pipe into it, which is all that matters in practice.
Gee. Thanks for telling me how I'm supposed to use my computer. Much appreciated.
And every time I need to do some quick math, do I have to write a script for it now? Because that's "all that matters"?
I don't see how that's to do with anything other than how the binaries were compiled?
Well then, you apparently know absolutely nothing about any form of programming... This does explain quite a bit, really.
GNU make is a great example, because it's obviously immensely superior to all other implementations of make.
Actually it's pretty horrible. It merely works most of the time because it's been around since before Linux, and used on so many systems where the proprietary version of make was horrendous, that EVERYTHING is coded with GMakes bugs and quirks in-mind.
Have you noticed that cdrtools always complains when you use GMake, and recommends the use of anything else? Not to say that BSD make should be used... smaller target audience and all that...
Besides, you've proven pretty well you know nothing about programming at all. And you've not bothered to list a single reason why gmake is supposedly superior, at all.
Try comparing manpages side by side and let me know when you find a single *feature* in a BSD tool that is not in a GNU tool.
That's almost funny. Pretty much the only thing a GNU man page has ever told anyone about anything, is that they should be using "info" instead, if they want to get ANY information on the program...
There's also a simple, statistical explanation for the question you've begged...
There are just 8 countries in the world who possess nuclear weapons. That's 8 out of 190. How many countries does the US invade in a typical year? Not many, of course... So we've got probably a century to go before the US (or Russia) statically SHOULD HAVE invaded a nuclear-armed country. And even that is ignoring the fact that the vast majority of nuclear-armed countries are US allies, so the odds are very, very low.
And that's not mentioning the fact that developing nuclear weapons is itself a symptom of a large, strong, stable, and rich government, which is the antithesis of the traits found in countries which the US has (EVER) invaded. In Pakistan, we may get the sad opportunity to test out this theory, when a civil war starts up.
And finally, the point must also be made that the US refrained from invading countries like North Korea for close to half a century, BEFORE they had any nuclear weapons, so there's no reason to believe there's any motivation to invade them NOW, which nuclear weapons are preventing the US from going forward with.
odds are good that was the only nuclear weapon they owned and they just blew their whole load in one shot. If we nuked them to hell, it would make the situation much worse and could result in a MAD-like scenario.
Failure to retaliate, in kind, would shoot the whole idea of MAD to hell.
MAD depends on good Old Testament ideas of "vengance". Sure, if The President sees 500 Russian nukes headed towards the US, nothing he does will save the US, and nuking Russia in return would only increase the death toll. Still, the assumption that he will do exactly that, is the only reason MAD works.
Random countries with three nuclear weapons don't have enough firepower to warrant a nuclear retaliation.
On the contrary... that's where it's MOST needed, and I expect, where it's practically guaranteed to be done. Call it a nuclear war by proxy.
Sure, it's horrendous to think of having to decide to kill 100,000 people in a shot because their leaders went apeshit crazy. But realistically, conventional wars are far more costly in lives, and nuking them guarantees those 2 other nukes can't be delivered, and even more than that, sends a very strong, very clear message to everyone else who has nukes. Failure to respond would practically guarantee the same, or some other country would decide to be the next in line to wage nuclear warfare, in the belief that THEY would receive similarly light-handed retaliation, which they have a good chance of surviving.
In the event that nukes were somehow magically put back in the nuclear genie bottle, countries would simply go back to larger standing armies.
Not really. Technology has marched on since WWII. Even without nukes, MOABs still make it pretty easy and inexpensive to wipe a country off the face of the earth. Ditto for chemical and biological weapons.
Spy satellites mean everyone knows where you ground forces are at every second. Aircraft can target a bomb to within inches, so conventional ground forces are far too easily annihilated to be useful, unless you can completely deny your enemy the skies.
in the cold war era it was barely acceptable when the US could have been destroyed.
WHEN THE US COULD HAVE BEEN DESTROYED? Are you saying (non-US) nuclear weapons ceased to work, when the cold war ended? Or is the US missile shield a LOT further along than the public knows?
So by starting to reduce the pointless arsenal in America (see above), Obama can try and convince other to follow
During the cold war, the US and the USSR signed a treaty banning the development of biological weapons... The US scrapped all of its programs, while the USSR opted to continue development, after signing the treaty.
In other words, your is the strategy of "Throw me the loot, then I'll rescue you, I promise..."
Thank god for the OpenBSD version of ksh. With mksh it was made portable and can be installed on practically any Unix system. It features practically every BASH feature human beings could ever use, while being a tiny fraction of the size.
And how about FreeBSD's tar? No -z -Z -j crap... use any of the flags, and whatever compression method used will be detected and handled.
How about "ps -ax" bitching at you not to type the dash (which every other Unix system requires), or "bc" printing a dozen lines of the GPL every time you start it up?
Or how about just the fact that nearly every GPL binary is 4X the size of any of the BSD equivalents?
There's thousands more examples, I just haven't written them all up, and just listed a handful off the top of my head. Why don't you start trying to list a few ways YOU'VE find GNU utilities to be any better than their BSD counterparts?
I don't know about your remote control unit, but on mine, all the buttons are labeled to imply their function.
They really don't. Sure, a few are always labeled, but how many tries does it take before you remember which button is FFW, versus Slow Motion? FFW versus Next Chapter? etc.
And it's not like MPlayer keybindings are completely random... Q = Quit. P = Pause. Right = Seek Forward. Left = Seek Backwards. O = On-Screen Display. F = Fullscreen. etc. Of course they aren't ALL entirely intuitive, but the most common ones are...
The rest? Well, they probably don't exist as buttons on your favorite media player's on-screen GUI, either, so it's a completely different comparison. Ditto for your remote control...
Its a bloody video player man. It goes without saying that the OUTPUT is GRAPHICAL. Why wouldn't you want to USE a GRAPHICAL user interface to it?
An yet your TV/DVD/etc. lacks a GRAPHICAL user interface, even though it performs all the same functions.
Yes, horror, you must find the right button to turn the volume up, or change the channel. Clearly, dragging a mouse cursor around the TV screen would be a vastly superior UI...
The higher the power output, the higher the efficiency, and the smaller the converter (definitely at these scales).
No. Completely false logic. There really isn't much inherent efficiency gain from larger sized power supplies.
There are several 90%+ efficient server PSUs easily available, with a couple claiming 95%...
But at the opposite side of the spectrum, there ARE significant power losses to be had, by transporting high-current, low voltage electricity any meaningful distance. Or more accurately, there is significant cost in buying as much copper as is necessary, rather than a $1 240V cord.
I knew so many people in college who worked through college and didn't own a car who now... don't have a job and still work at where they worked in college. In a large part because they would be late to class because of bus schedules. They weren't free for after class studying or group projects because they had to go to work and or catch the last bus of the night and they didn't get very much networking done.
I suspect that you're identifying a symptom, as the disease. Choosing to work through college is probably a symptom of something else... something which is the actual root cause of their lack of success later in life. Could it be that the rich happened to chose not to bother with a job, while the poor chose to work? Job or no, the two groups are statistically correlated with much different outcomes after college.
Looking at the rates of dropouts in community college versus universities, I could easily conclude that community colleges do a terrible job... Even though I know that it's simply that those more likely to drop out choose to enter community colleges, rather than universities.
They weren't free for after class studying or group projects because they had to go to work and or catch the last bus of the night and they didn't get very much networking done.
Networking in College did exactly NOTHING for me. The couple of business cards and job offers I got ended up being disconnected when I got out and started calling around for jobs.
What's worse... I find recruiters who even ASK about your education are almost always those at companies you're guaranteed to not WANT to work for... Those who are terribly obsessed with credentials, and not at all interested in your level of skill and knowledge.
IMHO, while a diploma looks good, an equivalent number of years of working in the industry and similar job position is worth 100X as much to potential employers.
You're already paying 20k+ so what does an extra $5k a year in part time retail do for you?
It's cuts your interest payments way the hell down is what it does! The earlier you can pay down your debt, the less your loans cost.
It's your kind of mentality ("It's a lot of money, I'll hardly notice spending a little more.") that gets many people way, way over their heads into debt... You have to be VERY SURE you're going to get a very high paying job IMMEDIATELY after you get a degree, for your strategy to actually work. Those who come out right as the economy is slow *cough* end up unemployed or flipping burgers... absolutely ballooning their debt at the worst possible time.
there are simply too many people on the planet for it to magically absorb and breakdown all our waste (especially at the level we now generate and discard it).
As population rises, we continue to further and further process and treat our out waste.
Sewage is a good example. Originally, you just dumped it wherever you liked. Then, containing it, to keep it away from population centers, and dumping it into water ways was a great improvement. Now, sewage is treated, removed of toxic materials, and converted into a form which can be reasonably safely dumped into water-ways. But we still don't make a complete cycle of it, nor could we practically do so.
Now, if you were to go back into the dark ages, and tell those subsistence farmers that they needed to stop dumping their waste in holes in the ground because they were hurting the planet, and needed to build sewage treatment plants, you'd be laughed at, and rightfully so.
The same scenario is happening, today, with respect to global warming. We've continually cleaned up our emissions from fossil fuels, several orders of magnitude, to the point that there's little more than clean carbon dioxide emitted from many power plants. Telling people, today, that they need to stop emitting carbon dioxide, is tantamount to telling a caveman he needs to build sewage treatment facilities. Yes, it's possible, but it's at the very fringes of human capability to do so, and it is MASSIVELY expensive and crippling to many industries which we all very much like. In short, you're asking everyone in the world to fundamentally change everything about everything, so that their feet don't get wet. (ie. Moving away from the coasts, and/or building levies is by far the cheaper and easier solution for the next century or so). The fear mongering doesn't help matters AT ALL. Global warming has far too long been inextricably linked with extreme "environmentalists" who are only too happy to try and impose what they already beleived humans should be doing, as the only answer to global warming.
Environmental protection has, from the beginning, been a by-product of ever advancing technology. When sewage treatment gets cheap enough that it's less expensive than beach closures, it starts taking hold. Until alternate energy sources are further developed, it's fossil fuels all the way, with merely a tiny but vocal minority trying to shame people into making empty gestures which don't really help, and or governments oppressing their people into extremely "low-impact" living (ie. poverty).
While I've gotten a bit off track, the upshot is that we most certainly CAN continue to do what we are doing, indefinitely. The consequences are unfortunate, but there are options for those, which are far and away less costly, and less onerous than those being pitched by the rich people with a self-hating streak. Environmentalism extremists are merely the least terrible of known human rights violators, and are getting their insanity a voice in large part because of the screwed up state of our system of entertainment and news media, with only incidental help from slowly rising global temperatures.
I dare say that this insistence on backward compatibility is going to kill this format.
The only legitimate point you make is that using the same file name extension is confusing. Otherwise, backwards compatibility is a great thing. Throw that away, and why wouldn't you just go with one of the dozens of other incompatible formats instead?
To my decaying ears, it sounded really good at the time...
The rest of the world disagreed. MP3 isn't a good enough format to have advanced featured tacked onto it. And proprietary extensions to open formats is moronic. It was only a short while before the same SBR features were improved, and added onto the superior AAC format, with vastly better results, an open MPEG standard, and much lower license fees...
you ended up listening to a HORRIBLE low bitrate sound quality, since the extra mp3PRO information was ignored.
The same is true of HE-AAC, and the like. It's always the price you pay for backwards compatibility.
Slashdot Mirror
You're apparently using some other implementation of ksh, and not the one in question (OpenBSD KSH or MKSH).
Here, I have Ksh compiled STATIC, and Bash3 dynamic (linking to a handful of libs), and Bash is still twice the size. (600k vs 300k) Dynamic versions (depending only on libc, not the handful of libs Bash needs) of ksh/mksh are close to 200k. Your binary of Bash is larger still...
http://www.mirbsd.org/?mksh
It started out that way, but it's been an extremely long time since it had any resemblance to the original SSH program. They certainly implemented SSHv2 on their own, and in ways completely different than SSH.com (Tectia) chose to, and IMHO far superior. In fact, I'd dare say most people have NEVER used the SSHv1 protocol, as SSHv2 has long been the default in OpenSSH, and practically every bit of software made in this century (literally) supports it.
A few proprietary systems do support it. Those which you've listed, and pretty much ALL that fail on ps -ax DON'T support the POSIX-compliant behavior, either, so it's a complete red herring.
I compared BASH against the included OpenBSD shell.
Shall we compare TCSH against ASH? Or Perhaps ZSH? If you get to pick the BSD shell in question, I get to pick the GPL shell...
I'm not sure if you're just feigning ignorance, or if you're genuinely stupid. Either way...
The OpenBSD ksh shell was around for many years before the MirBSD took ksh and made it portable.
Goodbye.
"Easier" only if things like speed, accuracy, and reliability don't matter to you at all...
That's part A. Part B apparently involves several launch attempts blowing up on the pad...
You know, to avoid USSR objections, or something...
It was all planned! Planned I say!
Sure there is... fressh, or some such. One more of Stallman's idealogically driven pet projects done in a huff, to show the superiority of the GPL... Of course it's a pretty lousy SSH implementation that nobody uses, with plenty of holes popping up, but it does exist. Let's not exaggerate.
The same is true of GNUTLS versus OpenSSL.
Yeah, that's absolutely terrible... So much worse than the GNU -h option:
$ cat -h
cat: invalid option -- h
Try `cat --help' for more information.
$ cat --version
cat (GNU coreutils) 6.9
Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Clearly, the BSD version SHOULDN'T tell you what options are available... That would make it more GNU like, and clearly superior.
apropos on my Slack 12.1 Linux box doesn't have an -s option at all either...
$ apropos -s 2
apropos: -s: unknown option
$ apropos -V
apropos from man-1.6f
WTF? Of course BSD tar HAS the j and z switches. No idea where you got that idea.
I've demonstrated where BASH blows up completely... You've given NO reason to justify your claim. No doubt something else you've imagined that's completely wrong...
I see you repeatedly dismissed any points you can't argue with. Nicely done.
Why TCSH? What makes the FreeBSD defaults representative of all of BSD land, all of a sudden?
Well, since what's now MKSH couldn't even be compiled on any platform other than OpenBSD for many YEARS, I think, yes, it qualifies if anything does...
Name more than one Unix system that follows that particular POSIX standard then. POSIX is most definitely not the be all end all of how a Unix system should act. You're clearly stretching to justify the pointless, useless, incompatible, and annoying behavior.
Gee. Thanks for telling me how I'm supposed to use my computer. Much appreciated.
And every time I need to do some quick math, do I have to write a script for it now? Because that's "all that matters"?
Well then, you apparently know absolutely nothing about any form of programming... This does explain quite a bit, really.
Actually it's pretty horrible. It merely works most of the time because it's been around since before Linux, and used on so many systems where the proprietary version of make was horrendous, that EVERYTHING is coded with GMakes bugs and quirks in-mind.
Have you noticed that cdrtools always complains when you use GMake, and recommends the use of anything else? Not to say that BSD make should be used... smaller target audience and all that...
Besides, you've proven pretty well you know nothing about programming at all. And you've not bothered to list a single reason why gmake is supposedly superior, at all.
That's almost funny. Pretty much the only thing a GNU man page has ever told anyone about anything, is that they should be using "info" instead, if they want to get ANY information on the program...
I couldn't agree more.
"Hey baby. Great set of hooters you got there. Wanna touch my tuber?
Very nearly happened in Cuba...
There's also a simple, statistical explanation for the question you've begged...
There are just 8 countries in the world who possess nuclear weapons. That's 8 out of 190. How many countries does the US invade in a typical year? Not many, of course... So we've got probably a century to go before the US (or Russia) statically SHOULD HAVE invaded a nuclear-armed country. And even that is ignoring the fact that the vast majority of nuclear-armed countries are US allies, so the odds are very, very low.
And that's not mentioning the fact that developing nuclear weapons is itself a symptom of a large, strong, stable, and rich government, which is the antithesis of the traits found in countries which the US has (EVER) invaded. In Pakistan, we may get the sad opportunity to test out this theory, when a civil war starts up.
And finally, the point must also be made that the US refrained from invading countries like North Korea for close to half a century, BEFORE they had any nuclear weapons, so there's no reason to believe there's any motivation to invade them NOW, which nuclear weapons are preventing the US from going forward with.
Failure to retaliate, in kind, would shoot the whole idea of MAD to hell.
MAD depends on good Old Testament ideas of "vengance". Sure, if The President sees 500 Russian nukes headed towards the US, nothing he does will save the US, and nuking Russia in return would only increase the death toll. Still, the assumption that he will do exactly that, is the only reason MAD works.
On the contrary... that's where it's MOST needed, and I expect, where it's practically guaranteed to be done. Call it a nuclear war by proxy.
Sure, it's horrendous to think of having to decide to kill 100,000 people in a shot because their leaders went apeshit crazy. But realistically, conventional wars are far more costly in lives, and nuking them guarantees those 2 other nukes can't be delivered, and even more than that, sends a very strong, very clear message to everyone else who has nukes. Failure to respond would practically guarantee the same, or some other country would decide to be the next in line to wage nuclear warfare, in the belief that THEY would receive similarly light-handed retaliation, which they have a good chance of surviving.
Not really. Technology has marched on since WWII. Even without nukes, MOABs still make it pretty easy and inexpensive to wipe a country off the face of the earth. Ditto for chemical and biological weapons.
Spy satellites mean everyone knows where you ground forces are at every second. Aircraft can target a bomb to within inches, so conventional ground forces are far too easily annihilated to be useful, unless you can completely deny your enemy the skies.
WHEN THE US COULD HAVE BEEN DESTROYED? Are you saying (non-US) nuclear weapons ceased to work, when the cold war ended? Or is the US missile shield a LOT further along than the public knows?
During the cold war, the US and the USSR signed a treaty banning the development of biological weapons... The US scrapped all of its programs, while the USSR opted to continue development, after signing the treaty.
In other words, your is the strategy of "Throw me the loot, then I'll rescue you, I promise..."
Really? Hmmm...
http://evilviper.nstemp.com/BASH-SUCKS.png
Thank god for the OpenBSD version of ksh. With mksh it was made portable and can be installed on practically any Unix system. It features practically every BASH feature human beings could ever use, while being a tiny fraction of the size.
And how about FreeBSD's tar? No -z -Z -j crap... use any of the flags, and whatever compression method used will be detected and handled.
How about "ps -ax" bitching at you not to type the dash (which every other Unix system requires), or "bc" printing a dozen lines of the GPL every time you start it up?
Or how about just the fact that nearly every GPL binary is 4X the size of any of the BSD equivalents?
There's thousands more examples, I just haven't written them all up, and just listed a handful off the top of my head. Why don't you start trying to list a few ways YOU'VE find GNU utilities to be any better than their BSD counterparts?
They really don't. Sure, a few are always labeled, but how many tries does it take before you remember which button is FFW, versus Slow Motion? FFW versus Next Chapter? etc.
And it's not like MPlayer keybindings are completely random... Q = Quit. P = Pause. Right = Seek Forward. Left = Seek Backwards. O = On-Screen Display. F = Fullscreen. etc. Of course they aren't ALL entirely intuitive, but the most common ones are...
The rest? Well, they probably don't exist as buttons on your favorite media player's on-screen GUI, either, so it's a completely different comparison. Ditto for your remote control...
An yet your TV/DVD/etc. lacks a GRAPHICAL user interface, even though it performs all the same functions.
Yes, horror, you must find the right button to turn the volume up, or change the channel. Clearly, dragging a mouse cursor around the TV screen would be a vastly superior UI...
No. Completely false logic. There really isn't much inherent efficiency gain from larger sized power supplies.
There are several 90%+ efficient server PSUs easily available, with a couple claiming 95%...
But at the opposite side of the spectrum, there ARE significant power losses to be had, by transporting high-current, low voltage electricity any meaningful distance. Or more accurately, there is significant cost in buying as much copper as is necessary, rather than a $1 240V cord.
No. "Slim" optical drives and crappy cramped and poorly designed keyboards have been "slow to catch on for the desktop" as well...
When the PSU in my desktop goes out, I buy another one (a very good one, in fact) for $15. How's that working out for your laptop?
If that EVER happens, the problem in the apps in question, not the power outage.
Because you've never heard of UPSes?
I suspect that you're identifying a symptom, as the disease. Choosing to work through college is probably a symptom of something else... something which is the actual root cause of their lack of success later in life. Could it be that the rich happened to chose not to bother with a job, while the poor chose to work? Job or no, the two groups are statistically correlated with much different outcomes after college.
Looking at the rates of dropouts in community college versus universities, I could easily conclude that community colleges do a terrible job... Even though I know that it's simply that those more likely to drop out choose to enter community colleges, rather than universities.
Networking in College did exactly NOTHING for me. The couple of business cards and job offers I got ended up being disconnected when I got out and started calling around for jobs.
What's worse... I find recruiters who even ASK about your education are almost always those at companies you're guaranteed to not WANT to work for... Those who are terribly obsessed with credentials, and not at all interested in your level of skill and knowledge.
IMHO, while a diploma looks good, an equivalent number of years of working in the industry and similar job position is worth 100X as much to potential employers.
It's cuts your interest payments way the hell down is what it does! The earlier you can pay down your debt, the less your loans cost.
It's your kind of mentality ("It's a lot of money, I'll hardly notice spending a little more.") that gets many people way, way over their heads into debt... You have to be VERY SURE you're going to get a very high paying job IMMEDIATELY after you get a degree, for your strategy to actually work. Those who come out right as the economy is slow *cough* end up unemployed or flipping burgers... absolutely ballooning their debt at the worst possible time.
As population rises, we continue to further and further process and treat our out waste.
Sewage is a good example. Originally, you just dumped it wherever you liked. Then, containing it, to keep it away from population centers, and dumping it into water ways was a great improvement. Now, sewage is treated, removed of toxic materials, and converted into a form which can be reasonably safely dumped into water-ways. But we still don't make a complete cycle of it, nor could we practically do so.
Now, if you were to go back into the dark ages, and tell those subsistence farmers that they needed to stop dumping their waste in holes in the ground because they were hurting the planet, and needed to build sewage treatment plants, you'd be laughed at, and rightfully so.
The same scenario is happening, today, with respect to global warming. We've continually cleaned up our emissions from fossil fuels, several orders of magnitude, to the point that there's little more than clean carbon dioxide emitted from many power plants. Telling people, today, that they need to stop emitting carbon dioxide, is tantamount to telling a caveman he needs to build sewage treatment facilities. Yes, it's possible, but it's at the very fringes of human capability to do so, and it is MASSIVELY expensive and crippling to many industries which we all very much like. In short, you're asking everyone in the world to fundamentally change everything about everything, so that their feet don't get wet. (ie. Moving away from the coasts, and/or building levies is by far the cheaper and easier solution for the next century or so). The fear mongering doesn't help matters AT ALL. Global warming has far too long been inextricably linked with extreme "environmentalists" who are only too happy to try and impose what they already beleived humans should be doing, as the only answer to global warming.
Environmental protection has, from the beginning, been a by-product of ever advancing technology. When sewage treatment gets cheap enough that it's less expensive than beach closures, it starts taking hold. Until alternate energy sources are further developed, it's fossil fuels all the way, with merely a tiny but vocal minority trying to shame people into making empty gestures which don't really help, and or governments oppressing their people into extremely "low-impact" living (ie. poverty).
While I've gotten a bit off track, the upshot is that we most certainly CAN continue to do what we are doing, indefinitely. The consequences are unfortunate, but there are options for those, which are far and away less costly, and less onerous than those being pitched by the rich people with a self-hating streak. Environmentalism extremists are merely the least terrible of known human rights violators, and are getting their insanity a voice in large part because of the screwed up state of our system of entertainment and news media, with only incidental help from slowly rising global temperatures.
Mod away...
No! Everything must be multiples of ten!
Long live METRIC TIME!
"At the tone, the time will be 73 after 95... "
"BEEP"
Then, with time sorted out, we can start tackling the metric calendar... 10 months, with 100 days (10 weeks).
Sure, you'll have fewer birthdays in your lifetime, but its well worth the benefits of a 1,000-days per year calendar.
The only legitimate point you make is that using the same file name extension is confusing. Otherwise, backwards compatibility is a great thing. Throw that away, and why wouldn't you just go with one of the dozens of other incompatible formats instead?
The rest of the world disagreed. MP3 isn't a good enough format to have advanced featured tacked onto it. And proprietary extensions to open formats is moronic. It was only a short while before the same SBR features were improved, and added onto the superior AAC format, with vastly better results, an open MPEG standard, and much lower license fees...
The same is true of HE-AAC, and the like. It's always the price you pay for backwards compatibility.
ZFS is a great idea... It's a shame it isn't stable (on OpenSolaris or FreeBSD).
Yeah, but RSync over tractor-trailer is still in ALPHA.