why the hell don t u just shutdown the goddamn machine!!!
sheesh people can't u have any flexibilityy in a system. what if a stupid user rand out of quota and want's to compile kde or a new kernel or something ? or do u want users to have 1Gb quotas..
this worm is a problem in the way our s/w is written u just have to admit it. doing the classical unix "it's the user who is stupid" just makes u all look like morons...
Well although I am familure with the basics of QC some of the stuff said in the article isn't that clear.
For one thing 10^3 qubits (quantum bits) would be A LOT of bits. Remember QC's are very different than normal computers and the things that they can easily do don't require many bits. I can't remember the detial but I think my prof was mentioning that ~300 qubits would be all that u would need.
Also I got the impression as of late last year the maximum # that they had working were 7 qubits on a huge ~1 tesla magnet here @ MIT.
I do know that many qubits will be needed to do error correction (to stop quantum decoherance) but still if what these guys claim is true this could be a VERY big thing.
Re:I would much rather call it Linux
on
GNU Inside?
·
· Score: 5
The way things are going is quite stupid. GNU was (and I guess is still) about choice and about the best technical choice. Instead of wasting their effort in this trivial subject (that will gain them nothing) they should try to integrate things into thair system.
Woulnd't it be much nicer if I had a properly componentized and integrated system such that I can plug in what ever pice I want without having to comply to any phylosify.
Imagine a system where you can choose any kernel you want (BSD,Linux,IRIX,BeOS, or even NT) use any shell you want (bash, commad.com, KDE or what ever) use any networking layer you want (TCP/IP, ATM...). This is real choice not having to force ppl into a all or nothing situation...
The Linux vendors have screwed up!. Ppl. writing and using linux for "fun" (most of us) don't have an interest (or the HW) to optimize it on midrange servers (4ways with 1GB range of RAM). That is why it is possible that NT would beat Linux (Just as would solaris x86 would if you compared the two).
If there is someone to blame it is all the Linux HW manufactures who are selling 4way Xenon's they are the ppl. who should have proposed counter numbers on the first day of Microcraft benchmarks (no but they just sat there).
Linux OS ppl (esp. RedHat ) should have done something similar. They could have shown that Linux is not the best in midrange x86 servers but you shouldn't be using 4way x86 there anyway since you can run a Dual Alpha or SPARC with better performance (using other UNIXes) at a lower price. Frankly (except for being a little too confident) there should be no blame on the Linux community (who are just users and developers on small machines not big server).
... I am worring RH is not as smart as I though they were...
Why did we ever get KDE and GNOME anyway ? GNUStep was around (at least as a concept) long before KDE (and especially before GNOME). Why didn't the ppl. who wrote KDE didn't just use parts of GNUStep (and just write up the missing code themselfs).
Is this because the GNUStep maintainers are just too uncooperative or is there a diff. reson ?
Also, Why the hell did RedHat Start GNOME ? whyd didn't they just fiund Harmoney and get on with life.... It seems to be pretty moronic..
BTW, NeXTStep is alot more than just an interface you In theory have to modify a few things and u could get Enlightemnt running.
Sorry charlie, not all of us consider the MacOS/ NeXTStep interface as the pinnacle of function, design and user friendliness.
Really?, so why does Windows, KDE, and all the others look just like it ? And besides the widgets are not the point (if you have the src u can change it all) the point is that you have a consistant framework that allows you to easily write apps. (and port them beetween OSes)
KDE and GNOME are not a waste. GNUStep is the wasted effort, IMHO.
Even if GNUStep did not exist KDE and GNOME are wasteful since we only need one of them to make a GUI for Linux and our other Open Source OSes and projects. (oh, and please don't give me "they were designed for different perposes" argument, it doesn't hold too much water).
If you wanted NeXTStep, you should have bought it, rather than try to recreate it.
Think about this last sentence. It doesn't make too much sence does it ?
Have a nice day (I mean it:)
Hust remember I have nothing against both KDE or GNOME I just don't understand why do we have so much duplication in the Linux/*BSD* world
Slashdot Mirror
sheesh people can't u have any flexibilityy in a system. what if a stupid user rand out of quota and want's to compile kde or a new kernel or something ? or do u want users to have 1Gb quotas..
this worm is a problem in the way our s/w is written u just have to admit it. doing the classical unix "it's the user who is stupid" just makes u all look like morons...
Well although I am familure with the basics of QC some of the stuff said in the article isn't that clear.
For one thing 10^3 qubits (quantum bits) would be A LOT of bits. Remember QC's are very different than normal computers and the things that they can easily do don't require many bits. I can't remember the detial but I think my prof was mentioning that ~300 qubits would be all that u would need.
Also I got the impression as of late last year the maximum # that they had working were 7 qubits on a huge ~1 tesla magnet here @ MIT.
I do know that many qubits will be needed to do error correction (to stop quantum decoherance) but still if what these guys claim is true this could be a VERY big thing.
The way things are going is quite stupid. GNU was (and I guess is still) about choice and about the best technical choice. Instead of wasting their effort in this trivial subject (that will gain them nothing) they should try to integrate things into thair system.
...). This is real choice not having to force ppl into a all or nothing situation ...
Woulnd't it be much nicer if I had a properly componentized and integrated system such that I can plug in what ever pice I want without having to comply to any phylosify.
Imagine a system where you can choose any kernel you want (BSD,Linux,IRIX,BeOS, or even NT) use any shell you want (bash, commad.com, KDE or what ever) use any networking layer you want (TCP/IP, ATM
Husain
The Linux vendors have screwed up!. Ppl. writing and using linux for "fun" (most of us) don't have an interest (or the HW) to optimize it on midrange servers (4ways with 1GB range of RAM). That is why it is possible that NT would beat Linux (Just as would solaris x86 would if you compared the two).
If there is someone to blame it is all the Linux HW manufactures who are selling 4way Xenon's they are the ppl. who should have proposed counter numbers on the first day of Microcraft benchmarks (no but they just sat there).
Linux OS ppl (esp. RedHat ) should have done something similar. They could have shown that Linux is not the best in midrange x86 servers but you shouldn't be using 4way x86 there anyway since you can run a Dual Alpha or SPARC with better performance (using other UNIXes) at a lower price. Frankly (except for being a little too confident) there should be no blame on the Linux community (who are just users and developers on small machines not big server).
... I am worring RH is not as smart as I though they were...
Husain
Why did we ever get KDE and GNOME anyway ? GNUStep was around (at least as a concept) long before KDE (and especially before GNOME). Why didn't the ppl. who wrote KDE didn't just use parts of GNUStep (and just write up the missing code themselfs).
.... It seems to be pretty moronic ..
Is this because the GNUStep maintainers are just too uncooperative or is there a diff. reson ?
Also, Why the hell did RedHat Start GNOME ? whyd didn't they just fiund Harmoney and get on with life
BTW, NeXTStep is alot more than just an interface you In theory have to modify a few things and u could get Enlightemnt running.
Sorry charlie, not all of us consider the MacOS/
NeXTStep interface as the pinnacle of function, design and user friendliness.
Really?, so why does Windows, KDE, and all the others look just like it ? And besides the widgets are not the point (if you have the src u can change it all) the point is that you have a consistant framework that allows you to easily write apps. (and port them beetween OSes)
KDE and GNOME are not a waste. GNUStep is the wasted effort, IMHO.
Even if GNUStep did not exist KDE and GNOME are wasteful since we only need one of them to make a GUI for Linux and our other Open Source OSes and projects. (oh, and please don't give me "they were designed for different perposes" argument, it doesn't hold too much water).
If you wanted NeXTStep, you should have bought it, rather than try to recreate it.
Think about this last sentence. It doesn't make too much sence does it ?
Have a nice day (I mean it
Hust remember I have nothing against both KDE or GNOME I just don't understand why do we have so much duplication in the Linux/*BSD* world