KVM is even better, it has all the really cool stuff that virtualbox and vmware hold behind locked doors, live live migrations, multiple clients, and its going to get alot better.
if you have, which i doubt, you would know that there are many more options available, and no ubuntu's kernels are not approiate for everybody, for one thing they do not support xen which many people use, this is just one thing off the top of my head. Thinking that their kernels will work for everybody is absurd, for example i do not believe their 32-bit kernel has the PAE support turned on which allows 32-bit machines to have up to 64GB ram. This is the type of thing Windows used, and segmented the market with Intel's, not microsoft's feature. Most people don't even know this feature exists and think they need 64-bit for more than 4GB, this feature has existed since the Pentium 2. (or amdK6 i believe)
Trying to think that one size fits all is absurd, and you only think that way because you are coming from a world that gives you no chose, filled with anti-features and decisions not to help users but to discriminate against them.
a FHS conforming package will install on most systems, packages work accross systems, there is much coordinating on making things work
try installing something from source and see how it just works on any linux distrobution with the required dependancies.
Having one distro does not fix anything, having them work together, and making them only do virtical organization NOT horizontal integration makes this even better. Making you app work is the responsibility of the app creator, not the distributer, ubuntus model of changing everything without any discussion is broken.
The distros that are good are good because they give you choice and work with the standards agreed between creators or similar softwares (kde and gnome, freedesktop, FHS, ruby python, etc). Having an overlord distro makes this all break.
the thing is that none of these systems are customized in so many ways.
There are many layers of asystem: the base system, the services, the desktop environment, the applications. your example is only customized in one regard--the choice of desktop applications. There are many other places where people need choice and experimentation. And not every user in on a x86 or x86_64 system either. One distro can not give this. (the only exception might be debian but of course many would not like that and dont need to)
no we shouldnt. having only one desktop distro would put to much power in the company that controls it. The only single desktop distro i could see is debian, otherwise we need cooperation between differnt groups, and attempts to make things interopperable, but having a single system will only stifle progress.
I think what needs to happen is that distros need to work better with the software creators, no more Ubuntu making endless changes to applications without asking the softwares creators/maintainers for an opinion. Also it is possible for differnt groups to create special blends and use auto-builders that can blend what it means to be a distrobution.
Definitely having a one command to install from binary and a similar single command to install an identical binary but from source, without any mucking around is a clear win here.
The tools used to distrobute the os, and those who actually maintain it are differnt. Also standards and horizontal interoperability (kde gnome--freedesktop--python and ruby accross systems, etc) is at least as big as the vertical integration done by the distos, and makes their jobs much simpler.
If anything we will end up with so many good tools like good build scripts, version control, FHS, and horizontal agreements that distros are no longer neccicary and we can all get our software directly from the developers of that software, maybe just with some community consensous on what versions work together or what configurations are most approiate. Its all about empowering users, and multiple distros does not mean incompadibility. Linus is right about this.
Its called embrace extend extinguish, however in this case microsoft never embraced anything, it just added itsself into someones elses software. This is simply wrong, and is identical to what viruses and spy-ware does. Microsoft is treading on others property like it is theirs. Now what? does firefox have to have self-defense from this virus?
adobe plugin is very differnt, NPAPI is a general plug, when adob einstals it for firefox it is instaled identically for ie to. the plugin is in a shared folder i believe and is not firefox specific, and adobe gives the user a option (i believe)
what microsoft did was specifically create a patch for a non-microsoft product without authorization or warning, this exactally what a virus or spy-ware does. Microsoft is trying to extend software they have no right to extend. clearly anti-compeditive practice that goes against the Micsoft v US settlement
this is classic example of embrace, extend extinguish
however it is modifying the users software that Microsoft has no right to modify. Add-ons can do anything to firefox, Microsoft could install a generic plugin (NPAPI) if the user permitted them to, but they have no right to install a plug-in to software that is not theirs.
This is clearly a monopolistic, anti-competitive, virus-like practice
EULA's are not very enforceable: users don't agree to them and they are contracts of adhesion.
No papers are signed, both parties do not generally agree, and they are filed with unconscionable statements.
Almost all EULAs claim to limit users right to resell the software, however this is unenforceable due to the First-sale doctrine
Copyright gives sole right to its holder the right to create copies of works, however it does not allow that holder to control what their work is used for after it has been purchaced. (besides having purchasers not make more copies of it)
no ruby can be much faster than java:ruby is a language that promotes good coding, by making blocks a central part of the language. ruby is also not bloated and has a much smaller pane to optimize the performance of.
Most apps are not factorials, etc--fast execution is more related to implementation and good coding. With 1.9 code execution is similar to java or python. Also, if you need fast implementations of specific repetitive algorithms then you can use a C library, something which ruby has a mature way of interfacing with.
their drivers are quality and open-source, which is better than ATI and nvidia, however there hardware is inferior which makes the result not game, or performance-worthy, by on reliability and open-source its much better than ATI and nv open-source drivers
yes, what Mr. Dell said was incredibly vague and demeaning. I think putin said exactally the right response. If Dell had said something with some meaning to it then it would have been worthy of consideration, but this was not the case. He just said "you development is not as good as it could be" with really nothing more, sounds like BS to me.
And putin said the sound basics in defending himself, that Russia has complete coverage of computers and internet in all classrooms, including far North and East. Thats a big thing that is definetely one of the most important, much more than any vague 'how do i do better without having any idea how' goals.
also, hurd uses linux for drivers, however its obvious its going nowhere, and really why? Linux is a great GPL kernel that can do everything, there is no real reason for it. development by many parties is what Free software is all about.
FreeBSD i believe was also the first to support SMP, but yeah, linux does all the cool experimentation, and it has the development modal that works is designed for collaborative development, where linus's tree is really only 1 of many.
ulinux and busybox, most routers run it, i know mine does. It does use GNU software. Its all GPL/LGPL, its all based on GNU tools, but there is no GNU.
GNU isnt bad, and i dont think giving them credit is wrong, but such systems do exist, for example: android.
its called tasksel in ubuntu and debian, the installer asks for it, and you can select it from synaptic. its exactally as you describe it but less restrictive
Its in the House committee of Energy and Commerce, is that even remotely related with the bill's subject matter? And don't we have far more seriously problems in ENERGY and COMMERCE.
Congress needs to stop thinking about girls skirts and start thinking about the economy, etc..
1)I dont want the government to nationalize anything, ISPs keep what they have
2)the government, as in the federal or state government, wont own anything, it would be the municalities, cities, and community associations. and then non-government: embedded in deeds themselves. No bureaucracy, just have the last mile owned comunity and have the ISPs come to a junction point that is much easier for them to reach, and have a policy where anyone can bring their own equitment into that junction point and end-users can choose who to pay to connect to.
3)what little expense is very similar to sewer power, general house upkeep. in generall i think people are much more content with the way other utilities besides telecom are run, and this would make telecommunications act similar. All operations besides some small upkeep tasked to local government and/or end-users are done by competitive private business.
Telecoms, as currently situated get paid to keep telecommunications underdeveloped, this is how to pay them to provide services people actually want.
ust a note, this only applies to the last mile, and it would not be big governments but munipalities and community associations and in property titles.
The service providers, the backbone, etc would all be commercial, just the last mile that should be owned by the people
the telcos repeatedly do anti-compeditive practices, suing municipalities that try to put in their own fiber-optic lines, etc. The only solution is to give it directly to the governments and make sure the governments and the people own the fiber.
It can either be done by communities, by users, or by governments but the telos will only rip people off.
If the telecos do it we will never reach 2 fiber lines that will be nececcary to not be riped off, if the people do it or the governments, then we only need 1 line to every person.
Slashdot Mirror
KVM is even better, it has all the really cool stuff that virtualbox and vmware hold behind locked doors, live live migrations, multiple clients, and its going to get alot better.
for a GUI see virt-manager
have you compiled your own kernel?
if you have, which i doubt, you would know that there are many more options available, and no ubuntu's kernels are not approiate for everybody, for one thing they do not support xen which many people use, this is just one thing off the top of my head. Thinking that their kernels will work for everybody is absurd, for example i do not believe their 32-bit kernel has the PAE support turned on which allows 32-bit machines to have up to 64GB ram. This is the type of thing Windows used, and segmented the market with Intel's, not microsoft's feature. Most people don't even know this feature exists and think they need 64-bit for more than 4GB, this feature has existed since the Pentium 2. (or amdK6 i believe)
Trying to think that one size fits all is absurd, and you only think that way because you are coming from a world that gives you no chose, filled with anti-features and decisions not to help users but to discriminate against them.
WE ALREADY HAVE THIS
havnt you heard of alien for debian?
a FHS conforming package will install on most systems, packages work accross systems, there is much coordinating on making things work
try installing something from source and see how it just works on any linux distrobution with the required dependancies.
Having one distro does not fix anything, having them work together, and making them only do virtical organization NOT horizontal integration makes this even better. Making you app work is the responsibility of the app creator, not the distributer, ubuntus model of changing everything without any discussion is broken.
The distros that are good are good because they give you choice and work with the standards agreed between creators or similar softwares (kde and gnome, freedesktop, FHS, ruby python, etc). Having an overlord distro makes this all break.
the thing is that none of these systems are customized in so many ways.
There are many layers of asystem: the base system, the services, the desktop environment, the applications. your example is only customized in one regard--the choice of desktop applications. There are many other places where people need choice and experimentation. And not every user in on a x86 or x86_64 system either. One distro can not give this. (the only exception might be debian but of course many would not like that and dont need to)
no we shouldnt. having only one desktop distro would put to much power in the company that controls it. The only single desktop distro i could see is debian, otherwise we need cooperation between differnt groups, and attempts to make things interopperable, but having a single system will only stifle progress.
I think what needs to happen is that distros need to work better with the software creators, no more Ubuntu making endless changes to applications without asking the softwares creators/maintainers for an opinion. Also it is possible for differnt groups to create special blends and use auto-builders that can blend what it means to be a distrobution.
Definitely having a one command to install from binary and a similar single command to install an identical binary but from source, without any mucking around is a clear win here.
The tools used to distrobute the os, and those who actually maintain it are differnt. Also standards and horizontal interoperability (kde gnome--freedesktop--python and ruby accross systems, etc) is at least as big as the vertical integration done by the distos, and makes their jobs much simpler.
If anything we will end up with so many good tools like good build scripts, version control, FHS, and horizontal agreements that distros are no longer neccicary and we can all get our software directly from the developers of that software, maybe just with some community consensous on what versions work together or what configurations are most approiate. Its all about empowering users, and multiple distros does not mean incompadibility. Linus is right about this.
Its called embrace extend extinguish, however in this case microsoft never embraced anything, it just added itsself into someones elses software. This is simply wrong, and is identical to what viruses and spy-ware does. Microsoft is treading on others property like it is theirs. Now what? does firefox have to have self-defense from this virus?
adobe plugin is very differnt, NPAPI is a general plug, when adob einstals it for firefox it is instaled identically for ie to. the plugin is in a shared folder i believe and is not firefox specific, and adobe gives the user a option (i believe)
what microsoft did was specifically create a patch for a non-microsoft product without authorization or warning, this exactally what a virus or spy-ware does. Microsoft is trying to extend software they have no right to extend. clearly anti-compeditive practice that goes against the Micsoft v US settlement
yes, this is a plug-in not a add-on
which step are we on????: extend
this is classic example of embrace, extend extinguish
however it is modifying the users software that Microsoft has no right to modify. Add-ons can do anything to firefox, Microsoft could install a generic plugin (NPAPI) if the user permitted them to, but they have no right to install a plug-in to software that is not theirs.
This is clearly a monopolistic, anti-competitive, virus-like practice
EULA's are not very enforceable: users don't agree to them and they are contracts of adhesion.
No papers are signed, both parties do not generally agree, and they are filed with unconscionable statements.
Almost all EULAs claim to limit users right to resell the software, however this is unenforceable due to the First-sale doctrine
Copyright gives sole right to its holder the right to create copies of works, however it does not allow that holder to control what their work is used for after it has been purchaced. (besides having purchasers not make more copies of it)
they actually have a registry entry, but they have ignored it since NT and it doesnt really work
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/mswish/ut-rtc.html
no ruby can be much faster than java:ruby is a language that promotes good coding, by making blocks a central part of the language. ruby is also not bloated and has a much smaller pane to optimize the performance of.
Most apps are not factorials, etc--fast execution is more related to implementation and good coding. With 1.9 code execution is similar to java or python. Also, if you need fast implementations of specific repetitive algorithms then you can use a C library, something which ruby has a mature way of interfacing with.
they are also the first to support the new true graphic card memory-management in the linux kernel, which will elad to some cool new stuff
their drivers are quality and open-source, which is better than ATI and nvidia, however there hardware is inferior which makes the result not game, or performance-worthy, by on reliability and open-source its much better than ATI and nv open-source drivers
yes, what Mr. Dell said was incredibly vague and demeaning. I think putin said exactally the right response. If Dell had said something with some meaning to it then it would have been worthy of consideration, but this was not the case. He just said "you development is not as good as it could be" with really nothing more, sounds like BS to me.
And putin said the sound basics in defending himself, that Russia has complete coverage of computers and internet in all classrooms, including far North and East. Thats a big thing that is definetely one of the most important, much more than any vague 'how do i do better without having any idea how' goals.
mozilla/firefox is making million from google
http://www.scroogle.org/mozilla.html
but you need a web browser with gears, which is just about no browser in their default configuration (except chromium)
while IMAP clients have had this for years
this has existed for ever, in gmail they simply had to reinvent it cause they got rid of it with their web interface.
WOW
</sarcasm\%rt;
also, hurd uses linux for drivers, however its obvious its going nowhere, and really why? Linux is a great GPL kernel that can do everything, there is no real reason for it. development by many parties is what Free software is all about.
FreeBSD i believe was also the first to support SMP, but yeah, linux does all the cool experimentation, and it has the development modal that works is designed for collaborative development, where linus's tree is really only 1 of many.
ulinux and busybox, most routers run it, i know mine does. It does use GNU software. Its all GPL/LGPL, its all based on GNU tools, but there is no GNU.
GNU isnt bad, and i dont think giving them credit is wrong, but such systems do exist, for example: android.
its called tasksel in ubuntu and debian, the installer asks for it, and you can select it from synaptic. its exactally as you describe it but less restrictive
Its in the House committee of Energy and Commerce, is that even remotely related with the bill's subject matter? And don't we have far more seriously problems in ENERGY and COMMERCE.
Congress needs to stop thinking about girls skirts and start thinking about the economy, etc..
you didnt read my clairification.
1)I dont want the government to nationalize anything, ISPs keep what they have
2)the government, as in the federal or state government, wont own anything, it would be the municalities, cities, and community associations. and then non-government: embedded in deeds themselves. No bureaucracy, just have the last mile owned comunity and have the ISPs come to a junction point that is much easier for them to reach, and have a policy where anyone can bring their own equitment into that junction point and end-users can choose who to pay to connect to.
3)what little expense is very similar to sewer power, general house upkeep. in generall i think people are much more content with the way other utilities besides telecom are run, and this would make telecommunications act similar. All operations besides some small upkeep tasked to local government and/or end-users are done by competitive private business.
Telecoms, as currently situated get paid to keep telecommunications underdeveloped, this is how to pay them to provide services people actually want.
ust a note, this only applies to the last mile, and it would not be big governments but munipalities and community associations and in property titles.
The service providers, the backbone, etc would all be commercial, just the last mile that should be owned by the people
the telcos repeatedly do anti-compeditive practices, suing municipalities that try to put in their own fiber-optic lines, etc. The only solution is to give it directly to the governments and make sure the governments and the people own the fiber.
It can either be done by communities, by users, or by governments but the telos will only rip people off.
If the telecos do it we will never reach 2 fiber lines that will be nececcary to not be riped off, if the people do it or the governments, then we only need 1 line to every person.