That's just trolling bullshit. FreeBSD is doing fine.
DragonFlyBSD not catching on as fast as it'd prefer
How do you know how fast the developers would prefer it to catch-on? It hasn't been around very long at all, it's impossible to say if it will get a strong following. I know as soon as I hear they've started using a microkernel, I'll be taking a real close look at it.
I'd say OpenBSD is the strongest of the BSD's.
If your only interest is security or a firewall, you could say that.
Of course you didn't bother to mention NetBSD at all.
Web serving, file sharing, firewalling, database serving, etc...
I don't think I'd suggest OpenBSD for running a database. FreeBSD's SMP support is much more advanced, as well as the filesystem, etc.
FreeBSD is the operating system for anyone comming from Linux. Great hardware support, performance, features, etc. OpenBSD is very strong in it's niche, but weak everywhere else.
extremely toxic and long-lasting waste to future generations. It's a persistent reminder of our failure to use cleaner alternatives, and we should be made to account for this.
Radioactive material is no doubt toxic, but it can be disposed of properly, and cause no ill effects to anyone.
Coal, Oil, Natural Gas, etc., all produce lots of waste that is also quite toxic, but is practically impossible to contain and dispose of.
It's simply not possible to use solar or wind to generate a fraction of the electricity necessary, using current technology. Hydro is good, and used extensively, but it also can't provide the ammount of power now required.
I'd much rather have my great-great-great grandchildren working as a security guard at a nuclear power plant, instead of breathing the fumes of millions of tons of burned coal.
It's possible that it's completely wrong, but some fundamentally basic things about our understanding of the natural world would have to be wrong."
That's rather glib... That might be true if natural selection was disproven, but evolution spans far more than just that one theory. The entire process of speciation could certainly be disproven and replaced with something else without throwing all of biological science on it's head.
To date there's little evidence as to how, precisely, speciation happens. Since DNA sequencing became common, we've also discovered that two creatures that look similar could have completely unrelated parentage, and vise versa. My point being: the evidence of speciation being presented from the fossil record, based only on similar physical traits, is very unreliable science.
In the past century, not only have we not found any evidence of the "missing link", we have lost one link evolutionary scientists thought was squarely in the chain... the neanderthal. The theory de jour being that perhaps humans sprang-up independently of them, and they died-out from the competition.
I've gone off on a tagent here, but it's entirely possible that scientists are largely mistaken on mainstream theories. Go back to things like spontaneous generation, miasma theory of disease, or any other obsolete scientific theories science had built-upon. The rug CAN be pulled out from under science. Scientists agreed on THOSE theories at the time as well...
all serious scientists without an agenda agree that evolution is a fact.
I must play devil's advocate here and say, there have been inumerable times in the past where nearly all serious scientists have agreed that a theory was factually correct, only to be completely wrong.
That is the main reason I blow-off all comments about evolution and global warming, when the only evidence presented is: "scientists agree"...
you can't start up your own ISP that provides faster services than the ones the TelCo's provide because of their monopoly of land lines.
The telcos have a monopoly on physical access to POTS lines, but that's all. There's good reason for that, too, as the lines all have to terminate in the CO. You really don't want a buch of random companies to have physical access to do whatever they like with your phone lines.
If you want to lay-down fiber, many local governments would be more than happy to contract right-of-way to you. If you can't raise that kind of capital, and want to start-up a more modest company, you can always do wireless (microwave, 802.11, etc) and still provide much faster access than current terrestrial services.
It's not a "dumb statement" at all, you simply do not understand what it is referring to. Somebody else already made almost the exact same statement as you, so instead of argue with you, I'll just link you to the original thread:
I'm tired of hearing about all these advances that we will NEVER see.
THEN WHY ARE YOU READING SLASHDOT???
No company is going to spend the massive amount of cash needed to wire even one city with this, especially when there's not much of a percieved market for faster broadband.
Not with this specific technology, no. But already, companies (particularly Verizon) are starting to set-up fiber-optic networks to compete with high-speed cable. I've recently heard a FIOS network is soon to be built in a nearby city, so I would guess I'm only a couple of years away from getting it.
Why doesn't the FCC get off their ass and mandate this kind of thing instead of doing nothing?
Because this isn't a socialist country, where the government orders companies to do things they don't want to do, unless it involves public safety and the like. A free country doesn't mean you get everything you could ever want for free... It means if you don't like what companies are or aren't doing, you can start-up your own company and do it yourself. What's your excuse for sitting on your ass and complaining, rather than very directly doing something about it?
First, I must congratulate you on getting an anti-x86 troll past the moderators...
I ran my 1987 Machintosh II as my primary machine for over ten years and the hardware lasted an additional five years (and counting) to allow for transfer of data. It pisses me off that my most long-lived x86 based PC has lasted only five years.
You get what you pay for. Apple has always forced it's customers to pay for that kind of quality, even if they don't want to.
Personally, I've had a really cheap 386/20 that lasted nearly 20 years before it finally burned out. I also still have a 10 year-old DEC Pentium Pro system that's happily routing packets for me. Those systems weren't put out to pasture because they couldn't continue doing what they were doing, but rather because I wanted to do things like new audio and video codecs, which they didn't have the horsepower to do. The same is probably going to be true of my highest-end (4 year-old 1.6GHz) system as well. When 1080 HDTV content becomes redily available (in codecs other than MPEG-2), my system will just barely be able to play it back smoothly, and (re)encoding it will be painfully slow.
If you aren't involved in things like full-res video, there's no reason you can't keep using your 10 year-old system (with your 10 year-old operating system).
Repetitive small movements are hard on the wrist (I know from hammering in nails in weird parts of houses for Habitat for Humanity).
You don't get more stress from smaller vs. larger movements. Either one can cause RSI just as easily as the other. It's all about how awkwardly positioned your fingers/wrists/arms are when exerting force (even numerous very small forces).
As for your own experience (hopefully this won't sound trollish) the solution is to work-out. The better developed the muscles are, the less vulnerable you will be to RSI (or just about any other injury in-fact). I believe that is the root cause behind women being much more susceptible to RSI than men.
Microsoft being above the law, it's OK when they do that.
No, it's okay for anybody to do that (not just Microsoft), provided they get permission from the FTC beforehand. Yes, the FTC is, in-fact, above the law.
2,000 complaints is NOTHING. You don't normally expect people who agree (or don't care) to write-in and say so. Complaints always make-up the large majority of mail.
If you think the government is blatantly disregarding the will of the people, you need a hell of a lot more evidence than that.
Besides, that quote you're taking and using out of context does NOT mean that the government should do what the majority wants every single time...
When the choice is between a corrupt bastard, and a less corrupt bastard, you don't have much of a vote over anything.
If you keep voting for the more-corrupt bastard, future candidates will keep getting more corrupt. If you kept vote for the less-corrupt bastard, future candidates would be less and less corrupt.
Or at the least choose BSD, which is much older and mature then the very idea of 'linux'.
I'm a BSDer here, and I very rarely use Linux. That said, when I do need to use Linux (select few drivers or binary-only apps) the only one I'll touch is Slack. The rest do batshit crazy things I can't even begin to comprehend.
Why in the world would any distro install a 30MB package of an app, and NOT install the 10K of header files for it? Does every distro out there really believe that they have every single application everyone might ever want to use, compiled with the perfect options so the binary will be usable for everyone? Do they really think that nobody is ever going to need to compile ANYTHING from source?
Why must every distro have init scripts in 10 different places, so that you have to grep through 20 different *.modules.* config files, looking for where one unnecessary/problematic module gets loaded? Is one or two rc.modules.conf config files really inadequate?
On the same thread, why does every other distro find it necessary to make their default start-up scripts so complex that the only way to change your IP address is to start-up some graphical configuration tool? Why do different parts of one simple configuration need to be spread across multiple config files in different parts of the/etc heirarchy?
Why does nearly every source/package management system practically FORCE you to install the dependency using that method? Why is it so nearly impossible to install a program from source, and install binary packages that depend on it? Even with the novella of options that wrap multiple times around the terminal, it usually still tries and fails to install the packages...
There's many, many more things like this which trouble me about other distros. Slack seems to be the only sane Linux distro, and so the only one I'll willingly use.
1. They have sensitive vision and the brightness of the CRT hurts their eyes (this is why my work computer has an LCD monitor).
The brightness of CRTs hurts my eyes as well. That's why I TURN DOWN THE BRIGHTNESS. You know monitors are adjustable right?
LCDs don't give me the same controls unfortunately. You can't get the brightness/contrast down low enough that it looks evenly bright on white/black. It either looks washed-out, or much too bright on light colors, and much too dark on dark colors... etc.
I have tried watching HDTV movies on the PC input, and indeed there is improved quality. But when comparing with anamorphic widescreen PAL or SD DVB, it is not an improvement that will make the general public want to spend a couple of thousands on.
That's because your TV is far too low-res to display HDTV at full resolution. If you played HDTV video on a standard TV, you wouldn't have seen much improvement either.
You may think that this 20% difference is small, but when comparing NTSC and PAL it is a very significant difference.
You say that about resolution, I'd say the same about refresh rate...
Besides, I have watched PAL and NTSC material, and the difference in resolution is simply not that big.
Apparently it is in the region where every difference counts. This is not really true for 720p and especially 1080i.
Again, you're trying to claim that a 20% improvement is a big jump, and everything above that (including a HUGE increase) isn't an improvement at all. It's a completely and totally ridiculous claim.
I would even say that the disadvantage of having interlacing offsets the extra resolution of 1080i vs 720p.
Although the standard specifies 1080i, every TV that supports it also support 1080p, and nearly every source that can output 1080i is designed to output 1080p as well. Look at anything like HD-DVD, BluRay, HD-Cable/Satellite, etc. They will all output 1080p.
This is all besides the point, anyhow. 1080p will be good for film, of course, but there are plenty of cases (particularly, sports) where a much higher (interlaced) refresh rate looks far better than progressive-scan. Having both to chose from is far better.
The framerate is not much of an issue with LCD screens. And modern CRT TVs have framerate doublers here.
That deals with the flicker, but it doesn't change the fact that you have a very low refresh rate. 50Hz video is very jumpy, and not nearly as smooth as 60Hz.
The advantage is that we have no 3:2 pulldown.
There is NO DISADVANTAGE to 3:2 pulldown, except for the very slight added complexity to the circuitry of devices that needs to handle pulldown (eg. DVD players). What disadvantage do you think exists?
PAL has the serious disadvantage here. Speeding-up 24FPS to 25FPS makes for a very uncomfortable viewing experience.
And besides that, nobody has to watch film with 3:2 pulldown. Progressive-scan DVD players are very popular, and all HDTVs support progressive-scan as well. Just change a pre-set option, and you can watch everything in progressive-scan ~24FPS.
Note that HDTV has a difficult time here, because our SD TV system already has a better resolution than the NTSC system, so the difference is less apparent.
PAL has resolution about 20% higher than NTSC (and of course it has it's drawbacks of 20% lower refresh rate).
HDTV at 1080, has a resolution that is about 400% higher than PAL (and still with a 20% higher refresh rate).
How anyone can say that 400% higher resolution is not a significant increase, just because it is 20% less of a increase than others will get, is beyond me. Since I've heard this ridiculous claim before, I have to assume it's some sort of propoganda being spread by those who have vested interests in PAL/DVB.
So that the animals have time to flee???? Flee where? The next ocean? These are exremely low frequency transmissions. The only thing literally preventing the sound from traveling around the world is the placement of the continents.
You don't seem to have any idea what you are talking about. This isn't some magic curse incantation going out over a loudspeaker on a sub. Just being able to hear it wont seriously harm anything. They just need to flee a great enough distance away, where the force of the soundwaves won't be so great.
Energy drops exponentially as you increase your distance from the source. Even moving a relatively small distance away from the source will make a tremendous difference.
Yet, there are other concerns in my life that could probably benefit from 3 billion dollars.
Why do people keep making this completely idiotic argument? There is always something worse, but that doesn't mean you have to stop everything else.
Let's stop building highways, stop welfare, stop making tougher safety standards, etc., because there are some people who could use that money. Forget the fact that these are things that will be of great benefit to our economy, thereby making more money for the government to spend on other important things. Forget the fact that the government has the magic ability to do more than one thing at a time. Forget everything else but the emotionally charged straw-man.
Are you going to stop doing everything else, and spend every last second of your time, and every last dollar you have to your name, on people that are going hungry? If not, you are being entirely hypocritical insisting that others do just that.
Some statistics showed that only about 70.000 families are still watching the analog TV network, it costs some 15 million euro per year to keep it running,
First of all, a much, much larger number of people continue to watch analog broadcasts in the US. The reason for moving the deadline back is to allow time for digital TVs and recievers to drop in price, so more people will transition to them.
Second, I assume the Netherlands is using DVB for broadcasts, which has been around much longer than DTV/HDTV, so people and manufacturers have had much more time to ease the transition.
Third, the government isn't subsidizing the analog TV network in the US. It's paid for by private companies, who are more than happy to pay the costs to reach the additional viewers. It's actually the government forcing them to STOP doing that, not requiring them to continue.
The Federal Government will make significant profits when they auction-off much of the spectrum currently being used for analog broadcasts. The Federal Government is paying the costs.
Problem solved, now put your tin-foil hat back on, and go home.
Slashdot Mirror
That's just trolling bullshit. FreeBSD is doing fine.
How do you know how fast the developers would prefer it to catch-on? It hasn't been around very long at all, it's impossible to say if it will get a strong following. I know as soon as I hear they've started using a microkernel, I'll be taking a real close look at it.
If your only interest is security or a firewall, you could say that.
Of course you didn't bother to mention NetBSD at all.
I don't think I'd suggest OpenBSD for running a database. FreeBSD's SMP support is much more advanced, as well as the filesystem, etc.
FreeBSD is the operating system for anyone comming from Linux. Great hardware support, performance, features, etc. OpenBSD is very strong in it's niche, but weak everywhere else.
Radioactive material is no doubt toxic, but it can be disposed of properly, and cause no ill effects to anyone.
Coal, Oil, Natural Gas, etc., all produce lots of waste that is also quite toxic, but is practically impossible to contain and dispose of.
It's simply not possible to use solar or wind to generate a fraction of the electricity necessary, using current technology. Hydro is good, and used extensively, but it also can't provide the ammount of power now required.
I'd much rather have my great-great-great grandchildren working as a security guard at a nuclear power plant, instead of breathing the fumes of millions of tons of burned coal.
That's rather glib... That might be true if natural selection was disproven, but evolution spans far more than just that one theory. The entire process of speciation could certainly be disproven and replaced with something else without throwing all of biological science on it's head.
To date there's little evidence as to how, precisely, speciation happens. Since DNA sequencing became common, we've also discovered that two creatures that look similar could have completely unrelated parentage, and vise versa. My point being: the evidence of speciation being presented from the fossil record, based only on similar physical traits, is very unreliable science.
In the past century, not only have we not found any evidence of the "missing link", we have lost one link evolutionary scientists thought was squarely in the chain... the neanderthal. The theory de jour being that perhaps humans sprang-up independently of them, and they died-out from the competition.
I've gone off on a tagent here, but it's entirely possible that scientists are largely mistaken on mainstream theories. Go back to things like spontaneous generation, miasma theory of disease, or any other obsolete scientific theories science had built-upon. The rug CAN be pulled out from under science. Scientists agreed on THOSE theories at the time as well...
I must play devil's advocate here and say, there have been inumerable times in the past where nearly all serious scientists have agreed that a theory was factually correct, only to be completely wrong.
That is the main reason I blow-off all comments about evolution and global warming, when the only evidence presented is: "scientists agree"...
Both may be senseless, but one is 'magic' drawn from some unknown 'force', while the other is simply modifying a machine.
It's a huge difference. It's the difference between overhauling your car, and levitating yourself where you want to go instead...
Not only does "pretend" science count, it is the ONLY kind of science that does count...
Science + Fiction = Made-up Science
Since when does Buffy, Lara Croft, or Xena count as Sci-Fi? It's "FIction" of course, but I don't see any SCIence in any of them.
The telcos have a monopoly on physical access to POTS lines, but that's all. There's good reason for that, too, as the lines all have to terminate in the CO. You really don't want a buch of random companies to have physical access to do whatever they like with your phone lines.
If you want to lay-down fiber, many local governments would be more than happy to contract right-of-way to you. If you can't raise that kind of capital, and want to start-up a more modest company, you can always do wireless (microwave, 802.11, etc) and still provide much faster access than current terrestrial services.
It's not a "dumb statement" at all, you simply do not understand what it is referring to. Somebody else already made almost the exact same statement as you, so instead of argue with you, I'll just link you to the original thread:
9 07273
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=166784&cid=13
THEN WHY ARE YOU READING SLASHDOT???
Not with this specific technology, no. But already, companies (particularly Verizon) are starting to set-up fiber-optic networks to compete with high-speed cable. I've recently heard a FIOS network is soon to be built in a nearby city, so I would guess I'm only a couple of years away from getting it.
Because this isn't a socialist country, where the government orders companies to do things they don't want to do, unless it involves public safety and the like. A free country doesn't mean you get everything you could ever want for free... It means if you don't like what companies are or aren't doing, you can start-up your own company and do it yourself. What's your excuse for sitting on your ass and complaining, rather than very directly doing something about it?
You get what you pay for. Apple has always forced it's customers to pay for that kind of quality, even if they don't want to.
Personally, I've had a really cheap 386/20 that lasted nearly 20 years before it finally burned out. I also still have a 10 year-old DEC Pentium Pro system that's happily routing packets for me. Those systems weren't put out to pasture because they couldn't continue doing what they were doing, but rather because I wanted to do things like new audio and video codecs, which they didn't have the horsepower to do. The same is probably going to be true of my highest-end (4 year-old 1.6GHz) system as well. When 1080 HDTV content becomes redily available (in codecs other than MPEG-2), my system will just barely be able to play it back smoothly, and (re)encoding it will be painfully slow.
If you aren't involved in things like full-res video, there's no reason you can't keep using your 10 year-old system (with your 10 year-old operating system).
You don't get more stress from smaller vs. larger movements. Either one can cause RSI just as easily as the other. It's all about how awkwardly positioned your fingers/wrists/arms are when exerting force (even numerous very small forces).
As for your own experience (hopefully this won't sound trollish) the solution is to work-out. The better developed the muscles are, the less vulnerable you will be to RSI (or just about any other injury in-fact). I believe that is the root cause behind women being much more susceptible to RSI than men.
No, it's okay for anybody to do that (not just Microsoft), provided they get permission from the FTC beforehand. Yes, the FTC is, in-fact, above the law.
2,000 complaints is NOTHING. You don't normally expect people who agree (or don't care) to write-in and say so. Complaints always make-up the large majority of mail.
If you think the government is blatantly disregarding the will of the people, you need a hell of a lot more evidence than that.
Besides, that quote you're taking and using out of context does NOT mean that the government should do what the majority wants every single time...
Anyone that can honestly say that Kerry is more corrupt than Bush is far beyond rational thought.
If you keep voting for the more-corrupt bastard, future candidates will keep getting more corrupt. If you kept vote for the less-corrupt bastard, future candidates would be less and less corrupt.
It's amazing how many people think the only use of voting is to decide on the President.
I'm a BSDer here, and I very rarely use Linux. That said, when I do need to use Linux (select few drivers or binary-only apps) the only one I'll touch is Slack. The rest do batshit crazy things I can't even begin to comprehend.
Why in the world would any distro install a 30MB package of an app, and NOT install the 10K of header files for it? Does every distro out there really believe that they have every single application everyone might ever want to use, compiled with the perfect options so the binary will be usable for everyone? Do they really think that nobody is ever going to need to compile ANYTHING from source?
Why must every distro have init scripts in 10 different places, so that you have to grep through 20 different *.modules.* config files, looking for where one unnecessary/problematic module gets loaded? Is one or two rc.modules.conf config files really inadequate?
On the same thread, why does every other distro find it necessary to make their default start-up scripts so complex that the only way to change your IP address is to start-up some graphical configuration tool? Why do different parts of one simple configuration need to be spread across multiple config files in different parts of the
Why does nearly every source/package management system practically FORCE you to install the dependency using that method? Why is it so nearly impossible to install a program from source, and install binary packages that depend on it? Even with the novella of options that wrap multiple times around the terminal, it usually still tries and fails to install the packages...
There's many, many more things like this which trouble me about other distros. Slack seems to be the only sane Linux distro, and so the only one I'll willingly use.
The brightness of CRTs hurts my eyes as well. That's why I TURN DOWN THE BRIGHTNESS. You know monitors are adjustable right?
LCDs don't give me the same controls unfortunately. You can't get the brightness/contrast down low enough that it looks evenly bright on white/black. It either looks washed-out, or much too bright on light colors, and much too dark on dark colors... etc.
That's because your TV is far too low-res to display HDTV at full resolution. If you played HDTV video on a standard TV, you wouldn't have seen much improvement either.
You say that about resolution, I'd say the same about refresh rate...
Besides, I have watched PAL and NTSC material, and the difference in resolution is simply not that big.
Again, you're trying to claim that a 20% improvement is a big jump, and everything above that (including a HUGE increase) isn't an improvement at all. It's a completely and totally ridiculous claim.
Although the standard specifies 1080i, every TV that supports it also support 1080p, and nearly every source that can output 1080i is designed to output 1080p as well. Look at anything like HD-DVD, BluRay, HD-Cable/Satellite, etc. They will all output 1080p.
This is all besides the point, anyhow. 1080p will be good for film, of course, but there are plenty of cases (particularly, sports) where a much higher (interlaced) refresh rate looks far better than progressive-scan. Having both to chose from is far better.
That deals with the flicker, but it doesn't change the fact that you have a very low refresh rate. 50Hz video is very jumpy, and not nearly as smooth as 60Hz.
There is NO DISADVANTAGE to 3:2 pulldown, except for the very slight added complexity to the circuitry of devices that needs to handle pulldown (eg. DVD players). What disadvantage do you think exists?
PAL has the serious disadvantage here. Speeding-up 24FPS to 25FPS makes for a very uncomfortable viewing experience.
And besides that, nobody has to watch film with 3:2 pulldown. Progressive-scan DVD players are very popular, and all HDTVs support progressive-scan as well. Just change a pre-set option, and you can watch everything in progressive-scan ~24FPS.
PAL has resolution about 20% higher than NTSC (and of course it has it's drawbacks of 20% lower refresh rate).
HDTV at 1080, has a resolution that is about 400% higher than PAL (and still with a 20% higher refresh rate).
How anyone can say that 400% higher resolution is not a significant increase, just because it is 20% less of a increase than others will get, is beyond me. Since I've heard this ridiculous claim before, I have to assume it's some sort of propoganda being spread by those who have vested interests in PAL/DVB.
You don't seem to have any idea what you are talking about. This isn't some magic curse incantation going out over a loudspeaker on a sub. Just being able to hear it wont seriously harm anything. They just need to flee a great enough distance away, where the force of the soundwaves won't be so great.
Energy drops exponentially as you increase your distance from the source. Even moving a relatively small distance away from the source will make a tremendous difference.
Why do people keep making this completely idiotic argument? There is always something worse, but that doesn't mean you have to stop everything else.
Let's stop building highways, stop welfare, stop making tougher safety standards, etc., because there are some people who could use that money. Forget the fact that these are things that will be of great benefit to our economy, thereby making more money for the government to spend on other important things. Forget the fact that the government has the magic ability to do more than one thing at a time. Forget everything else but the emotionally charged straw-man.
Are you going to stop doing everything else, and spend every last second of your time, and every last dollar you have to your name, on people that are going hungry? If not, you are being entirely hypocritical insisting that others do just that.
First of all, a much, much larger number of people continue to watch analog broadcasts in the US. The reason for moving the deadline back is to allow time for digital TVs and recievers to drop in price, so more people will transition to them.
Second, I assume the Netherlands is using DVB for broadcasts, which has been around much longer than DTV/HDTV, so people and manufacturers have had much more time to ease the transition.
Third, the government isn't subsidizing the analog TV network in the US. It's paid for by private companies, who are more than happy to pay the costs to reach the additional viewers. It's actually the government forcing them to STOP doing that, not requiring them to continue.
The Federal Government will make significant profits when they auction-off much of the spectrum currently being used for analog broadcasts. The Federal Government is paying the costs.
Problem solved, now put your tin-foil hat back on, and go home.