That's Japanese for "Attack! Attack! Attack!" and it seems to be the mantra of the right. No, not the right, there are smart right-wingers who actually acknowledge that there are real environmental problems we can't ignore. After all, doesn't conservativism have some connection with conservation?
Let's call them the Lazy Right. Coming up with arguments is too much work, so all they want to talk about is how stupid and evil liberals are. If you cite evidence that glaciers are receding, they'll tell you Al Gore can't keep his facts straight. Suggest that GWB's anti-terror strategy is a disaster, and they'll respond with some nonsense about Barack Obama's real name. I once posted a comment on Amazon casting doubt on the whole EMP peril thing, and somebody who disagreed with me said "The only thing you've proven to me is that there really are dire consequences to having hyper-obsequious mothers who breast feed their children until they're 11."
Come one people. Maybe you're right, and we're wrong. But you'll never know until you give up all the stupid trolling and start having a real argument.
And yes, I know, there are liberals that do it too. I don't think they're in charge of the left. And even if they are, how does that justify responding in kind?
Where? Mine cost $35. Had to have one, because my laptop has no serial ports, and I was writing administrative manuals for Sun servers. The fact that I needed a serial port despite the extremely sophisticated alternatives to a serial console on Sun servers should tell you something.
I remember Telix. Excellent piece of software. Fast, good scripting language, excellent built-in file transfer implementations, nice plugin architecture (though the builtin features pretty much made it it superfluous). My biggest disappointment was that it didn't get ported to Windows until way too late. And there still isn't a Windows serial terminal program that's half as good.
Amusing discovery running Telix under Windows 3.0. When I first tried it, it was slow as hell. Increasing the DOS box priority didn't help. Then it occurred to me that the whole program must be written around a serial port polling loop. Querying hardware status too often in a 386 virtual machine was bound to slow the program down. So I lowered the priority, and Telix started running as fast as before.
Of course I used teletype. Except for batch machines, for which I used a keypunch. And of course with punched media, there's no such thing as a delete key. (Shudder.) Don't think for a moment that I'm the teeniest bit nostalgic!
You should be so lucky! I live in an alternate continuum where TVs have to be started by rubbing two glass tubes together and the phrase "you should be so lucky" actually means "I should be so lucky".
...don't know how good you got it. The first computer I learned to boot was a PDP-8 with no boot rom. The only mass storage medium was punched paper tape. Booting consisted of setting the front panel switches so that the first few bytes of RAM contained a program that said "read the paper tape and execute it". Then you loaded the OS tape into the reader, prayed that it wouldn't jam or tear, pressed a button and waited a couple minutes.
Should have RTFA. If we're talking an IBM mainframe, then you're certainly right. I cut my programming teeth on those 40 years ago (and haven't been near one in 35), and the basic architecure is still around, though many details have changed. In fact, I've long been convinced that this kind of need for backward compatibility is the only reason people still buy mainframes. Though there are those who are convinced they're fundamentally kewler.
The problem is probably as much political as bureaucratic, if not more so. An upgrade of this magnitude is when you hear "soo-ee! soo-ee!" echoing through the halls of Congress.
I could point out that the cost of replacing this mainframe would mostly involve rewriting its applications to run on modern hardware. But then you'd be deprived of your joke, even if it is a pretty lame one.
If you don't trust black boxes, you're in the wrong line of work. Do you check the object code generated by your C++ compiler? How about the code in all libraries? Do you really trust the OS to do what the system call documentation says it does?
I'm not saying you should blindly trust black boxes. But your trust should be based on proper QA procedures and testing. If you think you can "improve" a black box by poking around with it, you're undoing the work of people who know a lot more about how it's supposed to work than you do.
Unless, of course, you think those people are idiots and their work is crap. But in that case, why are you using it at all?
Like in driving, it's often stupid and dangerous to fight *ssholes by acting like one yourself, thinking you're going to teach them a lesson.
Very true, though it takes more willpower accept this idea than most people have.
I run an open AP named "nohup", since it's on a UPS and is often the only one still running when the power goes out. (Unfortunately, Verizon FIOS's upstream UPS goes out after 5-10 minutes nowadays
And a good thing it does. The lead-acid batteries in most UPSs wear out quickly if you keep running them down. Up go your replacement costs and the risk the UPS isn't there when you really need to do a clean shutdown.
By now, it has become evident that we are facing an energy problem -- while our primary sources of energy are running out, the demand for energy is greatly increasing.
Evident to you and me, maybe. But there are lots of folks who insist that all these issues can be explained away. A lot of them follow Slashdot, and I'm a little surprised they haven't already chimed in.
By now, it has become evident that we are facing an energy problem -- while our primary sources of energy are running out, the demand for energy is greatly increasing.
Evident to you and me, maybe. But there are lots of folks who insist that all these issues can be explained away. A lot of them follow Slashdot, and I'm a little surprised they haven't already chimed in.
Uh, did The Atlantic actually use your letter? I'm guessing not, since you reproduced it in full. In which case mentioning that you submitted it to them is a rather lame attempt to inflate its importance.
The post you quoted wasn't one of mine. I'll assume you meant to quote the post you replied to.
Many attempts? All you're citing is two angry posts on a blog I've never heard of.
The speakup driver in the Linux kernel is required to use the speech-synthesis devices. SunOS doesn't work with them.
And there's no reason it should. Not if you're only using it as a server. You were talking about watching the BIOS and OS startup messages over a serial port. If you're doing that, what good does speech synthesis support in the server OS do you? The place you need speech synthesis is in the terminal software you're using to monitor the serial port.
1. Can you be more specific? 2. This is not the place for my life story. 3. Because Linux works best for me as a server OS, and Windows works best for me as a desktop OS.
If you're interested, I'll explain answer 3. Note that "interest" is not the same as "needs to be saved from that evil demon Microsoft" I have no interest in re-fighting old flame wars.
What, Oracle is suppose to document their reasons for every engineer they lay off? Get real.
Blind sys-admins are able to slap speech synthesizers on the serial ports of Linux servers, and hear boot messages. If a server fully boots, is on the internet, running sshd, then it's not a problem. However, to hear the blind sys-admins describe it, if the machine boots that far, the problem is probably already solved.
You seem to be saying that blind sysadmins don't need the OS to provide accessibility support. If so, why is this even an issue?
Actually, Oracle does need to provide accessibility support for all its products, or else forget about selling them in the U.S. It's just that the accessibility supported needed for the base OS is pretty low. It's the applications that run on the OS that need serious accessibility features, not the OS itself.
I suppose I have an advantage in that I started out doing everything in Unix, then was forced to switch to DOS and Windows, then went back and forth many times over the years.
Still, there are a lot of Linux/Unix servers out there. Sun, IBM, HP, even Dell sell them by the ton. And they're mostly administered by people whose main desktop is Windows. I've seen this first hand, at hardware manufacturers (including Sun!) and big Linux-centric data centers. There's a concept impedance there that makes going back and forth a pain (every once in a while I type "rm" when I mean "del" and vice-versa). But it's not insurmountable.
Slashdot Mirror
You defend TTT with more TTT. How lame is that?
That's Japanese for "Attack! Attack! Attack!" and it seems to be the mantra of the right. No, not the right, there are smart right-wingers who actually acknowledge that there are real environmental problems we can't ignore. After all, doesn't conservativism have some connection with conservation?
Let's call them the Lazy Right. Coming up with arguments is too much work, so all they want to talk about is how stupid and evil liberals are. If you cite evidence that glaciers are receding, they'll tell you Al Gore can't keep his facts straight. Suggest that GWB's anti-terror strategy is a disaster, and they'll respond with some nonsense about Barack Obama's real name. I once posted a comment on Amazon casting doubt on the whole EMP peril thing, and somebody who disagreed with me said "The only thing you've proven to me is that there really are dire consequences to having hyper-obsequious mothers who breast feed their children until they're 11."
Come one people. Maybe you're right, and we're wrong. But you'll never know until you give up all the stupid trolling and start having a real argument.
And yes, I know, there are liberals that do it too. I don't think they're in charge of the left. And even if they are, how does that justify responding in kind?
Where? Mine cost $35. Had to have one, because my laptop has no serial ports, and I was writing administrative manuals for Sun servers. The fact that I needed a serial port despite the extremely sophisticated alternatives to a serial console on Sun servers should tell you something.
I remember Telix. Excellent piece of software. Fast, good scripting language, excellent built-in file transfer implementations, nice plugin architecture (though the builtin features pretty much made it it superfluous). My biggest disappointment was that it didn't get ported to Windows until way too late. And there still isn't a Windows serial terminal program that's half as good.
Amusing discovery running Telix under Windows 3.0. When I first tried it, it was slow as hell. Increasing the DOS box priority didn't help. Then it occurred to me that the whole program must be written around a serial port polling loop. Querying hardware status too often in a 386 virtual machine was bound to slow the program down. So I lowered the priority, and Telix started running as fast as before.
Of course I used teletype. Except for batch machines, for which I used a keypunch. And of course with punched media, there's no such thing as a delete key. (Shudder.) Don't think for a moment that I'm the teeniest bit nostalgic!
You should be so lucky! I live in an alternate continuum where TVs have to be started by rubbing two glass tubes together and the phrase "you should be so lucky" actually means "I should be so lucky".
I don't actually find the boot time all that annoying. Certainly not as annoying as the LCD's piss-poor viewing angle and the cruddy tuner.
The word I used was "sad". I mean, a consumer product that can't turn on as quickly as a computer? Somebody should be ashamed!
...don't know how good you got it. The first computer I learned to boot was a PDP-8 with no boot rom. The only mass storage medium was punched paper tape. Booting consisted of setting the front panel switches so that the first few bytes of RAM contained a program that said "read the paper tape and execute it". Then you loaded the OS tape into the reader, prayed that it wouldn't jam or tear, pressed a button and waited a couple minutes.
But don't do both at the same time...
(Dude we're discussing boot times, not whining. Chill out.)
It's not so much the loss of TV time as the gain of thumb-twiddling time....
You guess right! Fellow victim?
I just bought a cheap digital TV that takes almost 5 seconds to boot. Sad.
Of course I got modded down, but it doesn't matter. Virtue is its own reward!
Should have RTFA. If we're talking an IBM mainframe, then you're certainly right. I cut my programming teeth on those 40 years ago (and haven't been near one in 35), and the basic architecure is still around, though many details have changed. In fact, I've long been convinced that this kind of need for backward compatibility is the only reason people still buy mainframes. Though there are those who are convinced they're fundamentally kewler.
The problem is probably as much political as bureaucratic, if not more so. An upgrade of this magnitude is when you hear "soo-ee! soo-ee!" echoing through the halls of Congress.
Good point. I think even the oldest IBM mainframes are still around in emulator form.
I could point out that the cost of replacing this mainframe would mostly involve rewriting its applications to run on modern hardware. But then you'd be deprived of your joke, even if it is a pretty lame one.
If you don't trust black boxes, you're in the wrong line of work. Do you check the object code generated by your C++ compiler? How about the code in all libraries? Do you really trust the OS to do what the system call documentation says it does?
I'm not saying you should blindly trust black boxes. But your trust should be based on proper QA procedures and testing. If you think you can "improve" a black box by poking around with it, you're undoing the work of people who know a lot more about how it's supposed to work than you do.
Unless, of course, you think those people are idiots and their work is crap. But in that case, why are you using it at all?
Like in driving, it's often stupid and dangerous to fight *ssholes by acting like one yourself, thinking you're going to teach them a lesson.
Very true, though it takes more willpower accept this idea than most people have.
I run an open AP named "nohup", since it's on a UPS and is often the only one still running when the power goes out. (Unfortunately, Verizon FIOS's upstream UPS goes out after 5-10 minutes nowadays
And a good thing it does. The lead-acid batteries in most UPSs wear out quickly if you keep running them down. Up go your replacement costs and the risk the UPS isn't there when you really need to do a clean shutdown.
By now, it has become evident that we are facing an energy problem -- while our primary sources of energy are running out, the demand for energy is greatly increasing.
Evident to you and me, maybe. But there are lots of folks who insist that all these issues can be explained away. A lot of them follow Slashdot, and I'm a little surprised they haven't already chimed in.
(Forgive the double post. Should have previewed.)
By now, it has become evident that we are facing an energy problem -- while our primary sources of energy are running out, the demand for energy is greatly increasing.
Evident to you and me, maybe. But there are lots of folks who insist that all these issues can be explained away. A lot of them follow Slashdot, and I'm a little surprised they haven't already chimed in.
Uh, did The Atlantic actually use your letter? I'm guessing not, since you reproduced it in full. In which case mentioning that you submitted it to them is a rather lame attempt to inflate its importance.
The post you quoted wasn't one of mine. I'll assume you meant to quote the post you replied to.
Many attempts? All you're citing is two angry posts on a blog I've never heard of.
The speakup driver in the Linux kernel is required to use the speech-synthesis devices. SunOS doesn't work with them.
And there's no reason it should. Not if you're only using it as a server. You were talking about watching the BIOS and OS startup messages over a serial port. If you're doing that, what good does speech synthesis support in the server OS do you? The place you need speech synthesis is in the terminal software you're using to monitor the serial port.
1. Can you be more specific?
2. This is not the place for my life story.
3. Because Linux works best for me as a server OS, and Windows works best for me as a desktop OS.
If you're interested, I'll explain answer 3. Note that "interest" is not the same as "needs to be saved from that evil demon Microsoft" I have no interest in re-fighting old flame wars.
What, Oracle is suppose to document their reasons for every engineer they lay off? Get real.
Blind sys-admins are able to slap speech synthesizers on the serial ports of Linux servers, and hear boot messages. If a server fully boots, is on the internet, running sshd, then it's not a problem. However, to hear the blind sys-admins describe it, if the machine boots that far, the problem is probably already solved.
You seem to be saying that blind sysadmins don't need the OS to provide accessibility support. If so, why is this even an issue?
Actually, Oracle does need to provide accessibility support for all its products, or else forget about selling them in the U.S. It's just that the accessibility supported needed for the base OS is pretty low. It's the applications that run on the OS that need serious accessibility features, not the OS itself.
I suppose I have an advantage in that I started out doing everything in Unix, then was forced to switch to DOS and Windows, then went back and forth many times over the years.
Still, there are a lot of Linux/Unix servers out there. Sun, IBM, HP, even Dell sell them by the ton. And they're mostly administered by people whose main desktop is Windows. I've seen this first hand, at hardware manufacturers (including Sun!) and big Linux-centric data centers. There's a concept impedance there that makes going back and forth a pain (every once in a while I type "rm" when I mean "del" and vice-versa). But it's not insurmountable.
I don't really see a market for server-only operating systems though. It's too convenient to run the same thing on the server and the desktop.
Why? I administer Linux boxes from Windows machines all the time. I don't see the difficulty.