Hurd is alive and well. Hurd addresses the high-end issues; Hurd has been designed from the ground up to handle gargantuan (dozen terabyte) files and incredibly high workloads and scale to dozens of CPUs. You can read more about over at the the GNU project website. If you'd like to toy with Hurd, then go download Hurd kernel from the aforementioned website and then get Debian GNU/Hurd, which supplies the user-level operating system environment. It's quite nice, albeit unstable.
And, Linux applications are easily ported to the complete Monterey product line.
Actually, almost any decently written program (i.e. that uses autoconf) will run on GNU/Linux, the BSDs, SCO UnixWare 7, SCO SysV/386V3.2R4.2, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, and probably OS/2 and possibly Windows as well. Monterey does nothing to change this other than add yet another operating system to autoconf's list of hundreds on the ash heap of computing history.
... will benefit both the Linux and UNIX communities at large.
Umm, GNU/Linux *is* the Unix community at large. There is more GNU/Linux on the desktop than any other Unix or Unix-like operating system (I consider Unix on the desktop to be running a Unix or Unix-like kernel, not NT or Windows or OS/2, on a desktop machine; Xservers on Windows PCs don't count).
It would be far more useful for IBM and SCO to spend their time moving to a Linux kernel based (and GNU based) system, providing backwards compatibility with modules for SCO Uxware, SysV/386, and AIX backward compatibility.
Maybe I'll get AIX PS/2 binary support someday and be able to use my Image Adapter/A with X11R4.
IIRC most of the money he's `given' to Third world nations has been for the dubious prospect of `population management'. One classic quote from Gates I read in the Journal stated that he believes that `overpopulation in the third world is the biggest problem to face America'. While that may sound nice, I think it boilds down to `I-like-my-big-house-and-segregated-neighborhood-a nd-there's-too-many-dark-skinned-people- in-the-world-anyway' mentality. If I were a native of the Third world, I would view mass sterilisation drives (such as armies of nurses to implant IUDs) as a masked form of genocide. Rather than stopping reproduction, introduce the changes to society that give us the American system where people reproduce at a moderate rate.
To application development that *USES* those device drivers, for example. Device drivers might be a fun geek hacking toy, and it's always nice to know whats going on at the lower level, but don't you think it's more important on a strategic basis for Linux developers to actually start moving into the Application development area rather than dealing with driver development?
It might seem like this at first, but when you lose the driver base, you're hosed. This bit us OS/2 users very hard. When your SCSI chipset doesn't work, your applications don't work, either. And having an ancient 16-bit driver that doesn't work with anything except disks does not count as support, even though some vendors (Rancho Technologies) thought it did.
The solution was to only buy IBM hardware or Adaptec hardware (until other drivers came out). So far, Linux has avoided that route.
Beware the binary primrose path. Maybe I'm just too much of a radical GNUer or maybe I'm just bitter after the OS/2 debacle--I just don't want to ever be burned by binary-only software again.
Okay, now I know that this post will be followed with "But my x doesnt work!" And obviously we have a little ways to go, but I didn't think that drivers were really a problem for Linux.
My Intel ActionMedia II Display Adapter/A (speaking of Intel) isn't supported. I want video4linux for it NOW!
Admittidly, I'd like to see usb support (Inaky?) now, but it seems to me that Linux has superior device support right now. I mean, Linux supports things that NT doesn't for cripes sake. I am going to agree with the previous poster that this will only result in more binary only proprietary code. (Which is Bad).
<blush> Thank you.
USB support is there, but it's experimental. It at least works for the USB keyboard and mouse, and I believe there was an experimental audio module. It's in the same state as the Linux I20 modules--test 'em on a non-production environment and submit your bug reports or fix the code yourself and submit patches.
I've noticed that my postings have very high scores. While I do appreciated my own viewpoints, I think leaving it at 3 is enough; moderators SHOULD NOT score up my articles just because they like what they said. Many others have raised important points too and their articles are at 1. Score them instead.
Have the ports of Linux to other platforms encouraged binary distributions? I don't think it has, and Linux does the same thing as UDI, just for programs (use it on many platforms without a recompile). Therefore, why would a port of UDI to Linux do this?
The question is, what does the UDI do other than do this? All the UDI does is enable support for non-free UNIX platforms. We need to ask: what do *we* get for this? If all we get is the a bunch of binary modules, we've gotten nothing. If we get Linux developers to write to the UDI, wow. We have yet another API abstraction.
But look at what SCO (and probably Solaris x86) get out of this. They get free code without having to give anything back, other than more binary-only modules which are a Bad Thing.
RMS has taught you paranoia well. Yes, perhaps SCO would then be able to use Linux drivers. Remember, however, it goes both ways. Linux will suddenly be able to use drivers from these other Unices. Is this a Bad Thing? I can't see why it would be.
Actually, working with OS/2 has taught me paranoia quite well. The OS/2 driver situation was simply terrible, and there was nothing a user could do about it. I don't want more binary modules, and that's all SCO has to offer. If I want a proprietary, binary-only system, I do run a Unixware 7.0 system, and could use it. (CDE isn't half bad, by the way, with the exception of the dog ugly Motif).
Certainly, that's your prerogative. But what if the Linux kernel had even better device support? Look at it this way: propple use different unices in different areas. But what if a developer could develop a single driver which could run on all Unices, and Linux to boot? That's going to be much more tempting than writing two drivers, one for Linux and one for everyone else.
We have that now. It's just as easy to implement support for the current Linux driver scheme in a Unix or Unix-like kernel as it would be to implement the UDI--and there aren't any UDI drivers today, unlike Linux drivers.
Be very, very, wary of those who promise you FREE binary code. It's always a bad thing, especially with a freed operating system.
If this means that vendors can distribute binary-only modules for Linux driver compatibility. doesn't that indicate a subtle dilution of the GPL? Firstly, no distribution can ship with these drivers linked in (in either/lib/modules or/initrd or implicitly). That is very bad. It also means that I can't send someone my Linux setup (kernel+modules) if I'm using any of these binary-only modules.
This also harms the GPL. I wish Linus hadn't made that statement about binary-only modules being allowed, because it wasn't his statement to make. Binary-only anything in the Linux kernel is a grievous curse that must be avoided at all costs. Let us not sacrifice the freedom of Linux in the future on the altar of some extra device support today.
Because vendors will ship binary drivers for kernel 2.2.5 that sort of work. They work good enough for the vendor to stick penguin sticker on the side of the box. By the time kernel 2.4 comes along, the driver is terribly broken because it turns out the vendor made it full of ugly hacks that don't work with any other newer hardware, but they refuse to support the newer kernels. I've been through this more than once on OS/2. It is simply no fun.
Binary-only modules also violate the GPL, plain and simple. We can't tolerate that, or we might as well just rerelease Linux under the X11 licence.
The strength of the Linux kernel, which includes its device support, is its freed, opensource nature. Binary-only modules hurt that.
I should also add that support for SCO is our bottom zero priority. If anything, SCO should work to make Linux drivers usable in SCO (although that still violates the GPL), but not the other way around. SCO is effectively asking Linux developers right now to give them something for free.
It's called the Linux kernel's driver interface. It's clean and is very well documented. It has much example code available. O'Reilly has two well-written books on the topic.
This is just another attempt of SCO, which is rapidly become the obsolete PC UNIX vendor, to make themselves important once more. It's also probably an attempt by SCO to get a free ride by making future Linux drivers work with SCO (which would, BTW, be in grievous violation of the GPL). This UDI thing would also encourage distribution of binary driver images, which is a Bad Thing.
The current Linux driver model is working just fine. SCO and IBM can distill fun little PDF files if they like, but I'll keep on using the Linux kernel that I know works and has good device support today.
Why a webserver must come down after getting 1.000 hits in the space of a minute. Jeez--my wimpy IBM PC on a half T1 link could handle that. (Not that I'm asking anyone to test that for me...)
Cheers, Joshua `I wanted to see the review of the Grid portable computer' Rodd
This is too good to be true.
on
Java for EGCS
·
· Score: 3
This absolutely rocks. I have finally gotten my revenge on JWZ for all the mean things he said about Java.
This means that Java is now a real language, just like Objective-C, Pascal, Fortran, or C. The FUD official stops now.
And I bet this means we'll be getting GTK+ and GNOME and ORBit bindings for Java/gjc soon... yes...
This is no different than how cars are sold. When you buy a $20.000 car, you can bet that at least $1.000 and probably more went to the dealer. That's pure marketing cost (and 5% of the total cost). Intel has to do the same.
Sounds like you had bad IDE chipsets. This is a common problem. There's not much to do about that except to stop using flaky IDE chipsets.
OTOH, ext3 is in the works. Once I get some other projects finished, I will work on a journaled filesystem for GNU (including Linux). I really like OS/2's JFS, especially for development where I was crashing the machine every five minutes (video chipset drivers), often during periods of heavy disk activity--but CHKDSK (equiv. of jfsck) never had any errors.
(and even some unpopular ones, such as the BeOS, which is incredibly easy to install). I never could get XFree86 to work.
Firstly, BeOS can be terrifying to install if it doesn't support your hardware. GNU/Linux supports more hardware than BeOS does. Sure, BeOS has a cute install procedure--but so do some GNU/Linux distributions, like EasyLinux.
Did you try running XConfigurator or XF86Setup? If your video chipset simply wasn't supported, than XFree86 never will work for you. This is no different than complaining that ``I can't get Windows 98 to install on my iMac'' (yes, I've heard that one before).
I read the same article, and he seemed to be comparing real computers and operating systems like a Parallel Sysplex running OS/390. Sorry, but GNU/Linux can't scale to 128 processor (and please don't mention Beowulf--we're talking about ordinary programs here scaling to 128 CPUs) systems, and it doesn't have the same error logging facilities as OS/390 does. Before you shoot back ``hey, haven't you heard of/var/log'', please read up on IBM's operating system technologies. It's like a whole different world.
That said, NT delivers none of these, and people in droves talk about migrating from IBM mainframes to NT, so there's no reason they shouldn't migrate to GNU/Linux too.
This is why we need a FAT-based install option. I should talk to the Debian people about this. We need a ZipSlack that's current (i.e. not libc5 based).
I wonder when the Debian packages for Gnome will come out.
I'd put them together myself, except that I don't know beans about it, and I think I'll restrict myself to fixing mailman+exim in Debian and my hacked xfstt (which does `unixquotes' correctly) first. Learning how to maintain a Debian package by starting with Gnome 1.0 is not the right way. ^_^
The only time I've been tempted to destroy a system was during the height of the output of pornspam from AGIS/CyperPr*omo. After the fiftieth email from `Lucy' had been downloaded over my Bell 212A modem, I was ready to hurt something. Of course, I didn't, but I sure wanted to. That's the only time of which I can recall.
Just because I *can* do something doesn't mean I *do*. Many modern `safety' advocates completely miss this, thinking they need to regular the life out of everything to prevent accidents. I could run a vacuum cleaner across the nature strip[1 by my house, but I don't do that. Does that mean we need to keep teens away from nature strip and should control vacuum cleaners so that minors won't get them? This is what this is in effect saying: teens and computers are dangerous if the teen does anything more than use AOL email and WordPad.
[1] They seem to call these `tree lawns' in America, which is dumb, because there are usually not trees on them.
There also seems to be a latent assumption that what survives is good; that a meme which is capable of surviving is somehow the best one. This is not true. The wife-beating meme is very capable of survival, but is also bad.
This idea that there are all these self-organising energy systems where everything automatically comes out the best way is nonsense. The only way you ever get anything to work is by people working hard to make it that way (not that people working hard is guarantee of success). GNU and Linux did not arise out of some self-organising flow of energy between hackers. Instead, we hackers sat down at our displays and banged out code. Cheers, Joshua "I wish DHS would give me back my |||net domain" Rodd
When we experience ourselves as part of the flow of energy in a larger system, we want to work like that all the time.
What is this stuff about myself as part of a flow of energy in a larger system? I experience that daily because I'm in a cold room at 15 C (approx 65 F), and heat is constantly flowing through my jumper into the ambient room, but I sure don't want to work like that all the time.
I am not `energy'. My programs are not `energy'. They are programs. I write some of them because their fun and I need them for various personal projects, and I wrote others because my employer needs them so the machine we're going to (hopefully) ship by the end of the year will do what our customers need it to do.
That, as Marvin Minsky said, a person alone (like a desktop computer unplugged from the network) is nearly useless, a brain in a bottle
This is completely false. My PS/2 Model P70 386 was quite functional unattached from any data network, thank you very much (although I was known to use an RS-232 link to my mum's computer downstairs with the printer). Most of what I do could be done on a machine without any network attachment. A computer is *very* useful, albeit not as useful as when attached to a network, unattached from a network.
I get most of my work done alone, and share it with others later. I am doing one of my largest current projects, OS/2+X integration, completely on my own, because working among the OS/2 community is so painful. Of course, it's more fun to live with people besides myself, and granted we are social creatures. But all this ``energy flow'' and ``social network system'' and ``virtual organic entities'' is, as I have said before, a glorified form of mental masturbation.
First, I assume you meant 150 * g / 2ms. But that comes out to 75000 m^2/s^2, which is equivilent to 75000 W/kg. What are watts per kilogram? Power absorbed by the drive for each unit of its mass?
WHY can't drive manufacturers just use newtons per second?
...using vi or Emacs or uwm with a Dvoark keyboard.
QWERTY is good enough for me. I can type 100 wpm with 98% accuracy, which is faster than my mind can produce meaningful words. You might say my brain is the bottleneck. Hmmm.... stty 115200/dev/brainp0
What does lying to an employer about one's own health, which is highly unethical in my opinion, have to do with the philosophy of freed software or the desire for opensource?
This isn't anticapitalism. If you don't like your employer, then change jobs. At least in the U.S. this should be easy.
Hey, I have an idea--why not just fudge our billable hours on the sixth? We can all get $50 extra and donate it to worthy causes!
Uggh. Having this sort of thing associated with good things like freed software makes me ill.
This is the very reason WHY linux will never gain the market acceptance it needs to become a major player for the desktop market. No one wants to touch it because [garbage] like this happens. Someone comes up with a good idea, then some [jerk] whines and cries that its not opensource, then forms a team and writes a clone.
Firstly, who says GNU has to become a big force in the desktop market? Where I am, it's on 20% of the desktops (the rest are OS/2). Mass popularity for GNU/Linux is not my goal in life. Writing good, freed software and educating the masses on the importance of freedom in every aspect of life (not just software) is.
Secondly, he hasn't formed a team yet, and won't until he fixes his licence. Right now, he's guilty of astroturfing support for a vaporware product.
This is the EXACT reason why people aren't coming behind linux as one would think they should.
Oh really? One of the goals of GNU was to provide lots of freed software. The goal of GNU/Linux is not to see how many copies we can get running everywhere at the expense of freedom. World domination of a freed kernel, but proprietary applications, would be a failure.
Yes, its a far superior OS.. FAR superior. But, what good is it if someone can't be creative and support themselves from it? Absolutely none. As much as some of you goofs that read this stuff hate to hear it, the world revolves around money. You kill the cash flow of enough companies and it'll come around to bite you in the butt later.
I've been that route before. IBM and almost every OS/2 ISV worked entirely on a non-freed commercial basis. Guess what? It failed majorly, and my rear end is quite bitten. The world does not revolve around money. The world revolves around love. As soon as it stops centering on the love both for those immediately around one's self (family, community, friends) and for humankind in general, the world becomes a bad place. Selfishness is always bad.
BTW, you sound like you've had a hard day of OS/2 coding. I know what that's like. I should newgrp alt.gothic.os2--a place to go and just be bitter. After fooling around with IBM's glorious APIs for seven hours, you need to be a bitter. Something in the spirit of the unix-haters mailing list is well called for.
Slashdot Mirror
Cheers,
Joshua.
And, Linux applications are easily ported to the complete Monterey product line.
Actually, almost any decently written program (i.e. that uses autoconf) will run on GNU/Linux, the BSDs, SCO UnixWare 7, SCO SysV/386V3.2R4.2, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, and probably OS/2 and possibly Windows as well. Monterey does nothing to change this other than add yet another operating system to autoconf's list of hundreds on the ash heap of computing history.
... will benefit both the Linux and UNIX communities at large.
Umm, GNU/Linux *is* the Unix community at large. There is more GNU/Linux on the desktop than any other Unix or Unix-like operating system (I consider Unix on the desktop to be running a Unix or Unix-like kernel, not NT or Windows or OS/2, on a desktop machine; Xservers on Windows PCs don't count).It would be far more useful for IBM and SCO to spend their time moving to a Linux kernel based (and GNU based) system, providing backwards compatibility with modules for SCO Uxware, SysV/386, and AIX backward compatibility.
Maybe I'll get AIX PS/2 binary support someday and be able to use my Image Adapter/A with X11R4.
Cheers,
Joshua.
IIRC most of the money he's `given' to Third world nations has been for the dubious prospect of `population management'. One classic quote from Gates I read in the Journal stated that he believes that `overpopulation in the third world is the biggest problem to face America'. While that may sound nice, I think it boilds down to `I-like-my-big-house-and-segregated-neighborhood-a nd-there's-too-many-dark-skinned-people- in-the-world-anyway' mentality. If I were a native of the Third world, I would view mass sterilisation drives (such as armies of nurses to implant IUDs) as a masked form of genocide. Rather than stopping reproduction, introduce the changes to society that give us the American system where people reproduce at a moderate rate.
To application development that *USES* those device drivers, for example. Device drivers might be a fun geek hacking toy, and it's always nice to know whats going on at the lower level, but don't you think it's more important on a strategic basis for Linux developers to actually start moving into the Application development area rather than dealing with driver development?
It might seem like this at first, but when you lose the driver base, you're hosed. This bit us OS/2 users very hard. When your SCSI chipset doesn't work, your applications don't work, either. And having an ancient 16-bit driver that doesn't work with anything except disks does not count as support, even though some vendors (Rancho Technologies) thought it did.
The solution was to only buy IBM hardware or Adaptec hardware (until other drivers came out). So far, Linux has avoided that route.
Beware the binary primrose path. Maybe I'm just too much of a radical GNUer or maybe I'm just bitter after the OS/2 debacle--I just don't want to ever be burned by binary-only software again.
Okay, now I know that this post will be followed with "But my x doesnt work!" And obviously we have a little ways to go, but I didn't think that drivers were really a problem for Linux.
My Intel ActionMedia II Display Adapter/A (speaking of Intel) isn't supported. I want video4linux for it NOW!
Admittidly, I'd like to see usb support (Inaky?) now, but it seems to me that Linux has superior device support right now. I mean, Linux supports things that NT doesn't for cripes sake. I am going to agree with the previous poster that this will only result in more binary only proprietary code. (Which is Bad).
<blush> Thank you.
USB support is there, but it's experimental. It at least works for the USB keyboard and mouse, and I believe there was an experimental audio module. It's in the same state as the Linux I20 modules--test 'em on a non-production environment and submit your bug reports or fix the code yourself and submit patches.
Cheers,
Joshua.
I've noticed that my postings have very high scores. While I do appreciated my own viewpoints, I think leaving it at 3 is enough; moderators SHOULD NOT score up my articles just because they like what they said. Many others have raised important points too and their articles are at 1. Score them instead.
Cheers,
Joshua.
Have the ports of Linux to other platforms encouraged binary distributions? I don't think it has, and Linux does the same thing as UDI, just for programs (use it on many platforms without a recompile). Therefore, why would a port of UDI to Linux do this?
The question is, what does the UDI do other than do this? All the UDI does is enable support for non-free UNIX platforms. We need to ask: what do *we* get for this? If all we get is the a bunch of binary modules, we've gotten nothing. If we get Linux developers to write to the UDI, wow. We have yet another API abstraction.
But look at what SCO (and probably Solaris x86) get out of this. They get free code without having to give anything back, other than more binary-only modules which are a Bad Thing.
RMS has taught you paranoia well. Yes, perhaps SCO would then be able to use Linux drivers. Remember, however, it goes both ways. Linux will suddenly be able to use drivers from these other Unices. Is this a Bad Thing? I can't see why it would be.
Actually, working with OS/2 has taught me paranoia quite well. The OS/2 driver situation was simply terrible, and there was nothing a user could do about it. I don't want more binary modules, and that's all SCO has to offer. If I want a proprietary, binary-only system, I do run a Unixware 7.0 system, and could use it. (CDE isn't half bad, by the way, with the exception of the dog ugly Motif).
Certainly, that's your prerogative. But what if the Linux kernel had even better device support? Look at it this way: propple use different unices in different areas. But what if a developer could develop a single driver which could run on all Unices, and Linux to boot? That's going to be much more tempting than writing two drivers, one for Linux and one for everyone else.
We have that now. It's just as easy to implement support for the current Linux driver scheme in a Unix or Unix-like kernel as it would be to implement the UDI--and there aren't any UDI drivers today, unlike Linux drivers.
Be very, very, wary of those who promise you FREE binary code. It's always a bad thing, especially with a freed operating system.
This also harms the GPL. I wish Linus hadn't made that statement about binary-only modules being allowed, because it wasn't his statement to make. Binary-only anything in the Linux kernel is a grievous curse that must be avoided at all costs. Let us not sacrifice the freedom of Linux in the future on the altar of some extra device support today.
Binary-only modules also violate the GPL, plain and simple. We can't tolerate that, or we might as well just rerelease Linux under the X11 licence.
The strength of the Linux kernel, which includes its device support, is its freed, opensource nature. Binary-only modules hurt that.
I should also add that support for SCO is our bottom zero priority. If anything, SCO should work to make Linux drivers usable in SCO (although that still violates the GPL), but not the other way around. SCO is effectively asking Linux developers right now to give them something for free.
This is just another attempt of SCO, which is rapidly become the obsolete PC UNIX vendor, to make themselves important once more. It's also probably an attempt by SCO to get a free ride by making future Linux drivers work with SCO (which would, BTW, be in grievous violation of the GPL). This UDI thing would also encourage distribution of binary driver images, which is a Bad Thing.
The current Linux driver model is working just fine. SCO and IBM can distill fun little PDF files if they like, but I'll keep on using the Linux kernel that I know works and has good device support today.
Cheers,
Joshua `I wanted to see the review of the Grid portable computer' Rodd
This means that Java is now a real language, just like Objective-C, Pascal, Fortran, or C. The FUD official stops now.
And I bet this means we'll be getting GTK+ and GNOME and ORBit bindings for Java/gjc soon... yes...
This is no different than how cars are sold. When you buy a $20.000 car, you can bet that at least $1.000 and probably more went to the dealer. That's pure marketing cost (and 5% of the total cost). Intel has to do the same.
OTOH, ext3 is in the works. Once I get some other projects finished, I will work on a journaled filesystem for GNU (including Linux). I really like OS/2's JFS, especially for development where I was crashing the machine every five minutes (video chipset drivers), often during periods of heavy disk activity--but CHKDSK (equiv. of jfsck) never had any errors.
Firstly, BeOS can be terrifying to install if it doesn't support your hardware. GNU/Linux supports more hardware than BeOS does. Sure, BeOS has a cute install procedure--but so do some GNU/Linux distributions, like EasyLinux.
Did you try running XConfigurator or XF86Setup? If your video chipset simply wasn't supported, than XFree86 never will work for you. This is no different than complaining that ``I can't get Windows 98 to install on my iMac'' (yes, I've heard that one before).
That said, NT delivers none of these, and people in droves talk about migrating from IBM mainframes to NT, so there's no reason they shouldn't migrate to GNU/Linux too.
This is why we need a FAT-based install option. I should talk to the Debian people about this. We need a ZipSlack that's current (i.e. not libc5 based).
I'd put them together myself, except that I don't know beans about it, and I think I'll restrict myself to fixing mailman+exim in Debian and my hacked xfstt (which does `unixquotes' correctly) first. Learning how to maintain a Debian package by starting with Gnome 1.0 is not the right way. ^_^
Just because I *can* do something doesn't mean I *do*. Many modern `safety' advocates completely miss this, thinking they need to regular the life out of everything to prevent accidents. I could run a vacuum cleaner across the nature strip[1 by my house, but I don't do that. Does that mean we need to keep teens away from nature strip and should control vacuum cleaners so that minors won't get them? This is what this is in effect saying: teens and computers are dangerous if the teen does anything more than use AOL email and WordPad.
[1] They seem to call these `tree lawns' in America, which is dumb, because there are usually not trees on them.
This idea that there are all these self-organising energy systems where everything automatically comes out the best way is nonsense. The only way you ever get anything to work is by people working hard to make it that way (not that people working hard is guarantee of success). GNU and Linux did not arise out of some self-organising flow of energy between hackers. Instead, we hackers sat down at our displays and banged out code.
Cheers,
Joshua "I wish DHS would give me back my |||net domain" Rodd
When we experience ourselves as part of the flow of energy in a larger system, we want to work like that all the time.
What is this stuff about myself as part of a flow of energy in a larger system? I experience that daily because I'm in a cold room at 15 C (approx 65 F), and heat is constantly flowing through my jumper into the ambient room, but I sure don't want to work like that all the time.
I am not `energy'. My programs are not `energy'. They are programs. I write some of them because their fun and I need them for various personal projects, and I wrote others because my employer needs them so the machine we're going to (hopefully) ship by the end of the year will do what our customers need it to do.
That, as Marvin Minsky said, a person alone (like a desktop computer unplugged from the network) is nearly useless, a brain in a bottle
This is completely false. My PS/2 Model P70 386 was quite functional unattached from any data network, thank you very much (although I was known to use an RS-232 link to my mum's computer downstairs with the printer). Most of what I do could be done on a machine without any network attachment. A computer is *very* useful, albeit not as useful as when attached to a network, unattached from a network.
I get most of my work done alone, and share it with others later. I am doing one of my largest current projects, OS/2+X integration, completely on my own, because working among the OS/2 community is so painful. Of course, it's more fun to live with people besides myself, and granted we are social creatures. But all this ``energy flow'' and ``social network system'' and ``virtual organic entities'' is, as I have said before, a glorified form of mental masturbation.
First, I assume you meant 150 * g / 2ms. But that comes out to 75000 m^2/s^2, which is equivilent to 75000 W/kg. What are watts per kilogram? Power absorbed by the drive for each unit of its mass?
WHY can't drive manufacturers just use newtons per second?
QWERTY is good enough for me. I can type 100 wpm with 98% accuracy, which is faster than my mind can produce meaningful words. You might say my brain is the bottleneck. Hmmm.... stty 115200 /dev/brainp0
This isn't anticapitalism. If you don't like your employer, then change jobs. At least in the U.S. this should be easy.
Hey, I have an idea--why not just fudge our billable hours on the sixth? We can all get $50 extra and donate it to worthy causes!
Uggh. Having this sort of thing associated with good things like freed software makes me ill.
This is the very reason WHY linux will never gain the market acceptance it needs to become a major player for the desktop market. No one wants to touch it because [garbage] like this happens. Someone comes up with a good idea, then some [jerk] whines and cries that its not opensource, then forms a team and writes a clone.
Firstly, who says GNU has to become a big force in the desktop market? Where I am, it's on 20% of the desktops (the rest are OS/2). Mass popularity for GNU/Linux is not my goal in life. Writing good, freed software and educating the masses on the importance of freedom in every aspect of life (not just software) is.
Secondly, he hasn't formed a team yet, and won't until he fixes his licence. Right now, he's guilty of astroturfing support for a vaporware product.
This is the EXACT reason why people aren't coming behind linux as one would think they should.
Oh really? One of the goals of GNU was to provide lots of freed software. The goal of GNU/Linux is not to see how many copies we can get running everywhere at the expense of freedom. World domination of a freed kernel, but proprietary applications, would be a failure.
Yes, its a far superior OS.. FAR superior. But, what good is it if someone can't be creative and support themselves from it? Absolutely none. As much as some of you goofs that read this stuff hate to hear it, the world revolves around money. You kill the cash flow of enough companies and it'll come around to bite you in the butt later.
I've been that route before. IBM and almost every OS/2 ISV worked entirely on a non-freed commercial basis. Guess what? It failed majorly, and my rear end is quite bitten. The world does not revolve around money. The world revolves around love. As soon as it stops centering on the love both for those immediately around one's self (family, community, friends) and for humankind in general, the world becomes a bad place. Selfishness is always bad.
BTW, you sound like you've had a hard day of OS/2 coding. I know what that's like. I should newgrp alt.gothic.os2--a place to go and just be bitter. After fooling around with IBM's glorious APIs for seven hours, you need to be a bitter. Something in the spirit of the unix-haters mailing list is well called for.
Cheers,
Joshua (a battered-spouse OS/2 user)