Firstly, there is only a small precentage of all people who zare able to become hackers. Of both sexes. So to maximize the number of hackers (which is needed in order for the human race to enter maturity:), we can not be without the females. Secondly, I don't beleave that the problem that has caused so many girls not to become hackers is that the male hackers are offencive to them. I think it's the rest of the society. A boy is more allowed to sit down and hack, beacuse his father probably built crystal recievers (Is that the english word for those very simple radio recievers?) at the same age, and will think it's just the same thing (Which is partly is, but not fully, hacking is so much more than just building something cool for yourself to use), while I girl will be regarded as strange if she turns away from the rest of the youngsters and hacks, while her mother (and others) will not have any similar activity performed by themselves as young, to recognize it as. I beleave the best we can do to help anyone to become a hacker, male of female, is to tell his/her parents/friends/whoever that this is important and good for the boy/girl, and especially, explain that it is not "antisocial beheaviour" (A trend word that has a strong negative connotation), and why it is not (reffer to/., IRC, mailinglists and so on).
/The best hackers are not male or female, just hackers. --The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
Once upon a time, there was a dwarf, who in a forrest, collected two branches and put them into a very minimal stack. After collecting the branches, he returned home, telling his friend to go to the forrest, and for each of the branches in the stack, create a new stack with one branch more than there where branches in the original stack, and then return and tell his friend to do the same, and so on, until all of the sitzens of the small village had done his or her duty.
The story above is _totally_ fiction, but describes correctly how to calculate the faculty of the number of dwarfs. This should be possible for all algorithms.
Is this protected speach, even for, say, a crypto alogrithm? --The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
Someone really should write a Gtk Open Look theme! And perheaps a hack for the right-click thingy. Unfourtunately, I don't have the time to doe neither of them... --The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
One thing that is different is that Gtk is themeable. Back then, I liked to use Open Look. The reason is that a) I like the functionality (left mouse selects default menu alternative when clicking on a menu, right mouse really opens it), and b) I like the rounded bevels around selected menu items. I think Motif (And Qt) looks pretty bad, while being such "edged", and c) The borders of Motif are by default set to 2pixels. I personally think that is an over usage of graphical space. I want 1pixel lines everywhere.
All of these, except for the first are solvable using Gtk themes. And the first one should be solvable using the loadable module feature of Gtk.
You might have selected a more diff erent theme (Not to say you where wrong selecting that theme, it proved your point).
I have never programmed Motif, so I have nothing to say about it. But I have programmed under Gtk (And even on Gtk, that is patched the libs to add some functionality (Altough, my patches never made it into the CVS)).
The Gtk API is not that flawed. From my point of view, it really have only one drawback - one that results from it being implemented in a non-oo-language - it does not have multiple inheritance, which have resulted in some partly hackish solutions (It is even mentioned in the code comments).
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
The problem is - if we don't stop saying things that may be used against us by MPAA lawyers, we'l help them. If we stop, they've won. What they want is to have us quiet. And they will use our speach to fight us to get us quiet. It's a lose - lose situation... --The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
No one knows how to do anything until they've attempted trial and error, which is hard in this case, or read the manual. And to read the manual, you must know the feature exists. He didn't know it existed... Now he knows, and will probably quickly learn new shell commands and how to compose scripts, all by himself. --The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
I would say that the OSS community have only failed partly on UIs: GUIs. Compare bash and COMMAND.COM, or GNU long options vs. UNIX options (for command line programs). The textbased GNU tools are _very_ user friendly and powerfull. I once had to rename a large bounch of files, to names made up by parts of their old names, and some new (common to all files) text. Fourtunately, I hade Cygwin installed on the machine, and just did a one-line shell command that used sed to replace the names. The windows user whom I helped was _very_ impressed by how easy it was done. But still, the OSS community have failed when it comes to GUIs. Because there is not single rule of thumb how to use X programs, except copy/paste (Which works fairly well for text, but while it is possible to, no one has implemented it for pictures and other data). It is totally impossible to use X without a mouse - there is no way, that works in all programs, to switch focus from one button to another, or press a button, with the keyboard, like it is in Windows. But GTK and QT is on their way, they only have to team up together to form a uniform user environment build up by heterogeneous programming tools.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
That is to say they're impatient. The result is hundreds of releases of software each day. Some people think this is because we "release early, release often" - I think it's because the programmers didn't know or didn't care enough to make it work correctly the first time and then need to go back and rewrite the code again.
I am involved both in closed source, comercial software developement, and open source developement. And due to the visibility of the code, open source programs some time has to get it right, or someone will complain or fix it. Closed source on the other side, stopas at release two of your list; they get it working better, but the bugs are still there (Losers don't complain about bugs, they just want to play Quake. If the computer BSODs now and then - that's commonplace). You are fairly right that different OSes are good at different things. But then you turn the world upside down and concludes Linux is not nessesarily better than Windows. Here is my personal conclusion of some OSes of today: Linux (and other UNIXes or clones): Stability, networking, programming, multitasking. OS/2: Flexible GUI, multitasking, (programming?). MacOS: easy to use GUI, _easy_. BeOS: video, multitasking, programming. Windows: widely used, many applications. From this list we learns that in fact anything is better than windows for any particular application, as long as the specific user application does exist on the said platform. And last, but not least, Open Source is better because an OSS program can not by any means trade code beauty (maintainability, functionality, robustness, generality) for UI beauty. Of course, the OSS movement still have to learn to code good UIs, too. --The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
I will only comment on one of your point, while you are, in my opinion, right, and insightfull (You are insightfull even on this one, but not totally right):
When given an environment like Java which doesn't allow pointers and other antiquated memory hniques a good dynamic compiler with a modern garbage collector is both faster and more efficient than any hand coded attempt on all but the most simple of applications.
The point is that the average application has inflated enormeous over the years. Thanks to stupid programmers, abstraction and cool languages. You gave the key to this yourself "on all but the most simple of applications"... Not that a good compiler cannot outperform even a good assembly hacker on, for instance, memmory allocation. And not that abstraction in itself must lead to inneficiency, but it makes it inherently easy to allocate/free memory for the programmer, who will then of course allocate/free more memmory. --The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
The reason for that is probably security - as it is set up now, at least someone can not censor you by pretending to be you, they may only send in new material that does not fit in your average opinions, thus clearly noticable by other/.:ers. Perheaps that would be a good idea if/. posts where submitted over SSL or pgp signed, but as it is set up now, all posts are, from a security viewpoint, AC's. --The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
I think the real problem related to this is that, none of the distros (at least the ones I've used), requere any user account to be set up besides the root account at installation time - nor is the user suggested by the install program to do that later on. If users where requered to create an initial account for themselevs, and instructed by the installation program not to use the root account for anything except fro maintainse and program installation, more of the newbies would probably run as unprivilegied users most of the time. In addition, such an installer could ask the user if he/she wants to set up some usefull groups for getting "half-god" privilegies, like write ability to/usr/local and mount ability on/dev/cdrom and/dev/floppy. That sort of privilegies would not comprimise system security much, but restrict the occasions on which a user "su -"'s... --The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
Re:GNU Free Documentation License
on
GPL for Books?
·
· Score: 2
The GNU Free Documentation Licensesuggests that you, if your Manual contains complicated copde examples, should release those under GPL or some other free license, too. Further, it states that you may have some "invariant section", sections licensees are not allowed to modify. I suggest that it allows the author to provide a list of sections to which the GNU GPL applies. This is important, while if someone modifies one of the two copies (The one released under this license and the one released under the GNU GPL), the modifications does not automatically becomes availqable as a part of the other. And likewize, the GNU GPL should include the ability for the original author to release sections of a GPLed work under other licenses (Such as this license), perheaps listed by the FSF. For this idea, or request, I have an example. I am writing a compiler that compiles regular expressions into C-code. The generated C-program should not be GPLed, instaed, I want not to claim any rights to it. But as long as the string constants containing parts of that generated code, remains in the compiler, I want them to be covered by a very GPLish license. Oh, and this may be a non-problem, since the authors of gcc have (from what I know of), solved it in some way or another. --The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
Is there any service, similar to Freshmeat, but for content, where free content (Artistic, PD, OpenContent, etc) may be published? Such a service would be extreemly usefull. --The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
There will be a difference - in a communistic model, everything is decided by The Board Of People. In a monopolistic capitalistic model, everything will be decided by The Board Of Share Holders. But, in the communistic model, The Board have to pretend, at least, to care about the best of the citizens. The Board Of Share holders only have to, and onlys hould, care about the share holders. --The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
I think this type of announcements are not longer different from any announcement on Freshmeat, and should hence be moved over there, perheaps bundled in a pack of tens of them at once. While both/. and Freshmeat are now Andover.net sites, I have seen little or no cooperation between them, at least in the content field (I don't know about code cooperation). This may be regarded as troll, non-/.-ish or whatever, but please read it and think twize, before you moderate or comment. --The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
The only games I know of women who plays are tetris and MUDs, the latter being the most popular. And how much of a market is that for gaming companies? Oh, sorry, I may be clueless, but I don't play games at all. I hack. And the girsl I know of either are not into computers at all, or are hackers, some of them MUD wizards...
You are right there are no such thing as a writer that may write the "hidden" sectors of a DVD. Actually, there are quite few DVD writers at all. DVD RAM, yes, but not real DVD. And those that are able to burn DVDs can burn the hidden sector, altough not by normal IO. But to modify the writer is not harder than modifying your PS to play games from all areas or from home-burned CDs. In fact, decrypting will not help you copy the DVD at all, since you will have to encrypt it with some valid key, too, to make it playable by "normal" players. Just modifying the writer hardware to accept all sectors is much easier.
What distro keeps the init.d directory in/sbin? Not RedHat at least. And an rc.d directory just helps clean up that messy/etc. Altough, you are right in that upgrading from one dist to the next is a bit harder (But not impossible. Just insert a (Net-)boot disk and reboot. Select "upgrade" on the menu, if I recall correct) on RedHat. Anyway, over to the init-thingies: At least you are not using Slaskware, with its broken BSD init (It is not a real BSD init for several reasons, resulting in much dirtier init scripts). And as a last notice - Debian's SysV-init does not have any standardizd means for services to return their status (OK, Failed, Passed). This is a crusial fact that is the single reason besides from that I don't own one more computer to run Debian on, that I haven't ported Aurora to Debian yet...
But there is a difference: Here at/., we have the ability to comment on the articles, to correct Rob and the others. In an ordinary news paper, or worse, TV program, there is no such way, or at least the ability to answer is restricted and all posts are reviewed by the staff of the news paper before they are publushed.
It is sad that they shoosed only to release.rpm-files. If you run Debian, or some other distro, you have to install the RPM system in order to extract the drivers. And they do not provide any source. But, someone here at/., hinted that these drivers where not developed by Dell, but by others, so that the source is out there for you, just not on Dell's site. Is this correct? Anyway, it is quite strange that the site mentions the format of the drivers to be "i75alna0.rpm - Non-Packaged - This file format is used for files that have no specific installation mechanism, or where an installation mechanism is not applicable.":)
The big thing is it is a microkernel design. The difference is that, while a monolithic kernel (e.g. Linux) is one large program that serves up everything from task switching to video (Frame Buffers), a microkernel (Mach) serves only memory management, task switching and inter process communication (IPC). Everything else is served by "servers" that are requested for services through the IPC. While Linux provides for kernel modules, the implementation of them are not as nice and general as the implementation of servers. Each server may run in its own memory space (Is this the case with Hurd?), providing for security (A crashing video driver won't crash the harddrive driver). Linux kernel modules, however are linked into the kernel, just as any dynamic library is loaded into an ordinary program. In addition to this, a micro kernel design provides a lot more flexibility for future extensions. In a/. article some weaks ago, there was an argumentation agains micro kernel design, and the entire micro kernel reserach. The article argumented that monolithic kernels have proved by practice that they work and are prortable and scalable. While this is true, it is true too, that you may create anything using only assembly language, and even succed to create a stable and extensible program. But you still do use C, Ada, LISP, Erlang, Python, Perl and everybody elses' pet language (Not to forget any of them!).
As long as hacker's codes the games and apps, it's going to be hacker oriented. And most hackers are males. I hope that the trend is not the decrease of hackerish software, but the increase of female hackers. But that's perheaps to ask for to much. I know of a few female hackers, and sure they are treated by all other hackers just as hackers, not "female hackers". But for some reason, females tend not to like to dedicate their lives to one thing. They tend to have that stuff rarewly existing among haceksr called "life":)
Oh, no, there are a lot of lone small girls. But when a girl gets teased, she starts reading, while a boy starts hacking (And I did both). Of course, this is not a rule, it's just the _trend_. Why's this?
When it comes to be a loner in 6th grade or so, I think there is a majority of females. Young females uses a freeze out and talk chit about tactic, while yong males uses physical violence, to conserve and build hierarchies.
And don't just answer that I'm a missinformed, hierchy-building violent male, because the only word that matches me in that description is male. Please! Please give me a logical explanation!
Slashdot Mirror
Firstly, there is only a small precentage of all people who zare able to become hackers. Of both sexes. So to maximize the number of hackers (which is needed in order for the human race to enter maturity :), we can not be without the females. /., IRC, mailinglists and so on).
/The best hackers are not male or female, just hackers.
Secondly, I don't beleave that the problem that has caused so many girls not to become hackers is that the male hackers are offencive to them. I think it's the rest of the society. A boy is more allowed to sit down and hack, beacuse his father probably built crystal recievers (Is that the english word for those very simple radio recievers?) at the same age, and will think it's just the same thing (Which is partly is, but not fully, hacking is so much more than just building something cool for yourself to use), while I girl will be regarded as strange if she turns away from the rest of the youngsters and hacks, while her mother (and others) will not have any similar activity performed by themselves as young, to recognize it as.
I beleave the best we can do to help anyone to become a hacker, male of female, is to tell his/her parents/friends/whoever that this is important and good for the boy/girl, and especially, explain that it is not "antisocial beheaviour" (A trend word that has a strong negative connotation), and why it is not (reffer to
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
Once upon a time, there was a dwarf, who in a forrest, collected two branches and put them into a very minimal stack. After collecting the branches, he returned home, telling his friend to go to the forrest, and for each of the branches in the stack, create a new stack with one branch more than there where branches in the original stack, and then return and tell his friend to do the same, and so on, until all of the sitzens of the small village had done his or her duty.
The story above is _totally_ fiction, but describes correctly how to calculate the faculty of the number of dwarfs. This should be possible for all algorithms.
Is this protected speach, even for, say, a crypto alogrithm?
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
Someone really should write a Gtk Open Look theme! And perheaps a hack for the right-click thingy. Unfourtunately, I don't have the time to doe neither of them...
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
One thing that is different is that Gtk is themeable. Back then, I liked to use Open Look. The reason is that
a) I like the functionality (left mouse selects default menu alternative when clicking on a menu, right mouse really opens it), and
b) I like the rounded bevels around selected menu items. I think Motif (And Qt) looks pretty bad, while being such "edged", and
c) The borders of Motif are by default set to 2pixels. I personally think that is an over usage of graphical space. I want 1pixel lines everywhere.
All of these, except for the first are solvable using Gtk themes. And the first one should be solvable using the loadable module feature of Gtk.
You might have selected a more diff erent theme (Not to say you where wrong selecting that theme, it proved your point).
I have never programmed Motif, so I have nothing to say about it. But I have programmed under Gtk (And even on Gtk, that is patched the libs to add some functionality (Altough, my patches never made it into the CVS)).
The Gtk API is not that flawed. From my point of view, it really have only one drawback - one that results from it being implemented in a non-oo-language - it does not have multiple inheritance, which have resulted in some partly hackish solutions (It is even mentioned in the code comments).
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
The problem is - if we don't stop saying things that may be used against us by MPAA lawyers, we'l help them. If we stop, they've won. What they want is to have us quiet. And they will use our speach to fight us to get us quiet. It's a lose - lose situation...
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
No one knows how to do anything until they've attempted trial and error, which is hard in this case, or read the manual. And to read the manual, you must know the feature exists. He didn't know it existed... Now he knows, and will probably quickly learn new shell commands and how to compose scripts, all by himself.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
I would say that the OSS community have only failed partly on UIs: GUIs. Compare bash and COMMAND.COM, or GNU long options vs. UNIX options (for command line programs). The textbased GNU tools are _very_ user friendly and powerfull. I once had to rename a large bounch of files, to names made up by parts of their old names, and some new (common to all files) text. Fourtunately, I hade Cygwin installed on the machine, and just did a one-line shell command that used sed to replace the names. The windows user whom I helped was _very_ impressed by how easy it was done.
But still, the OSS community have failed when it comes to GUIs. Because there is not single rule of thumb how to use X programs, except copy/paste (Which works fairly well for text, but while it is possible to, no one has implemented it for pictures and other data). It is totally impossible to use X without a mouse - there is no way, that works in all programs, to switch focus from one button to another, or press a button, with the keyboard, like it is in Windows. But GTK and QT is on their way, they only have to team up together to form a uniform user environment build up by heterogeneous programming tools.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
You are fairly right that different OSes are good at different things. But then you turn the world upside down and concludes Linux is not nessesarily better than Windows. Here is my personal conclusion of some OSes of today: Linux (and other UNIXes or clones): Stability, networking, programming, multitasking. OS/2: Flexible GUI, multitasking, (programming?). MacOS: easy to use GUI, _easy_. BeOS: video, multitasking, programming. Windows: widely used, many applications. From this list we learns that in fact anything is better than windows for any particular application, as long as the specific user application does exist on the said platform.
And last, but not least, Open Source is better because an OSS program can not by any means trade code beauty (maintainability, functionality, robustness, generality) for UI beauty. Of course, the OSS movement still have to learn to code good UIs, too.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
Not that a good compiler cannot outperform even a good assembly hacker on, for instance, memmory allocation. And not that abstraction in itself must lead to inneficiency, but it makes it inherently easy to allocate/free memory for the programmer, who will then of course allocate/free more memmory.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
The reason for that is probably security - as it is set up now, at least someone can not censor you by pretending to be you, they may only send in new material that does not fit in your average opinions, thus clearly noticable by other /.:ers. /. posts where submitted over SSL or pgp signed, but as it is set up now, all posts are, from a security viewpoint, AC's.
Perheaps that would be a good idea if
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
I think the real problem related to this is that, none of the distros (at least the ones I've used), requere any user account to be set up besides the root account at installation time - nor is the user suggested by the install program to do that later on. If users where requered to create an initial account for themselevs, and instructed by the installation program not to use the root account for anything except fro maintainse and program installation, more of the newbies would probably run as unprivilegied users most of the time. In addition, such an installer could ask the user if he/she wants to set up some usefull groups for getting "half-god" privilegies, like write ability to /usr/local and mount ability on /dev/cdrom and /dev/floppy. That sort of privilegies would not comprimise system security much, but restrict the occasions on which a user "su -"'s...
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
The GNU Free Documentation Licensesuggests that you, if your Manual contains complicated copde examples, should release those under GPL or some other free license, too. Further, it states that you may have some "invariant section", sections licensees are not allowed to modify. I suggest that it allows the author to provide a list of sections to which the GNU GPL applies.
This is important, while if someone modifies one of the two copies (The one released under this license and the one released under the GNU GPL), the modifications does not automatically becomes availqable as a part of the other.
And likewize, the GNU GPL should include the ability for the original author to release sections of a GPLed work under other licenses (Such as this license), perheaps listed by the FSF. For this idea, or request, I have an example. I am writing a compiler that compiles regular expressions into C-code. The generated C-program should not be GPLed, instaed, I want not to claim any rights to it. But as long as the string constants containing parts of that generated code, remains in the compiler, I want them to be covered by a very GPLish license.
Oh, and this may be a non-problem, since the authors of gcc have (from what I know of), solved it in some way or another.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
Is there any service, similar to Freshmeat, but for content, where free content (Artistic, PD, OpenContent, etc) may be published? Such a service would be extreemly usefull.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
There will be a difference - in a communistic model, everything is decided by The Board Of People. In a monopolistic capitalistic model, everything will be decided by The Board Of Share Holders. But, in the communistic model, The Board have to pretend, at least, to care about the best of the citizens. The Board Of Share holders only have to, and onlys hould, care about the share holders.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
I think this type of announcements are not longer different from any announcement on Freshmeat, and should hence be moved over there, perheaps bundled in a pack of tens of them at once. /. and Freshmeat are now Andover.net sites, I have seen little or no cooperation between them, at least in the content field (I don't know about code cooperation).
While both
This may be regarded as troll, non-/.-ish or whatever, but please read it and think twize, before you moderate or comment.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
The only games I know of women who plays are tetris and MUDs, the latter being the most popular. And how much of a market is that for gaming companies? Oh, sorry, I may be clueless, but I don't play games at all. I hack. And the girsl I know of either are not into computers at all, or are hackers, some of them MUD wizards...
You are right there are no such thing as a writer that may write the "hidden" sectors of a DVD. Actually, there are quite few DVD writers at all. DVD RAM, yes, but not real DVD. And those that are able to burn DVDs can burn the hidden sector, altough not by normal IO. But to modify the writer is not harder than modifying your PS to play games from all areas or from home-burned CDs. In fact, decrypting will not help you copy the DVD at all, since you will have to encrypt it with some valid key, too, to make it playable by "normal" players. Just modifying the writer hardware to accept all sectors is much easier.
What distro keeps the init.d directory in /sbin? Not RedHat at least. And an rc.d directory just helps clean up that messy /etc. Altough, you are right in that upgrading from one dist to the next is a bit harder (But not impossible. Just insert a (Net-)boot disk and reboot. Select "upgrade" on the menu, if I recall correct) on RedHat. Anyway, over to the init-thingies: At least you are not using Slaskware, with its broken BSD init (It is not a real BSD init for several reasons, resulting in much dirtier init scripts). And as a last notice - Debian's SysV-init does not have any standardizd means for services to return their status (OK, Failed, Passed). This is a crusial fact that is the single reason besides from that I don't own one more computer to run Debian on, that I haven't ported Aurora to Debian yet...
But there is a difference: Here at /., we have the ability to comment on the articles, to correct Rob and the others. In an ordinary news paper, or worse, TV program, there is no such way, or at least the ability to answer is restricted and all posts are reviewed by the staff of the news paper before they are publushed.
It is sad that they shoosed only to release .rpm-files. If you run Debian, or some other distro, you have to install the RPM system in order to extract the drivers. And they do not provide any source. But, someone here at /., hinted that these drivers where not developed by Dell, but by others, so that the source is out there for you, just not on Dell's site. Is this correct? :)
Anyway, it is quite strange that the site mentions the format of the drivers to be "i75alna0.rpm - Non-Packaged - This file format is used for files that have no specific installation mechanism, or where an installation mechanism is not applicable."
The big thing is it is a microkernel design. The difference is that, while a monolithic kernel (e.g. Linux) is one large program that serves up everything from task switching to video (Frame Buffers), a microkernel (Mach) serves only memory management, task switching and inter process communication (IPC). Everything else is served by "servers" that are requested for services through the IPC. /. article some weaks ago, there was an argumentation agains micro kernel design, and the entire micro kernel reserach. The article argumented that monolithic kernels have proved by practice that they work and are prortable and scalable. While this is true, it is true too, that you may create anything using only assembly language, and even succed to create a stable and extensible program. But you still do use C, Ada, LISP, Erlang, Python, Perl and everybody elses' pet language (Not to forget any of them!).
While Linux provides for kernel modules, the implementation of them are not as nice and general as the implementation of servers.
Each server may run in its own memory space (Is this the case with Hurd?), providing for security (A crashing video driver won't crash the harddrive driver). Linux kernel modules, however are linked into the kernel, just as any dynamic library is loaded into an ordinary program.
In addition to this, a micro kernel design provides a lot more flexibility for future extensions.
In a
That depends on the value of PS1. He may have PS1 set to "[\u@\h \w]$"... But yes, "[\u@\h \w]\$" may be more commonly in use... :)
As long as hacker's codes the games and apps, it's going to be hacker oriented. And most hackers are males. I hope that the trend is not the decrease of hackerish software, but the increase of female hackers. But that's perheaps to ask for to much. I know of a few female hackers, and sure they are treated by all other hackers just as hackers, not "female hackers". But for some reason, females tend not to like to dedicate their lives to one thing. They tend to have that stuff rarewly existing among haceksr called "life" :)
Oh, no, there are a lot of lone small girls. But when a girl gets teased, she starts reading, while a boy starts hacking (And I did both). Of course, this is not a rule, it's just the _trend_. Why's this?
When it comes to be a loner in 6th grade or so, I think there is a majority of females. Young females uses a freeze out and talk chit about tactic, while yong males uses physical violence, to conserve and build hierarchies.
And don't just answer that I'm a missinformed, hierchy-building violent male, because the only word that matches me in that description is male. Please! Please give me a logical explanation!
Sure, but it is strange, their HTML is generated by a program from wml, running as _root_! Perheaps it is run by cron, but it's still a bit strange...