It's got all the goodies of Debian, is more up to date, and has an easy install process... What more could a man want? (except perhaps an ICBM or two).
yeah, but it depends how you measure performance... If you are talking merely of processing speed (even including factors like memory bandwith, I/O, etc etc etc), then intel beats sun on price/performance no worries...
However, you often need to consider the need for scalability, reallyreally good uptime, support for old machines a few years down the track (and parts availability), and so on. Even the way that performance degrades as load increases can be a differentiating factor. The extra $$$ you spend on Sun gear certainly does get you more, but the question is whether that is worth paying for in your situation...
rr
Breaking Console economics
on
PS2 As PC
·
· Score: 2
If consoles get used as PCs, their price will increase to around that of PCs. There is nothing (apart from perhaps volume) about a console that makes it intrinsically cheaper than a PC... The only reason they are cheaper is that they make the money from gaming licences... and if the platform is open, that revenue stream dissappears, and hence, the hardware price increases. Not that this is a bad thing neccessarily...
Supposing I was wanting to donate some cash to "the kernel hackers"... how would I do that? I have no need nor desire to find out who did what, or how much they did, or whose code I personally use, I just want to donate to them generally. How would I do that? I don't wish to donate to any organisation defending or promoting free software, and I don't want to donate directly to the lead developers, I just want to contribute to paying the individual developers for their time.
While one persons' donation like this wouldn't be of consequence, many people's may. Is there an organisation set up to distribute donations to developers equitably? Is it possible? Sensible?
There's nothing quite so satisfying as debugging yet another kernel module whilst being serially massaged by two dozen of your finest wives.
Nah, seriously, I have one of those ergonomic back chairs (it doesn't work) and I get up and stretch every so often (nor does that). Sometimes I try to massage myself (in leiu of having a harem), but unfortunately, my arms are not as flexible as they used to be, and I find that anything further away than my mouse is hard to reach...
IMHO, what is needed here is a full versioning filesystem. Something like Katie, written by Geoffrey Bennett, of Windows Refund fame... I believe it's still fairly primative, but perhaps if people like it, they could contribute:).
Certainly, when something like this is available, production-ready, and fast enough, I would choose to use it on all my boxes...
For your next task you must build a table out of materials you find around the ISS. You will be gambling 25% of your oxygen supply on this task. The person who is voted to have contributed most to the building of the table will be granted immunity from ejection...
A lot of the problem here stems from developers churning out products that aren't finished. They are often under-engineered, and developed in a haphazard manner, with no process whatsoever. If software was developed in a manner like most other products (even hardware), then we would find that there is a lot less call for tech support. Of course, this doens't help in the case of the user who breaks his cupholder...:)
While the laws in Australia seem quite strict, my personal experience has been that they have no effect apart from a small tinge of guilt on occassions... However, I'm not exactly running a kiddyporn site, so I'm not really running from the laws or anything... Anyway, point is that they don't really affect my daily life, due to the fact that I'm not doing much illegal anyway and the fact that the internet is so unrestrictable...
Yahoo's ex-CEO, Tim Koogle, signs up with Google... Mr Koogle says "I categorically deny that my taking on the role of CEO of Google has anything at all to do with Google's plans to change its name to Koogle".
The debian policy, in my experience, produces better, more consistent packages.
Due to this consistency, apt-get and so on are made possible. I haven't tried the various tricks that are used to get apt-get working with rpm, but given my previous experience, I don't see them as being likely to work. I could be wrong here.
ie, the policy enables the technology to work. I assure you that I understand the difference between the two, but I am not convinced that you understand the link... make sense?
Evidently you don't get it. It's not about the tools (apt-get/dpkg vs rpm) but about the policies that make the Debian system so consistent and stable. This is the reason why rpm-based apt-get will still suck.
evidently I got a few things wrong there... However, the point I am making still stands. The point is that it's debian's policies that make the dpkg and apt-get system easier to use than the various rpm systems. If the same policies were strictly applied to rpms (as you claim SuSE does), then they would be as good (except that apt-get and dpkg rock:). Still, the dominance of RedHat and the incompatibility between the RPM based distros doesn't bode well for rpm in my books.
Surely people can see that the MS monopoly is beginning to fall. While I agree that illegal business practices should be stopped (certain licensing deals, etc), I seriously think that the best punishment for a bad monopoly is competition. This competition is comming through some _serious_ innovation -- innovation on the most fundamental level... licensing. As long as MS doesn't stop GPL'd software, which they can't do legally, they will lose eventually. Splitting MS is innappropriate and unneccessary.
is not actually the fact that apt-get is not comparable to RPM, but the fact that Debian has a strict policy on package dependencies. The main difficulty with porting apt-get to RPM (and in fact, the main difficulty with any automated system for RPM) is that there are no standards about how to make your rpms. You just do it whatever way you wnat. RedHat themselves don't conform to the LSB filesystem standard, which doesn't help. IMHO, any packaging system must have complete and strict dependencies, and policies on these so that a package is not valid unless it's correct and pretty damned complete, and it must comply with the LSB as much as practicable. Debian does this, no RPM distros do. Hence, Debian is easier to maintain.
I don't think readers of this comment quite got what I meant... firstly, who says you can't be religious and scientific? You can cook and program, can't you? Personally, I am religious, scientific, and I cook and program. I don't do any all that well, but I do them.
Secondly, they're not the same. They can be treated similarly, but they are not the same. Science is about gaining knowledge from first principles. Religion (in my view) is about relationship. When studying science, you have to make certain assumptions (effectively materialism, as in "the only things that exist are the physical, material things"), otherwise things don't make sense. What sort of use would science be if we all sat down and said "oh, God makes the plants grow" and left it at that? Equally, saying "God doesn't exist because Science says so" is a circular argument.
To the person who talked about skills, you are partly right. However, Religion and Science (cooking and programming) require different skills as well, and work from different assumptions.
Finally, the person who talked about the same knowledge domains, yeah, it's kinda true. However, still it's different. Science and Religion both touch on the creation of the universe, but they cover different aspects of it. As long as you don't screw up your basic assumtions, you get practically useful info about processes that are happening now from science, and you get your knowledge about your relationship with God from Religion.
Hence, Science and Religion are not related at all. I personally beleive in evolution, big bang and so on, as well as beleiving that God created the world ~6000 years ago as written in the bible. I see no conflict, as the scientific view is based on a materialist world view, and is useful for learning about how things work, changing things, building things, and so on, and the religious veiw is based on my relationship with god, and is useful for living my life.
I think I'll stop here, as it's getting OT -- feel free to email me to carry on...
are like Computers and Cooking -- they have no business with each other. The difference is that Scientists think they can apply what they know to religion, and religious people think they can apply what they know to science. A Pastry Chef would not try applying his/her cooking knowledge to a Kernel Patch, and a Samba coder would not try applying his/her C knowledge to a pasta dish...
Scientists discover Beer and Pizza in distant galaxies, along with signs of Caffeine in various forms. It seems that it is possible, or even likely, that there either is, was or will be, vast quantities of Geeks in Space...
No, you missed the point -- the point is that you _can_ _prove_
that there is no real number such that... etc..., not that we
can't find it. I can _prove_ that we can't find it by proving it
doesn't exist.
Another eg is that I can prove that there is no largest natural number:
Axiom: Any natural number added to any other natural number gives
a natural number
Assume there is a largest natural number, N.
therefore, N + 1 is a natural number, but seeing as N is the
largest natural number, N > N + 1
But that implies that 0 > 1, which is false, hence there is no
largest natural number.
Of course, yes, this is within the confines of mathematics as
defined by the axioms, and so on, but this goes without saying...
Removing the basic axioms (the natural number system, etc)
renders the whole framework of mathematics unworkable.
BTW: Assumptions and axioms are different -- axioms are things
that are always true, whereas assumptions are things that we
assume to be true right now for the purpose of whatever we are doing.
Anyway, point is that it IS possible to prove that something
can't be done. It's a common practice in mathematics, and can be
done for simple or complex things.
Slashdot Mirror
rr
However, you often need to consider the need for scalability, reallyreally good uptime, support for old machines a few years down the track (and parts availability), and so on. Even the way that performance degrades as load increases can be a differentiating factor. The extra $$$ you spend on Sun gear certainly does get you more, but the question is whether that is worth paying for in your situation...
rr
rr
rr
While one persons' donation like this wouldn't be of consequence, many people's may. Is there an organisation set up to distribute donations to developers equitably? Is it possible? Sensible?
rr
If you want to make sure that the hackers eat (or even can afford new cars), then donate to the hackers, not the companies.
Nah, seriously, I have one of those ergonomic back chairs (it doesn't work) and I get up and stretch every so often (nor does that). Sometimes I try to massage myself (in leiu of having a harem), but unfortunately, my arms are not as flexible as they used to be, and I find that anything further away than my mouse is hard to reach...
PS Maybe this would be a good Poll?
Certainly, when something like this is available, production-ready, and fast enough, I would choose to use it on all my boxes...
rr
rr
rr
rr
rr
- The debian policy, in my experience, produces better, more consistent packages.
- Due to this consistency, apt-get and so on are made possible. I haven't tried the various tricks that are used to get apt-get working with rpm, but given my previous experience, I don't see them as being likely to work. I could be wrong here.
ie, the policy enables the technology to work. I assure you that I understand the difference between the two, but I am not convinced that you understand the link... make sense?rr
rr
rr
rr
rr
rr
Secondly, they're not the same. They can be treated similarly, but they are not the same. Science is about gaining knowledge from first principles. Religion (in my view) is about relationship. When studying science, you have to make certain assumptions (effectively materialism, as in "the only things that exist are the physical, material things"), otherwise things don't make sense. What sort of use would science be if we all sat down and said "oh, God makes the plants grow" and left it at that? Equally, saying "God doesn't exist because Science says so" is a circular argument.
To the person who talked about skills, you are partly right. However, Religion and Science (cooking and programming) require different skills as well, and work from different assumptions.
Finally, the person who talked about the same knowledge domains, yeah, it's kinda true. However, still it's different. Science and Religion both touch on the creation of the universe, but they cover different aspects of it. As long as you don't screw up your basic assumtions, you get practically useful info about processes that are happening now from science, and you get your knowledge about your relationship with God from Religion.
Hence, Science and Religion are not related at all. I personally beleive in evolution, big bang and so on, as well as beleiving that God created the world ~6000 years ago as written in the bible. I see no conflict, as the scientific view is based on a materialist world view, and is useful for learning about how things work, changing things, building things, and so on, and the religious veiw is based on my relationship with god, and is useful for living my life.
I think I'll stop here, as it's getting OT -- feel free to email me to carry on...
rr
I sigh in your general direction.
rr
rr
rr
Another eg is that I can prove that there is no largest natural number:
Axiom: Any natural number added to any other natural number gives a natural number
Assume there is a largest natural number, N.
therefore, N + 1 is a natural number, but seeing as N is the largest natural number, N > N + 1
But that implies that 0 > 1, which is false, hence there is no largest natural number.
Of course, yes, this is within the confines of mathematics as defined by the axioms, and so on, but this goes without saying... Removing the basic axioms (the natural number system, etc) renders the whole framework of mathematics unworkable.
BTW: Assumptions and axioms are different -- axioms are things that are always true, whereas assumptions are things that we assume to be true right now for the purpose of whatever we are doing.
Anyway, point is that it IS possible to prove that something can't be done. It's a common practice in mathematics, and can be done for simple or complex things.
rr
reads earlier story...
oh... :(
rr